Supplement to Regulatory Guide 4.2, PREPARATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS

Supplement to Reg Guide 4.2.pdf

10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions

Supplement to Regulatory Guide 4.2, PREPARATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS

OMB: 3150-0021

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 3150-0021 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

September 2000

REGULATORY GUIDE
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH

SUPPLEMENT 1 TO
REGULATORY GUIDE 4.2
(Drafts were issued as DG-4002 and DG-4005)

PREPARATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
FOR APPLICATIONS TO RENEW
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES

Regulatory guides are issued to describe and make available to the public such information as methods acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts
of the NRC’s regulations, techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data needed by the NRC staff in its review of
applications for permits and licenses. Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is not required. Methods and solutions different
from those set out in the guides will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the
Commission.
This guide was issued after consideration of comments received from the public. Comments and suggestions for improvements in these guides are encouraged
at all times, and guides will be revised, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect new information or experience. Written comments may be submitted
to the Rules and Directives Branch, ADM, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Regulatory guides are issued in ten broad divisions: 1, Power Reactors; 2, Research and Test Reactors; 3, Fuels and Materials Facilities; 4, Environmental and Siting;
5, Materials and Plant Protection; 6, Products; 7, Transportation; 8, Occupational Health; 9, Antitrust and Financial Review; and 10, General.
Single copies of regulatory guides (which may be reproduced) may be obtained free of charge by writing the Distribution Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to (301)415-2289, or by email to [email protected]. Many regulatory guides are also available on
the internet at NRC’s home page at . This guide is also in the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at NRC’s same web site, Accession Number
ML003710495.

CONTENTS
A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-1
B. STANDARD FORMAT AND CONTENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-6
CHAPTER 1.

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-6

CHAPTER 2.

SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-7

CHAPTER 3.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4

THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
General Plant Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Refurbishment Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Programs and Activities for Managing the Effects of Aging . . . . . . . . . .
Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER 4.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED
ACTION AND MITIGATING ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Water Use Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impingement of Fish and Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Heat Shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using >100 gpm of Ground Water)
Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Cooling Towers
Withdrawing Make-up Water from a Small River) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ground-water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Ranney Wells) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Degradation of Ground-Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Threatened or Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Air Quality During Refurbishment (Nonattainment Areas) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Impact on Public Health of Microbiological Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Electromagnetic Fields--Acute Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Housing Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Public Utilities: Public Water Supply Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Education Impacts from Refurbishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Offsite Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Historic and Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transportation of Radiological Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
Chapter 5.

4.2-S-9
4.2-S-10
4.2-S-10
4.2-S-10
4.2-S-10

4.2-S-11
4.2-S-12
4.2-S-15
4.2-S-18
4.2-S-20
4.2-S-22
4.2-S-23
4.2-S-24
4.2-S-25
4.2-S-27
4.2-S-28
4.2-S-31
4.2-S-34
4.2-S-35
4.2-S-36
4.2-S-39
4.2-S-40
4.2-S-41
4.2-S-45
4.2-S-47
4.2-S-48
4.2-S-50
4.2-S-51

ASSESSMENT OF NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION . . . . . 4.2-S-52

iii

Chapter 6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5

SUMMARY OF LICENSE RENEWAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING
ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
License Renewal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Short-term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity of
the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2-S-53
4.2-S-53
4.2-S-53
4.2-S-53
4.2-S-53
4.2-S-53

Chapter 7.
7.1
7.2

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-54
No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-55
Alternatives that Meet System Generating Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-55

Chapter 8.

COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF LICENSE
RENEWAL WITH THE ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-56

Chapter 9.

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-56

REGULATORY ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-57

A. INTRODUCTION

This regulatory guide provides guidance on the format and content of an environmental
report (ER) to be submitted as part of an application for the renewal of a nuclear power plant
operating license submitted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating
Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” This guide supplements Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.2,
“Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,” July 1976.1 Regulatory
Guide 4.2 provides guidance on the information that should be included in a site approval
application to address the environmental impacts of construction and operation of the proposed
plant and associated facilities. Use of this guide will help ensure the completeness of the
information provided, will assist the NRC staff and others in locating the information, and will
shorten the review process. Conformance with the suggested format, however, is not required and
is provided for guidance only.
This regulatory guide explains how the provisions for the environmental review for
renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses, found in NRC’s 10 CFR Part 51,
”Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory
Functions,” may be met. Part 51 implements section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. The license renewal provisions of Part 51 were promulgated on
December 18, 1996, in 61 FR 66537, and became effective on January 17, 1997. The rule was
developed with the intent of improving the efficiency of the environmental review process for
renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. These provisions codify the analyses conducted
for and reported in NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Plants,” May 1996.2
The rule was amended on September 3, 1999 (64 FR 48495), to add more current
information to the generic findings on the environmental impacts that are due to transportation of
fuel and waste to and from a single nuclear power plant. The analysis supporting the amendment
is provided in NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report Section 6.3—‘Transportation,’ Table 9.1,
‘Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,’ Final Report,”
August 1999. Also, the amendment added the requirement to address local traffic impacts
attributable to continued operation of the nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.
This requirement was noted in NUREG-1437, but inadvertently omitted from the 1996 rule at the
time of its publication. Occasionally, additional amendments to the rule may be made in the
1

Single copies of regulatory guides, both active and draft, may be obtained free of charge by writing the Reproduction and
Distribution Services Section, Office of the Chief Information Officer, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to
(301)415-2289, or by email to . Active guides may also be purchased from the National
Technical Information Service on a standing order basis. Details on this service may be obtained by writing NTIS, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Many guides are available on NRC’s web site or through NRC’s Electronic Reading
Room.

Copies are available at current rates from the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 204029328 (telephone (202)512-2249); or from the National Technical Information Service by writing NTIS at 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room
at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC; the PDR’s mailing address is Mail Stop LL-6, Washington, DC 20555; telephone
(202)634-3273; fax (202)634-3343.

4.2-S-1

future. The staff anticipates that the rule amendments will be supported by addenda to NUREG1437 and revisions to this regulatory guide. Applicants should become familiar with the content of
NUREG-1437 as the ER is developed.
NUREG-1437 assesses 92 environmental issues; the analyses reported in NUREG-1437,
including Addendum 1, found 69 of these issues to be adequately addressed for all plants for
which the issue is relevant. These issues are identified as Category 1 issues, and additional
analysis is not required in a plant-specific review. Of the remaining 23 issues, there are 21
Category 2 issues, which require additional plant-specific analyses. Two issues (effects of
electromagnetic fields and environmental justice) are not categorized and will be addressed by the
NRC. An applicant should provide adequate information to support an environmental justice
review by the NRC (see Section 4.22 of this guide).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
After receiving an applicant’s Environmental Report—Operating License Renewal Stage
(ER), the NRC staff will perform an acceptance review to determine whether the information is
sufficiently complete to begin the NEPA review. After reviewing and independently assessing the
analyses provided in the ER, the NRC will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement
(SEIS) that incorporates and supplements the analyses presented in NUREG-1437. The NRC staff
review and the NRC staff preparation of the SEIS will be guided by NUREG-1555, Supplement 1,
“Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Operating License
Renewal, March 2000.”3 The SEIS is the NRC’s independent analysis of the environmental
impacts of the proposed action (the renewal of the operating license of the specific nuclear power
plant) and the alternatives to the proposed action. Within the context of the NEPA review, the
SEIS will contain the recommendation of the NRC staff regarding the proposed action. These
recommendations, along with the findings from the 10 CFR Part 54 review, will be considered in
the NRC record of decision.
The NRC NEPA review process for an environmental impact statement involves the
following actions that are required of the NRC by 10 CFR Part 51.
ÿ

Publish a notice of intent to prepare an SEIS in the Federal Register (see 10 CFR 51.27
and 51.95(c)) and send copies of the notice to appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies; affected Native American tribal agencies; State, regional, and metropolitan
clearinghouses; and any interested persons upon request. The notice is to explain the
scoping process, state the locations of copies of the ER that are available for public
inspection, and invite public participation in the scoping process.

NUREG-1555 is available in hard copy and compact disk (CD) versions for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC
Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC; the PDR’s mailing address is Mail Stop LL-6, Washington,
DC 20555; telephone (202)634-3273; fax (202)634-3343. NUREG-1555 is on the NRC Web Site at
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/indexnum.html . Additionally, publicly available records will be accessible electronically
from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room).

4.2-S-2

Conduct scoping (see 10 CFR 51.28 and 51.29). The scoping process includes identifying
and inviting appropriate agencies, groups, and persons to participate in the process. With
respect to license renewal, the focus of scoping is to allow other parties to raise
environmental issues that they believe are significant and yet are not addressed or not
adequately addressed in the ER. Parties may raise issues at the public scoping meeting,
which the NRC staff routinely holds in the vicinity of the plant, and in written comments.
The scoping process also routinely includes a staff site visit to the plant and
communication with local, regional, and State officials and representatives of interested or
knowledgeable organizations. As a result of scoping, the staff may request additional
information from the applicant.

Prepare a draft SEIS (see 10 CFR 51.70 and 51.95(c)). In developing the draft SEIS, the
NRC staff will independently evaluate the information provided by the applicant and
others, as well as information independently identified by the staff.

Distribute the draft SEIS for comment (see 10 CFR 51.73). A notice of the SEIS’s
availability will be published in the Federal Register and copies of the draft SEIS will be
distributed to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); other appropriate Federal
agencies; affected Native American tribal agencies; appropriate State, regional, and local
agencies; organizations and individuals who have expressed interest in the review, and any
other parties requesting a copy.

Prepare a final SEIS (see 10 CFR 51.95(c)). In developing the final SEIS, the NRC staff
will consider comments received on the draft, prepare responses, and modify the SEIS as
warranted. The staff will determine whether such comments identify new and significant
information not considered in NUREG-1437 nor addressed in the applicant’s ER. After
considering the environmental impacts associated with license renewal and with the
alternatives to license renewal, the staff will reach a conclusion as to whether or not the
adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of
license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable. A notice of
the availability of the final SEIS will be published in the Federal Register.

Hold a hearing on the license renewal application if the Commission or the designated
licensing board determines that it is in the public interest. In accordance with 10 CFR
2.105(a)(10), a notice of opportunity for hearing will be issued as soon as practicable after
the application has been docketed. Any person whose interest may be affected by the
action may request a hearing. (See also 10 CFR 51.104.)

Provide a Record of Decision (see 10 CFR 51.103). The Record of Decision will discuss
the alternatives considered in the SEIS, the measures taken to minimize environmental
harm, and any license conditions adopted in connection with mitigation measures. In
making a final decision on license renewal, the NRC will determine whether or not the
adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of
license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable. The
Commission’s final decision on the application is published in the Federal Register.
4.2-S-3

GENERAL GUIDANCE TO APPLICANTS
Use of Regulatory Guides
Regulatory guides are issued to describe to the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff
for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, to explain techniques used by the staff in
evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and to provide guidance to applicants.
Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with regulatory guides is not
required.
Environmental Reports - General Guidance
An ER should contain sufficient information to support analyses and findings. While other
documents (e.g., the original ER or Safety Analysis Report (SAR)) may be referenced, information
used in analyses should be summarized in the ER. In preparing the ER, the applicant should be
guided by the general requirements set out in 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.55 in addition to the provisions
of 10 CFR 51.53(c) specific to operating license renewal.
Treatment of Category 1 Issues
According to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(i), “The environmental report for the operating license
renewal stage is not required to contain analyses of the environmental impacts of the license
renewal issues identified as Category 1 issues in Appendix B to Subpart A of this part.” The ER
should list those Category 1 issues that apply to the plant and identify the Category 1 issues that do
not apply to the plant. The findings in NUREG-1437 for the applicable Category 1 issue are
incorporated by reference in the ER.
New and Significant Information
According to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv), “The environmental report must contain any new
and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which the
applicant is aware.” New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant
environmental issue that was not considered in NUREG-1437 and, consequently, not codified in
Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, or (2) information that was not considered in the
analyses summarized in NUREG-1437 and that leads to an impact finding different from that
codified in 10 CFR Part 51. An applicant should state in the ER whether it is or is not aware of
any new and significant information and explain any actions that were taken to identify new
information and evaluate its significance. This information will assist the staff in fulfilling its
responsibilities under 10 CFR 51.70(b), which in part states, “The NRC staff will independently
evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental
impact statement.” New and significant information may also be identified by other parties and
the NRC in the scoping and public comment process. Guidance on actions that an applicant may
take to identify and evaluate the significance of new information is provided in Chapter 5 of this
regulatory guide.

4.2-S-4

Impact Findings
The impacts of the environmental issues that require analyses are to be discussed in
proportion to their significance. In assessing the significance of environmental impacts, the
applicant should conform to the following general definitions of significance level used in
NUREG-1437 and codified in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51.
+

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

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

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

Mitigation of Adverse Effects
When adverse environmental effects are identified, 10 CFR 51.45(c) requires consideration
of alternatives available for reducing or avoiding these adverse effects. Any ongoing mitigation
should be identified and the potential for additional mitigation should be discussed. Mitigation
alternatives are to be considered no matter how small the adverse impact; however, the extent of
the consideration should be proportional to the significance of the impact. The Council on
Environmental Quality in its regulations at 40 CFR 1508.20 identifies five types of mitigative
actions.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an
action.
Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and
its implementation.
Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment.
Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.
Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources
or environments.

These categories of mitigative actions are used by the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR
51.14(b).

4.2-S-5

Cumulative, Direct, and Indirect Impacts
Environmental impacts, or effects, include direct effects, indirect effects, and cumulative
effects. Each type of effect is to be considered in the assessment of environmental issues and is to
be discussed in proportion to the significance of the impact attributed to license renewal. (See
Impact Findings above.) Definitions of the three types of effects are given in the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations, 40 CFR Part 1508. Cumulative impact is defined in 40 CFR
1508.7.
“Cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or
person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of
time.
Direct and indirect effects are defined in 40 CFR 1508.8.
“Effects” include:
(1)
Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time
and place.
(2)
Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or
further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.
These definitions are used by NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 51.14(b).
OMB Clearance
The information collections contained in this regulatory guide are covered by the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, which were approved by the Office of Management and Budget,
approval number 3150-0021. If a means used to impose an information collection does not display
a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, the information collection.

B. STANDARD FORMAT AND CONTENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS
CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
This chapter should briefly describe the purpose of and need for the proposed action. The
Commission identified the purpose of and need for the proposed action in 61 FR 28467 and in
NUREG-1437 on pages 1-2; this statement should be included in the applicant’s ER.

4.2-S-6

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to
provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a
current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating
needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized,
Federal (other than NRC) decision makers.
CHAPTER 2. SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES
The information in this chapter is intended to allow the reviewer to understand the overall
character of the site and local environment. This chapter should describe the plant’s setting and
the environment affected. The description should give particular attention to information required
to address the environmental issues designated Category 2 and environmental justice and to
environmental issues raised by new and significant information that has been identified. Guidance
on the treatment of these issues is provided in Chapter 4 of this regulatory guide.
The following information should be included in this chapter of the ER.
+

Site location: State, county, latitude and longitude Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)
coordinates, township, range, and sections.

A map of the site showing site boundaries; exclusion area; site structures and facilities;
major land uses (with land use classifications consistent with the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) categories)4; the construction zone for refurbishment, if any; sites for any other
planned buildings and structures (both temporary and permanent); and transportation routes
adjacent to the site.

A map or maps of the site vicinity within about a 10-km (6-mi) radius of the plant showing
county and local municipality boundaries; place names; residential areas; airports;
industrial and commercial facilities; roads; railroads; major land uses (with land use
classifications consistent with the USGS categories); utility rights-of-way; rivers; other
bodies of water; wetlands; trust lands; historic sites; archaeological sites; Native American
lands; military reservations; and designated Federal, State, and local parks and natural
areas. Orient true north at the top of the map.

A map of the region within about an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the plant showing major civil
divisions; highways; transmission corridors serving the plant (specifically identify those
transmission lines that were identified in the construction permit review as being
constructed to connect the plant to the transmission system); rivers; other bodies of water;
Native American lands; military reservations; designated Federal, State, and local parks
and natural areas; and nonattainment and maintenance areas defined under the Clean Air
Act, as amended (Title 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.). Orient true north at the top of the map.

U.S. Geological Survey, “USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data,” USGS Earth Resources Observation Data Center, Sioux
Falls, South Dakota, 1997. This reference is on the web at http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/guide/1_250_lulc#lulc16.

4.2-S-7

To the extent any information provided on a map relates to an issue addressed in Chapter 4,
“Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigating Actions,” of this guide or to
any new and significant information, that information should be developed in sufficient depth in
textual, tabular, and graphic form to support the analysis. The topics listed below correspond to
the issues identified in Chapter 4. The level of information provided on each of these topics
should be commensurate with the extent of the analysis required. The information identified
below should be represented on the maps identified above; separate maps or tables may be used if
they better support the analysis specified in Chapter 4.
+

Aquatic and riparian ecological communities that may be affected by a once-through or
cooling pond heat dissipation system.

Ground-water resources that may be subject to use conflicts or quality degradation.

Critical and important terrestrial (plant and animal) habitats that may be disturbed by
power plant refurbishment activities or changes in plant operation. Critical habitats are
listed and described in 50 CFR 17.95 (fish and wildlife) and 17.96 (plants).5

Threatened or endangered and special concern species identified on the site or within the
site vicinity. These species include those:
- listed at 50 CFR 17.11 (fish and wildlife) or 50 CFR 17.12 (plants)
- listed as a threatened, endangered, or other species of concern by the host State
- proposed for listing, or are current candidates for the listing in the Federal Register.

Regional demography, based on the most current (updated) U.S. Census data: population
by city, town, and county for those jurisdictions lying fully or partially within 80 km
(50 mi) of the plant. Provide by political jurisdiction the composition of minority persons
and households below the poverty line within 80 km (50 miles) of the plant. Migrant
workers as well as full-time residents should be included. Provide these data by census
tract/block for those geographic areas where the potential has been identified for adverse
environmental impacts from refurbishment or from continued operation during the renewal
term. The most recent Bureau of the Census demographic information should be
supplemented with demographic information from State and local planning agencies.

Information related to the area’s economic base, including construction industry and
construction labor force, total regional labor force, unemployment levels, and future
economic outlook.

Housing information, including the sales and rental markets in the region, number and
types of units, turnover and vacancy rates, and trends in additions.

Important habitats that may be adversely affected but have not been designated critical habitats are defined as follows.
Wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, or preserves
Habitats identified by the State Natural Heritage Program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine
Fisheries Service as unique, rare, or of priority for protection
Wetlands (Executive Order 11990), floodplain (Executive Order 11988), or other resources specifically protected by
Federal regulations or Executive Orders, or by State regulations.

4.2-S-8

Information about the local educational system (regional primary and secondary schools
and higher institutions), including present and projected capacity and percentage of
utilization.

Public and private recreational facilities and opportunities, including present and projected
capacity and percentage of utilization.

Regional tax structure and distribution of the present revenues to each jurisdiction and
district.

Local plans concerning land use and zoning that are relevant to population growth,
housing, and changes in land use patterns.

Social services and public facilities, present and projected.

Data on local and regional meteorology and air quality.

Historic and archaeological resources.

Known and reasonably foreseeable Federal and non-Federal projects and other actions in
the vicinity of the site that may contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts of
license renewal and extended plant operation should be identified and described.

CHAPTER 3. THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is described in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2):
The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the
applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as
described in accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in
detail the modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant
effluents that affect the environment.
The proposed action is renewal of an operating license and continued operation of the plant
during the renewal term, including all attendant activities. In addition to continuing operation and
maintenance activities, attendant activities may include refurbishment to allow for extended plant
operation and changes to surveillance, on-line monitoring, inspections, testing, trending, and
recordkeeping (SMITTR). Refurbishment and SMITTR activities may be undertaken as a result of
the 10 CFR Part 54 aging management review, or they may be undertaken for other reasons, such
as opportunities for improved economic operation and maintenance during the term of the renewed
license. This chapter of the ER should identify those activities attendant to license renewal that
can affect the environment external to the plant. The level of detail provided should be sufficient
to support the analyses called for in Chapter 4. Possible activities attendant to license renewal are
discussed in Chapter 2 of NUREG-1437.

4.2-S-9

3.1

General Plant Information

Briefly describe the major features of the plant and the operation and maintenance practices
directly related to operations under license renewal. Information presented in this section should
include descriptions of:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

Reactor and containment systems
Cooling and auxiliary water systems
Radioactive waste treatment processes (gaseous, liquid, and solid)
Transportation of radioactive materials
Nonradioactive waste systems
Maintenance, inspection, and refueling activities
Power transmission systems.

3.2

Refurbishment Activities

Facility refurbishments performed in support of license renewal should be described in this
section. These descriptions should identify the major structures and components that will be
replaced or modified. The section should identify where materials will be stored between their
arrival on the site and installation in the plant, and between their removal from the plant and
disposal. If refurbishment activities that directly or indirectly affect the environment will be
required, the locations and nature of those activities should be described. This section should
identify the schedule for the refurbishment work and describe how it would be integrated with
refueling and other maintenance activities. Applicants should ensure that the information in this
section meets the information requirements of Chapter 4.
3.3

Programs and Activities for Managing the Effects of Aging

This section should characterize any changes planned in the plant’s operating practices,
inspections, maintenance activities, systems, and administrative control procedures during the
renewal term that are designed to manage the effects of aging. Any specific changes that may lead
to environmental impacts should be identified and discussed in detail.
3.4

Employment

Provide current estimates of full-time and occasional onsite (refueling) employment.
Provide projections of the incremental onsite work force required for major refurbishment
activities or outages associated with license renewal. The employment figures for refurbishment
and outages should be presented by the month. Provide projections of any changes anticipated in
the full-time and occasional work force during the license renewal term and identify changes in the
work force arising from changes in SMITTR activities. For refurbishment and for the renewal
term, estimate the number of temporary and permanent in-migrating incremental workers and their
dependents, including school-age children, and their anticipated residential distribution.
Provide an estimate of the indirect employment resulting from changes in the full-time and
the temporary work forces. This section should address any employment multipliers that were
4.2-S-10

used and the source or sources of the multipliers, with any additional information needed to verify
the appropriateness of the multipliers. Using an estimate of average household size for the region,
estimate the change in total population associated with license renewal.
Estimate the residential distribution of the total (direct and indirect) incremental permanent
and temporary populations by government jurisdiction or community (e.g., county, city, or town).
Absent better assumptions, it may be assumed that the residential pattern will be the same as that
of the current and occasional work force.

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
AND MITIGATING ACTIONS
General Guidance
NUREG-1437 analyzed 92 environmental issues for license renewal and reached
conclusions about the impacts of refurbishment and operation during the license renewal period.
For most issues, the GEIS concluded that the impacts were such that the issue met the definition of
Category 1 (refer to Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51). Part 51 does not
require the ER to contain any analyses of Category 1 issues; however, the rule requires that
licensees report on any new and significant information that may bear on the applicability of
conclusions of NUREG-1437 on Category 1 issues at their plants or on issues not previously
identified. The definition of and the process for identifying new and significant information is
provided in the Introduction section of this regulatory guide. The applicant may adopt the findings
for the codified Category 1 issues, unless the need for additional analysis is triggered by
knowledge of new and significant information. Such analysis should be developed according to
Section 4.3, “Assessment of New and Significant Information,” of this guide.
The sequence of the Category 2 issues covered in this section follows that of Table B-1 in
Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. Reference is also made to the specific requirements
stated in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii). The steps for reviewing each Category 2 issue are (1) using the
criteria given in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii), determine whether the issue is applicable to the plant, (2)
if not applicable, provide a short statement on the rationale, and (3) if the issue is applicable,
provide the information and analysis specified in the appropriate section below. The information
and analysis should be sufficient to determine the size and extent of the impacts associated with
the issue and the significance of the impacts as defined in the Impacts Findings section above.
Impacts may be adverse or beneficial and of small, moderate, or large significance. These
impact significance levels are defined in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 and in NUREG-1437 and
are explained in the Introduction to this guide.
Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects should be analyzed. The cumulative or indirect
effects of the action may be of moderate or large significance even when the direct effect is of
small significance. These effects are defined in the Introduction to this guide.

4.2-S-11

Mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce the level of adverse impacts should be
considered for each Category 2 issue. The applicant’s effort to identify possible mitigation
measures and assess the efficacy of those measures should be in proportion to the significance of
the impact. If no suitable mitigation measure is identified, the basis of that finding should be
provided. For suitable mitigation measures, the applicant should describe the benefits and costs of
each of the measures and indicate which measures, if any, would be implemented if the license is
renewed. If suitable mitigation measures will not be implemented, the applicant should explain
the rationale. Mitigation measures are defined in the Introduction to this guide.
4.1

Water Use Conflicts

This section applies to plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water
from a small river with low flow.
Table B-1 notes that the impacts of this issue are anticipated to be small or moderate and
that
The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with cooling ponds and at
plants with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and riparian communities near
these plants could be of moderate significance in some situations.
Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) requires, in part, that
If the applicant’s plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and withdraws
makeup water from a river whose annual flow rate is less than 3.15 × 1012 ft3/year
(9 × 1010 m3/year), an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the flow
of the river and related impacts on instream and riparian ecological communities
must be provided.
This issue is discussed in Sections 4.3.2.1 and 4.4.2.1 of NUREG-1437.
If the plant does not use cooling towers or cooling ponds, the ER should note this fact; no
additional information is needed with reference to these issues.
If the plant takes its makeup water for the cooling towers or cooling ponds from a river
with an annual flow greater than 3.15 × 1012 ft3/year (9 × 1010 m3/year), the licensee should report
this fact. The method used to determine the annual flow should be provided and explained, and no
further information is needed with reference to these issues. If the plant does not meet the above
conditions, the information and analysis described below in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 must be
responsive to the requirements of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) specified above.
INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS CONTENT
4.1.1 Instream Ecological Communities
Consumption of water by the plant may significantly reduce the amount of habitat available
to aquatic organisms, either year-round or seasonally. Increasing water demand (e.g., as a result of
4.2-S-12

population growth) may result in additional impacts to aquatic habitats that were not anticipated
during the initial licensing. Information and analysis requirements for this issue may be restricted
to consideration of impacts on one or a few aquatic species, as appropriate. As needed, existing
and potential measures to mitigate losses of aquatic habitats from cooling water withdrawals
should be described, and the effects of these measures should be estimated. The following process
for developing and presenting information should be used.
1.

Document any consultations with regulatory agencies (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), State water resources control boards) and resource agencies (e.g., National
Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and wildlife agencies)
related to the issue of consumptive water use and its effects on instream communities.6
Summarize the results of such consultations, identifying agreements that describe (a) the
nuclear power plant's standing in priority for makeup water withdrawals or (b) the criteria
for reducing the withdrawal of makeup water in order to protect instream habitats and
aquatic biota during low-flow periods. If the regulatory and resources agencies concur that
these agreements or criteria are sufficiently protective of instream communities, further
considerations of the issue of effects of water use conflicts on instream communities may
be omitted. If further analysis of water use conflicts is needed, and consultation with
regulatory and resource agencies indicates concerns about only one or a few aquatic
species, the information and analysis required in the following items may be restricted to
only that needed to address effects on those species. Identify and unambiguously define
the resource or resources of concern.

Describe the fish and shellfish community in the source water body in Chapter 2. Lists of
species and estimates of the numbers of fish and shellfish that are present in the portion of
the water body affected by consumptive water use should be included. The distribution
and value of commercial and sport fisheries should be discussed. The locations of
important habitats for fish and shellfish (e.g., spawning areas, nursery grounds, feeding
areas, wintering areas, and migration routes) within the area affected by consumptive water
use should be fully described.

Include estimates of the quantities and timing of cooling water withdrawals and discharges
in Chapter 3. Estimate current consumptive water use and future consumptive water use
during the license renewal period.

Compare the consumptive water used by the heat-dissipation system to flows in the source
water body (i.e., the stream from which water is withdrawn for cooling tower or cooling
pond makeup water). This comparison should be based on records of the initial license
period. Project and compare consumptive use and stream flows during the license renewal
period.

The prospective applicant should be aware of the consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act. If threatened or
endangered species, or proposed species, are identified, the prospective applicant should follow the procedures given in
Section 4.10 for consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

4.2-S-13

Estimate the quantities of other ongoing water withdrawals and consumptive water uses in
the portion of the water body affected by the plant and indicate whether these withdrawals
or uses are expected to change during the license renewal period.

Estimate the effects of consumptive water use by the nuclear power plant on aquatic
habitats in the water body and discuss the significance of these effects in terms of changes
in populations of individual species. Describe the techniques used to estimate the habitat
changes that result from water withdrawals.

Estimate the total (cumulative) effects of all water withdrawals on aquatic habitats and
populations of individual species in the water body (i.e., the effects of power plant
withdrawals during the license renewal period in combination with other existing and
foreseeable future withdrawals).

Describe mitigation measures (e.g., limiting withdrawals during droughts) that have been
used to reduce the adverse impacts on aquatic habitats of consumptive water use and the
mitigation measures that are expected to be used during the license renewal period. Briefly
explain the rationale for not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

4.1.2 Riparian Ecological Communities
The primary impacts expected are reduction in the areal extent or species composition of
riparian communities. Consumption of water by the plant may significantly reduce the amount of
habitat available to riparian ecological communities, either year-round or seasonally. Increasing
water demand (e.g., as a result of population growth) may result in additional impacts to riparian
ecological communities that were not anticipated during the initial licensing. The methods used to
determine the characteristics and magnitude of impacts should be explained and documented. As
needed, existing and potential measures to mitigate adverse impacts on riparian ecological
communities should be described, and the effects of these measures should be estimated. The
following process for developing and presenting information should be used.
1.

Document any consultations with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA, State water resources
control boards) and resource agencies (e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, State fish and wildlife agencies) related to the issue of consumptive
water use and its effects on stream-related habitat and riparian ecological communities.6
Summarize the results of such consultations, identifying agreements that describe (a) the
plant’s priority for makeup water withdrawals or (b) the criteria for reducing the
withdrawal of makeup water in order to protect stream-related habitat and riparian
ecological communities during low-flow periods. If the regulatory and resource agencies
concur that these agreements or criteria are sufficiently protective of riparian communities,
further consideration of the issue of water use conflicts on riparian ecological communities
may be omitted. If further analysis is needed, and consultation with regulatory and
resource agencies indicates concerns about only one or a few types of riparian ecological
communities or species in these communities, the information and analyses required in the
following items may be restricted to only that needed to address effects on those
community types or species. Identify and unambiguously define the resource or resources
of concern.
4.2-S-14

Describe the riparian ecological community in the source water body in Chapter 2. For the
portions of the water body affected by consumptive water use, describe the associated
riparian ecological community types, including (a) their extent and locations, (b) lists of
plant and animal species they contain, and (c) estimates of the abundance of those species.

Include estimates of the quantities and timing of cooling water withdrawals and discharges
in Chapter 3 and in 4.1.1 Instream Ecological Communities. Estimate consumptive water
use during the initial license period and during the license renewal period.

Compare consumptive water use by the heat-dissipation system to flows in the source
water body (i.e., the stream from which water is withdrawn for cooling tower or cooling
pond makeup water). This comparison should be based on records of the initial license
period and, if expected to be different, projected consumptive use and stream flows during
the license renewal period.

Provide an explanation of the mechanisms by which the riparian ecological communities
that are present would be likely to be affected by the loss of flow attributed to makeup
water (e.g., depression of the water table or loss of nutrient replenishment because of
decreased floods).

Estimate the effects of consumptive water use by the plant on the riparian ecological
communities associated with the water body. Describe the techniques used to estimate the
changes in these communities that result from water withdrawals. The estimates should be
expressed in units appropriate to the particular resources under consideration (e.g., percent
loss of habitat, number of plants or animals affected, number of acres affected, percent
reduction in harvest).

Describe mitigation measures (e.g., limiting water withdrawals during droughts) used to
reduce the adverse impacts of consumptive water use on riparian ecological communities
and the mitigation measures that are expected to be used during the license renewal period.
Briefly explain the rationale for not implementing measures that were considered but
rejected.

4.2

Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages

This section applies to plants with once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation
systems. Table B-1 notes that
The impacts of entrainment are small at many plants but may be moderate or even
large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems. Further,
ongoing efforts in the vicinity of these plants to restore fish populations may
increase the numbers of fish susceptible to intake effects during the license renewal
4.2-S-15

period, such that entrainment studies conducted in support of the original license
may no longer be valid.
Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) requires, in part, that
If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat
dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act
316(b) determinations . . . or equivalent State permits and supporting
documentation. If the applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess the
impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from . . .
entrainment.
This issue is discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1.2 and 4.4.3 of NUREG-1437.
If the plant does not use once-through cooling or closed-cycle cooling pond heat
dissipation systems, the ER should note this fact and no additional information is needed for this
issue.
If the plant uses a once-through or closed-cycle cooling pond heat dissipation system and
the applicant holds a current Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination, copies of the
determination, supporting documentation, and relevant correspondence with the water quality
permitting agency (EPA or permitted State agency) should be provided to the NRC. Information
about how mitigation measures were considered during the permit process, and any commitment
to mitigation measures, should be provided.
If (a) the plant utilizes a once-through or cooling pond heat dissipation system and (b) the
applicant does not possess a current Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination, the issue of
entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages must be considered in the ER; this information
is outlined below.
Information and Analysis Content
Sufficient information should be provided in the ER to put into perspective the loss to
entrainment of fish and shellfish in their early life stages, not only in terms of the overall numbers
of eggs, larvae, and juveniles in the water body, but also in terms of the numbers of adult fish and
shellfish that these losses represent. Existing and potential new measures to mitigate entrainment
losses should also be fully described, and the effects of these measures should be estimated. The
following process for developing and presenting information should be used.
1.

Document any consultations with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA or other water quality
permitting agencies) and resource agencies (e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and wildlife agencies) regarding the issue of
entrainment.6 Provide a copy of any Clean Water Act Section 316(b) demonstration. If a
determination has not been made that the "location, design, construction, and capacity of
cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse
environmental impact," discuss the outstanding issues. If consultation with regulatory and
4.2-S-16

resource agencies indicates concerns about only one or a few aquatic species, the
information and analysis required in the following items may be restricted to only that
needed to address effects on those species. Identify and unambiguously define the resource
or resources of concern.
2.

From Chapter 2 of the ER, describe the fish and shellfish resources in the vicinity of the
plant susceptible to entrainment. Include lists of species and estimates of the numbers of
entrainable fish and shellfish in the water body. The distribution and value of commercial
and sport fisheries should be discussed. Locations of important habitats for entrainable fish
and shellfish (e.g., spawning areas, nursery grounds, feeding areas, wintering areas, and
migration routes) should be described.

From Chapter 3 of the ER, describe the cooling system, including the rates of water
withdrawal, the flow rates or volume of the water body from which cooling water is
withdrawn, and the location of water withdrawal. The intake structure and any structural
or operational measures used to reduce entrainment of fish and shellfish should be
described in detail.

Provide estimates of the species and numbers of fish and shellfish entrained on a daily,
monthly, and annual basis.

Provide estimates of the mortality of entrained fish and shellfish in early life stages.

Provide estimates of the numbers of adult fish and shellfish that are lost to the water body
because of entrainment in early life stages. Provide full documentation of analytical or
modeling techniques that were used to extrapolate local entrainment losses to resulting
long-term, far-field effects. As appropriate, compare these "equivalent adult" losses to the
total estimated numbers of adults in the water body and commercial and recreational
harvests.

If aquatic resources have been monitored, provide an analysis of time trends in the data that
might indicate whether fish and shellfish populations have increased, decreased, or
remained stable during the initial period of operation. Possible causes for these time trends
should be discussed.

Identify and, to the extent possible, quantify losses of fish and shellfish from other sources
(e.g., other water withdrawals, temperature and water quality problems, impingement of
juveniles and adults) in order to assess possible cumulative effects of plant entrainment
losses when combined with other losses.

Describe mitigation measures that have been used to reduce the adverse impacts of
entrainment during the initial license period. Identify additional mitigation measures that
could be used to reduce entrainment impacts during the license renewal period. Explain
the rationale for accepting or rejecting additional mitigation measures. Describe in detail
the additional mitigation measures that are expected to be used during the license renewal
period and their expected effects on entrainment losses.
4.2-S-17

4.3

Impingement of Fish and Shellfish

This section applies to plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems.
Table B-1 notes that
The impacts of impingement are small at many plants but may be moderate or even
large at a few plants with once-through and cooling pond cooling systems.
Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) requires, in part, that
If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat
dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act
316(b) determinations . . . or equivalent State permits and supporting
documentation. If the applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess the
impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from . . .
impingement . . . .
This issue is discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1.3, 4.3.3, and 4.4.3 of NUREG-1437.
If the plant does not use a once-through cooling or closed-cycle cooling pond heat
dissipation system, the ER should note this fact and no additional information is needed for this
issue.
If the plant uses a once-through or closed-cycle cooling pond heat dissipation system and
the applicant holds a current Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination, copies of the
determination, supporting documentation, and relevant correspondence with the water quality
permitting agency (EPA or permitted State agency) should be provided to the NRC. Information
about how mitigation measures were considered during the permit process, and any commitment
to mitigation measures, should be provided.
If (a) the plant utilizes a once-through or cooling pond heat dissipation system and (b) the
applicant does not possess a current Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination, the issue of
impingement of fish and shellfish must be considered in the ER. Information that should be
provided to the NRC for review and analysis of the impingement issue is outlined below.
Information and Analysis Content
Sufficient information should be provided in the ER to put the loss of fish and shellfish to
impingement mortality in perspective, not only in terms of the overall numbers of juveniles and
adults in the water body, but also in terms of the numbers of adult fish and shellfish that these
losses represent. Existing and potential new measures to mitigate impingement losses should also
be fully described, and the effects of these measures should be estimated.
1.

impingement.6 Provide a copy of any Clean Water Act Section 316(b) demonstration. If a
determination has not been made that the "location, design, construction, and capacity of
cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse
environmental impact," discuss the outstanding issues. If consultation with regulatory and
resource agencies indicates concerns about only one or a few aquatic species, the
information and analysis required in the following items may be restricted to only that
needed to address effects on those species. Identify and unambiguously define the resource
or resources of concern.
2.

From Chapter 2 of the ER, describe the fish and shellfish resources in the vicinity of the
plant that are susceptible to impingement. Include lists of species and estimates of the
numbers of impingeable fish and shellfish in the water body. The distribution and value of
commercial and sport fisheries should be discussed. Locations of important habitats for
impingeable fish and shellfish (e.g., spawning areas, nursery grounds, feeding areas,
wintering areas, and migration routes) should be described.

From Chapter 3 of the ER, describe the cooling system, including the rates of water
withdrawal, the flow rates or volume of the water body from which cooling water is
withdrawn, and the location of water withdrawal. The intake structure, intake screens, and
any structural or operational measures used to reduce impingement of fish and shellfish
should be described in detail.

Provide estimates of the species and numbers of fish and shellfish impinged on a daily,
monthly, and annual basis.

Provide estimates of the mortality of impinged fish and shellfish.

Provide estimates of the numbers of adult fish and shellfish that are lost to the water body
because of impingement. Provide full documentation of analytical or modeling techniques
that were used to extrapolate localized impingement losses to resulting long-term, far-field
effects. As appropriate, express these "equivalent adult" losses in terms of the total
estimated numbers of adults in the water body and commercial and recreational harvests.

Identify and, to the extent possible, quantify losses of fish and shellfish from other sources
(e.g., other water withdrawals, temperature and water quality problems, entrainment of
early life stages) in order to assess possible cumulative effects of power plant impingement
losses when combined with other losses.

Describe mitigation measures that have been used to reduce the adverse impacts of
impingement during the initial license period. Describe additional mitigation measures
that are expected to be used during the license renewal period and their expected effects on
4.2-S-19

impingement losses, and briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any measures
that were considered but rejected.
4.4

Heat Shock

This section applies to plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems.
Table B-1 notes that
Because of continuing concerns about heat shock and the possible need to modify
thermal discharges in response to changing environmental conditions, the impacts
may be of moderate or large significance at some plants.
Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) requires, in part, that
If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat
dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act
316(b) determinations and, if necessary, a 316(a) variance in accordance with 40
CFR Part 125, or equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the
applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess the impact of the
proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat shock . . . .
This issue is discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1.4 and 4.4.3 of NUREG-1437.
If the plant does not use a once-through cooling or closed-cycle cooling pond heat
dissipation system, the ER should note this fact and no additional information is needed for this
issue.
If the plant uses a once-through or closed-cycle cooling pond heat dissipation system and
the applicant holds a current NPDES permit that demonstrates that the plant meets State water
temperature standards, or a current Clean Water Act Section 316(a) determination, copies of the
determination, NPDES permit, supporting documentation, and relevant correspondence with the
water quality permitting agency (EPA or permitted State agency) should be provided to the NRC.
Information about how mitigation measures were considered during the permit process should be
provided, as well as any commitments to mitigation measures.
If (a) the plant uses a once-through or cooling pond heat dissipation system and (b) the
applicant does not possess a current NPDES permit that demonstrates that the plant meets State
water temperature standards or possess a current Clean Water Act Section 316(a) determination,
the issue of heat shock must be considered in the ER. Information that should be provided for
review and analysis of the heat shock issue is outlined below.
Information and Analysis Content
Sufficient information should be provided to the NRC to allow the reviewer to put in
perspective the loss of fish and shellfish to heat shock, not only in terms of the overall numbers of
eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults in the water body, but also in terms of the numbers of adult fish
4.2-S-20

and shellfish that these losses represent. Existing and potential new measures to mitigate heat
shock losses should also be fully described, and the effects of these measures should be estimated.
The following process for developing and presenting information should be used.
1.

Document any consultations with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA or other water quality
permitting agencies) and resource agencies (e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and wildlife agencies) regarding the issue of heat
shock.6 Provide copies of any NPDES permits and Clean Water Act Section 316(a)
determination. If a current NPDES permit relative to thermal discharges and/or a current
Section 316(a) variance from State water temperature standards do not exist, discuss the
outstanding issues. If consultation with regulatory and resource agencies indicates
concerns about only one or a few aquatic species, the information and analysis required in
the following items may be restricted to only that needed to address effects on those
species. Identify and unambiguously define the resource or resources of concern.

From Chapter 2 of the ER, describe the fish and shellfish resources in the vicinity of the
plant that are susceptible to heat shock. Include lists of species and estimates of the
numbers of fish and shellfish in the water body that are susceptible to heated discharges.
The distribution and value of commercial and sport fisheries should be discussed.
Locations of important fish and shellfish habitats (e.g., spawning areas, nursery grounds,
feeding areas, wintering areas, and migration routes) should be fully described. The
important habitats that could be affected by thermal discharges should be identified.

From Chapter 3 of the ER, describe the cooling system, including heated water discharge
rates, the flow rates or volume of the water body into which heated water is discharged, and
the location of heated water discharge. The discharge structure and any structural or
operational measures used to reduce heat shock to fish and shellfish should be described in
detail. The location, temperatures, and areal extent of the heated discharge plume should
be described; all techniques used to estimate these parameters (e.g., temperature
monitoring, simulation monitoring) should be reported.

Provide estimates, on a daily, monthly, and annual basis, of the species and numbers of fish
and shellfish susceptible to heat shock.

Provide estimates of the mortality of heat-shocked fish and shellfish.

Provide estimates of the numbers of adult fish and shellfish that are lost to the water body
because of heat shock. Provide full documentation of analytical or modeling techniques
that were used to extrapolate localized heat shock losses to resulting long-term, far-field
effects. As appropriate, express these "equivalent adult" losses in terms of the total
estimated numbers of adults in the water body and commercial and recreational harvests.

Identify and, to the extent possible, quantify losses of fish and shellfish from other sources
(e.g., other water withdrawals and discharges, temperature and water quality problems,
entrainment and impingement) in order to assess possible cumulative effects of heat shock
losses when combined with other losses.

Describe mitigation measures that have been used to reduce the adverse impacts of heat
shock during the initial license period. Describe additional mitigation measures that could
be used during the license renewal period and their expected effects on heat shock losses.
Identify mitigation measures that will be implemented, and briefly explain the rationale for
not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

4.5

Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using >100 gpm of Ground Water)

This section applies to plants that use more than an annual average of 100 gpm (6 L/s) of
ground water.
Table B-1 reports that
Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause ground-water use conflicts with
nearby ground-water users.
Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) requires in part that
If the applicant’s plant . . . pumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite) of ground
water per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on ground
water must be provided.
This issue is discussed in Section 4.8.1 of NUREG-1437. This section provides guidance
to the applicant for identification and assessment of the environmental impacts of ground-water
withdrawal and use during the license renewal period. If the applicant can provide withdrawal
records or other evidence that the plant does not pump more than an annual average of 100 gpm
(6 L/s) of ground water, the ER should note this fact, and no additional information is needed on
this issue.
Information and Analysis Content
If the plant pumps more than an annual average of 100 gpm, the following information and
analyses should be provided to assess the magnitude and significance of potential ground-water
use conflicts during operation.
1.

A description of all groundwater aquifers potentially impacted by operation of on-site
wells, including approximate areal extent, thickness, porosities, and hydraulic
conductivities of aquifer strata. The descriptions should discuss significant uncertainties
and inhomogeneities.

4.2-S-22

A description of existing and known future off-site and on-site wells, including average
flowrate, peak flowrate, water use, and completion depth.

Maps of steady-state piezometric surfaces estimated with on-site and off-site wells at peak
pumpage, average pumpage, and no pumpage. These maps should indicate the location of
all wells and should annotate each offsite well with the drawdown of the piezometric
surface attributable to the onsite wells and with the drawdown of the piezometric surface
attributable to the offsite wells. Describe the methods of analysis, including assumptions
used.

A description of existing and known future water rights (including Native American tribal
water rights).

A description of any wetlands in the vicinity that might be impacted by a lowered
watertable.

An evaluation of the significance of present and future effects of onsite withdrawal on
offsite wells and an assessment of the need for mitigation measures to reduce the adverse
impacts, if any.

If a need for mitigation measures is found, discuss possible measures and whether they will
be implemented.

4.6

Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Cooling Towers Withdrawing Make-Up
Water from a Small River)

This section applies to plants using cooling towers withdrawing makeup water from a
small river.
Table B-1 reports that
Water use conflicts may result from surface water withdrawals from small water
bodies during low flow conditions which may affect aquifer recharge, especially if
other ground-water or upstream surface water users come on line before the time of
license renewal.
Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) requires in part that
If the applicant’s plant utilizes cooling towers . . . and withdraws make-up water
from a river whose annual flow rate is less than 3.15 × 1012 ft3/year
(9 × 1010 m3/year) . . . . The applicant shall also provide an assessment of the
impacts of the withdrawal of water from the river on alluvial aquifiers during low
flow.
This issue is discussed in Section 4.8.1.3 of NUREG-1437.

4.2-S-23

If the applicant can provide evidence in the ER that its plant does not withdraw cooling
tower make-up water from a small river [annual flow rate less than 3.15 × 1012 ft3/year
(9 × 1010 m3/year)], no additional information is needed on this issue.
Information and Analysis Content
If the plant withdraws cooling tower make-up water from a small river, the following
information and analyses should be provided to assess the ground-water use conflicts during
operation.
1.

A description of alluvial aquifers near the site that could be affected by surface-water
withdrawal, including approximate areal extent, thickness, porosities, and hydraulic
conductivities of aquifer strata.

A description of existing and known future off-site and on-site wells, including average
flow rate, peak flow rate, water use, and completion depth.

Maps of steady-state piezometric surface estimated with on-site and off-site wells at peak
pumpage, average pumpage, and no pumpage. These maps should indicate the location of
all wells, and each offsite well should be annotated with the drawdown of the piezometric
surface attributable to the onsite wells and with the drawdown of the pieziometric surface
attributable to the offsite wells.

A description of existing and known future water rights (including Native American tribal
water rights).

A description of any wetlands in the vicinity that might be impacted by a lowered water
table.

An evaluation of the significance of present and future effects of onsite withdrawal on
offsite wells and wetlands, and the need for mitigation measures to reduce the adverse
impacts.

Possible mitigation measures, if they are needed, and whether they will be implemented.

4.7

Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Ranney Wells)

This section applies to plants using Ranney wells for cooling tower make-up water. This
section provides guidance to the applicant on identification and assessment of the environmental
impacts of ground-water withdrawal and use during the license renewal period. If the plant does
not use Ranney wells, the ER should note the fact without further discussion.
This issue is a combination of two related issues discussed in Section 4.8.1 of NUREG1437.
Table B-1 reports that
4.2-S-24

Ranney wells can result in potential ground-water depression beyond the site
boundary. Impacts of large ground-water withdrawal for cooling tower makeup at
nuclear power plants using Ranney wells must be evaluated at the time of
application for license renewal.
Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) requires in part that
If the applicant’s plant uses Ranney wells . . . an assessment of the impact of the
proposed action on ground-water use must be provided.
If the plant does not use Ranney wells, this fact should be noted in the ER and no further
information need be provided.
Information and Analysis Content
If the plant uses Ranney wells, the following information and analyses should be provided
to assess the magnitude and significance of potential ground-water use conflicts during operation.
1.

A description of alluvial aquifers near the site that could be affected by surface-water
withdrawal, including their approximate areal extent, thickness, porosities, and hydraulic
conductivities of aquifer strata.

A description of existing and known future off-site and on-site wells, including average
flow rate, peak flow rate, water use, and completion depth.

A description of existing and known future water rights (including Native American tribal
water rights).

A description of any wetlands in the vicinity that might be impacted by a lowered water
table.

An evaluation of the significance of present and future effects of onsite withdrawal on
offsite wells (including changes in groundwater quality) and wetlands, and the need for
mitigation measures to reduce the adverse impacts.

Possible mitigation measures, if they are needed, and whether they will be implemented.

4.8

Degradation of Ground-Water Quality
This section applies to plants at inland sites with cooling ponds.
4.2-S-25

Table B-1 notes that
Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may degrade ground-water quality. For
plants located inland, the quality of the ground water in the vicinity of the ponds
must be shown to be adequate to allow continuation of current uses.
Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D) requires that
If the applicant’s plant is located at an inland site and utilizes cooling ponds, an
assessment of the impact of the proposed action on ground-water quality must be
provided.
This issue is discussed in Section 4.8.3 of NUREG-1437.
If the plant does not use cooling ponds or if the cooling ponds are adjacent to salt marshes,
the ER should note the fact and no further information need be provided.
Information and Analysis Content
If the plant uses cooling ponds and is not adjacent to salt marshes, the following
information and analyses should be provided to assess the presence and magnitude of groundwater quality degradation during operation.
1.

Cooling pond characteristics (e.g., liners or impermeable materials used, impermeable
soils) that would retard or prevent infiltration into local aquifers.

Types and concentrations of impurities in the cooling pond water and chemistry of soils
along pathways to local aquifers to determine whether cooling pond water can contaminate
the ground water.

Water quality and other characteristics of local aquifers that could be affected by
infiltration of cooling pond water.

Federal, State, and local ground-water quality requirements with emphasis on any changes
to these requirements that have occurred during the plant’s initial license term and any
anticipated changes to those requirements during the license renewal term.

Identification and characterization of offsite ground-water users who could be affected by
the degradation of aquifers. Characterization should include locations and elevations of
off-site wells, their pumping rates, and the water needs of ground-water users.

A quantitative description of the cumulative effects of using closed cycle cooling ponds on
ground-water quality. This description should include maps of the contaminant plume.
Information should be provided on ground-water contamination existing at the time of
license renewal application and projected contamination during the license renewal period.

4.2-S-26

The mitigation measures proposed to avoid or minimize ground-water quality degradation
and the estimated impact of implementing those measures. Briefly explain the rationale for
not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

4.9

Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Resources
Table B-1 notes that
Refurbishment impacts are insignificant if no loss of important plant and animal
habitat occurs. However, it cannot be known whether important plant and animal
communities may be affected until the specific proposal is presented with the
license renewal application.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(E) requires in part that
All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of refurbishment and other
license-renewal-related construction activities on important plant and animal
habitats.
This issue is discussed in Section 3.6 of NUREG-1437.
The applicant should describe in Chapter 3 of the ER any activities associated with license
renewal that will involve disturbance of any plant or wildlife habitat. If no area will be disturbed,
the fact should be noted in Section 4.2.9 of the ER, and no further discussion of the issue is
needed. Areas to be disturbed should be described in Chapter 2 of the ER with respect to (1) the
amount of land to be disturbed, (2) ecological characteristics of the habitat, (3) species of plants
and animals found in the area, and (4) the extent to which the habitat is unique. Note that the
information and analysis for this issue overlaps the information and analysis covered in Section
4.10 of this guide for assessing impacts on threatened and endangered species.
Information and Analysis Content
If any license renewal activity will disturb any plant or wildlife habitat, the following
information and analyses should be provided.
1.

The applicant should determine whether any of the plant and animal species are important.
Important species are those that either (1) have high public interest or economic value or
both or (2) may be critical to the structure and function of the ecosystem or provide a
broader ecological perspective of an area. Important habitats are defined as those that
support important species.7 Specific guidance on identifying important species to be
evaluated is found in “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy; Notice of Final

Important plant or animal habitats are often characterized by high biological productivity or diversity. Examples include
habitats used by Federal or State threatened or endangered species, wetlands, riparian zones, staging or resting areas for large
numbers of waterfowl, rookeries, restricted wintering areas for wildlife (e.g., winter deer yards), communal roost sites,
strutting or breeding grounds of gallinaceous birds, rare plant community types (e.g., Atlantic white cedar swamps), and other
such areas.

4.2-S-27

Policy.”8 Federal, State, and regional government agencies with jurisdiction over biological
resources, and organizations concerned with such resources like the State office of The
Nature Conservancy, should be consulted to assist with the identification of important
species and habitats. If no important species is identified, the basis for this finding should
be summarized in Section 4.2.9 of the ER, and no further discussion of this issue is
needed.
2.

If important plant or animal species are identified, the significance of the loss in population
of the species should be assessed with respect to local, regional, and national social,
economic, and ecological value.

Mitigation measures that are proposed, considered, or adopted to minimize the adverse
impacts should be described. Briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any
measures that were considered but rejected. Further guidance on determining the
appropriate level of mitigation and methods for accomplishing mitigation can be found in
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy (46 FR 7644, January 23, 1981).

4.10

Threatened or Endangered Species
Table B-1 notes that
Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are not expected to
adversely affect threatened or endangered species. However, consultation with
appropriate agencies would be needed at the time of license renewal to determine
whether threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be
adversely affected.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) requires, in part, that
. . . . Additionally, the applicant shall assess the impact of the proposed action on
threatened or endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.
This issue is discussed in Sections 2.3.6, 3.9, and 4.1 of NUREG-1437.
In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 USC 1531 et seq.), Federal agencies must review actions they undertake or support (such as
issuing permits and licenses) to determine whether they may jeopardize the continued existence of
an endangered species or their habitats. If such review reveals the potential for adversely affecting
listed or candidate species, the Federal agency must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate. The interagency
cooperation provisions of Section 7 are implemented by the FWS and the NMFS at 50 CFR Part
8

The notice (46 FR 7644, January 23, 1981) establishes final policy guidance for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel
involved in making recommendations to protect or conserve fish and wildlife resources. Guidance is provided on the
definition and identification of “evaluation species,” evaluation of direct and indirect effects of a project on the evaluation
species, on the levels of mitigation and on the various methods for accomplishing mitigation when adverse effects are
identified. The types of species that should be considered are discussed in the notice at pages 7662 and 7663. In this
regulatory guide, the terms “important species” and “evaluation species” are used interchangeably.

4.2-S-28

402. Further, Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain actions by a Federal agency, licensee, or
potential licensee that may hurt an endangered species or its habitat. The prohibited acts
provisions of Section 9 are implemented at 50 CFR 17.31(a) and 17.71(a).9
The applicant should determine whether the site and vicinity are within the range of listed
species, and if they are, an assessment is made of the extent to which refurbishment activities
associated with license renewal and continued plant operation are likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of those listed species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. If in compiling information and assessing the effects of license renewal on
threatened and endangered species a need arises to consult with either FWS or NMFS, the
prospective applicant should notify NRC so that the NRC can coordinate the consultation. Three
levels of consultation are identified in 50 CFR Part 402, Subpart B—Consultation Procedures: (1)
Early consultation (Sec. 402.11), (2) Informal consultation (Sec. 402.13), and (3) Formal
consultation (Sec. 402.14). Most consultations are conducted informally with Federal agencies. If
a prospective applicant feels a need to discuss data availability and interpretation with either FWS
or NMFS, the NRC should be requested to initiate informal consultation. The prospective
applicant should request NRC to initiate early consultation when, in developing information on
threatened or endangered species, there is reason to believe that an endangered species or a
threatened species may be present in the area affected by its project and that implementation of
such action will likely affect such species. Consultation, as defined in 50 CFR Part 402, may not
always be needed to complete this section of the ER. If the consultation process has not been
initiated prior to submittal of the ER, NRC will fulfill its consultation requirements in preparing
the SEIS. Consultation procedures are discussed in “Endangered Species Consultation Handbook:
Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service,
March 1998.
Information and Analysis Content
The ER should include the following.
1.

Reference should be made to threatened or endangered species, or candidate species, and
critical habitat that may be found on the site or in the vicinity of the site as identified in
Chapter 2; this should include the area within the applicant’s transmission line corridor
identified in Chapter 2 as being constructed to connect the plant to the transmission system.
Reference should be made to any license renewal activities that will disrupt any natural
areas and to modifications to plant operation that may change the effect on the
environment, as identified in Chapter 3. If there has been early consultation with the FWS
or the NMFS, reference should be made to any resulting FWS or NMFS memoranda.

Reference should be made specifically to any adverse impacts on listed and candidate
threatened or endangered species or critical habitat found in the review of the topics in the
following 10 sections of this guide.

An explanation of the structure and implementation of the ESA is found in Ray Vaughan, Endangered Species Act Handbook,
Government Institutes, Inc., Rockville, MD, 1994.

4.2-S-29

4.1.1 Instream Ecological Communities
4.1.2 Riparian Ecological Communities
4.2
Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages
4.3
Impingement of Fish and Shellfish
4.4
Heat Shock
4.5
Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using >100 gpm of Ground Water)
4.6
Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Cooling Towers Withdrawing Make-Up
Water from a Small River)
4.7
Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Ranney Wells)
4.8
Degradation of Ground-Water Quality
4.9
Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Resources
3.

A determination should be made whether the information from items 1 and 2 can support a
conclusion either that there are no candidate, threatened, or endangered species or critical
habitat in the site vicinity or that there are no activities associated with license renewal or
changes in plant operating conditions that would adversely affect such species or critical
habitat, if present. If such a determination can be made, it should be documented in this
section, and no further analysis is required.

If the determination described in item 3 can not be made, an assessment of whether license
renewal is likely to affect endangered species should be made. The content of the
assessment should be guided by the content of a biological assessment suggested at 50
CFR 402.12(f).10 Early discussions with the State wildlife or fisheries agency, the State’s
Natural Heritage Program, local field offices of the FWS or NMFS, and the State office of
The Nature Conservancy can provide useful information for designing the biological
assessment. At this point in the development of the ER, discussion with the FWS or the
NMFS would constitute either informal or early consultation, therefore the potential
applicant should immediately request guidance on the early consultation process from the
NRC. As a result of consultation, FWS or NMFS may require a biological assessment,
especially if there are construction activities involved in license renewal.

If the assessment supports a determination that license renewal will not adversely affect
listed or candidate species, the determination should be documented in this section.
Documentation should include a description of the assessment and contacts with
government agencies and private organizations. If a biological assessment is prepared, it
should be provided to the NRC for submittal to the FWS or the NMFS for review and
issuance of a preliminary biological opinion. Concerns raised by these agencies should be
resolved, to the extent possible, to minimize the potential for endangered species being an
issue during the NRC review and the FWS and NMFS review of the draft SEIS. The
biological assessment should be included in the Environmental Report, and the biological
opinion should also be included if it is available when the application is submitted.

If the biological assessment results in a determination of “may affect” listed species or
designated critical habitat, or if the FWS or NMFS does not concur in writing with a

“Assessment” refers to the information and analysis that is presented in the Environmental Report only. “Biological
assessment” refers to the document prepared in conformance with the provisions of 50 CFR Part 402.

4.2-S-30

finding that there will be no effects, or that the reasonably expected effects will be
beneficial, insignificant, or discountable, the NRC will initiate formal consultation with the
FWS or the NMFS in accordance with Section 7(a)(3) of the ESA. The applicant must
participate fully in the consultation and furnish NRC with any additional information or
studies that may be required. Requirements for formal consultation are given in 50 CFR
402.14 and in Chapter 4 of the Consultation Handbook. The status of consultation
activities and findings, including a biological opinion issued by FWS or NMFS prior to
submittal of an application, should be reported in the ER.
7.

If a “jeopardy” opinion is issued, the applicant will be responsible for considering and
responding, through the NRC, to any reasonable and prudent alternatives identified in the
biological opinion. The response must be in accordance with the “incidental take”
provisions at 10 CFR 402.14(i).

4.11

Air Quality During Refurbishment (Nonattainment Areas)
Table B-1 states that
Air quality impacts from plant refurbishment associated with license renewal are
expected to be small. However, vehicle exhaust emissions could be cause for
concern at locations in or near nonattainment or maintenance areas. The
significance of the potential impact cannot be determined without considering the
compliance status of each site and the numbers of workers expected to be employed
during the outage.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F) requires that
If the applicant's plant is located in or near a nonattainment or maintenance area, an
assessment of vehicle exhaust emissions anticipated at the time of peak
refurbishment work force must be provided in accordance with the Clean Air Act as
amended.
The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act include a provision that no Federal agency may
support any activity that does not conform to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) designed to
achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).11 On November 30, 1993, the
EPA issued a final rule implementing the new statutory requirements for this provision (58 FR
63214); the rule was effective January 31, 1994.12 The final rule requires that Federal agencies
prepare a written conformity analysis and determination for proposed actions in NAAQS
nonattainment or maintenance areas for which the total of the action’s direct and indirect
emissions that contribute to criteria pollutants (i.e., ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide,
11

Conformity is defined in Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act as conformity to the SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the
severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards, and that such
activities will not (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area, (2) increase the frequency or
severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area, or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required
interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.

The regulatory requirements are in Subpart W, “Determining Conformity of General Federal Action to State and Federal
Implementation Plans,” in 40 CFR Part 51.

4.2-S-31

nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) would exceed
threshold emission levels of 40 CFR 51.853(b).13,14
The threshold emission levels serve as a screen to determine whether a conformity analysis
should be performed for a proposed action. The threshold emission levels range from 10 to 100
tons (9 to 91 metric tons) per year. The EPA considers it extremely unlikely that emissions below
the threshold emission levels would affect a nonattainment or maintenance area. If the threshold
emission levels are not exceeded, a conformity analysis is not required unless the total direct and
indirect emissions are 10% or more of a nonattainment or maintenance area's total emissions for
that pollutant. Under this latter scenario, the action is defined as a "regionally significant action"
and requires a conformity analysis.
Information and Analysis Content
The applicant should consult with the appropriate EPA regional office and the State air
quality regulatory agency. Discussions with staff at EPA regional offices indicate that there may
be some flexibility in the rigor of the analysis that would be acceptable, depending on the
particular site, the extent of refurbishment, the pollutants in nonattainment, the severity of the
nonattainment, and the State regulatory agency. Such consultations should be documented in the
ER.
In support of NRC's responsibility to consider the conformity of its actions with the SIPs,
the licensee should provide the following information.
1.

Reference the estimates of the monthly incremental onsite work force associated with
refurbishment that were reported in Section 3.4. If there will be no refurbishment or if
refurbishment involves no additional workers, no further analysis is required.

Identify the positions of nonattainment and maintenance areas relative to the plant and
probable areas where workers involved with refurbishment activities associated with
license renewal will reside. Note the likely commuter routes for the workers. If there are
no nonattainment and maintenance areas within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant and residential

An area is designated “nonattainment” for a criteria pollutant if it does not meet NAAQS for the pollutant. A maintenance
area has been redesignated by a State from nonattainment to attainment; the State must submit to EPA a plan for maintaining
NAAQS as a revision to its SIP.
Direct emissions are those emissions caused by or initiated by the Federal action that occur at the same time and place as the
action. Indirect emissions are those caused by the Federal action that occur later in time or are located away from the action
itself. Only those direct and indirect emissions that are reasonably foreseeable and that the Federal agency can practicably
control need be considered. It must also be possible to locate and quantify direct and indirect emissions at the time a
conformity determination is made. The Federal agency is not obligated to account for possible emissions that might result
from the Federal action but cannot be specifically identified, quantified, or located.

Note that the final rule issued by EPA implementing the new statutory requirements for this provision (58 FR 63214) only
requires that Federal agencies prepare a written conformity analysis and determination for proposed actions in NAAQS
nonattainment or maintenance areas. However, proposed actions near nonattainment or maintenance areas may also cause or
contribute to nonattainment. Therefore, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F) states that the ER should address this issue for facilities
located either in or near a nonattainment or maintenance area, and EPA staff have indicated that in the future they may revise
the EPA rule similarly. This approach reflects the reality that emissions continue beyond geographical boundaries and is
consistent with environmental impact assessments prepared for NEPA.

4.2-S-32

locations of refurbishment workers, this should be explained in the ER, and no further
analysis is required.
3.

Identify the pollutant or pollutants for which the area is in nonattainment or maintenance,
as well as the severity of nonattainment.

Determine the meteorological conditions typically associated with poor air quality in each
nonattainment and maintenance area.

Compare the meteorological conditions associated with poor air quality with regional
climatology.

Estimate onsite and offsite vehicle emissions resulting from refurbishment activities that
contribute to the pollutants identified in Step 3 (EPA's handbook AP-42, “Compilation of
Air Pollutant Emission Factors,” is a good reference), and identify the approximate
locations of the emissions during the peak employment period. This estimate may be based
on the applicant’s estimate of vehicle miles associated with refurbishment worker
commuting and other activities directly associated with refurbishment and on EPA
emission factors found in the handbook AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, Vol. 2, Appendix H, “Highway Mobile Source Emission Factors Tables” (5th
Edition, April 3, 1998).15

Determine whether the emissions related to license renewal activities have a reasonable
likelihood of adversely affecting air quality in the nonattainment or maintenance area.
Climatological considerations, simple atmospheric dispersion models, and conservative
assumptions are appropriate for this screening analysis. For each nonattainment and
maintenance area determined to have a reasonable likelihood of being adversely affected,
continue the analysis in Step 8. No further analysis is required for those areas that were not
determined to be adversely affected.

8.a Compare the total emissions calculated in Step 6 with the appropriate threshold
emission levels of 40 CFR 51.853(b). If the threshold emission levels are exceeded,
proceed to step 9. If not, continue the analysis at Step 8(b).
8.b Determine the nonattainment or maintenance area’s total emissions of pollutants
identified in Step 3. These determinations need only be sufficiently accurate to support
evaluation of the regional significance of emission levels below the threshold emission
levels of 40 CFR 51.853(b). Potential sources of this information include EPA regional
offices, State and local air quality agencies, and final EISs. If an existing estimate of the
area’s total emissions is not found, estimate the emissions from readily available
information, such as population, traffic counts, and published emission rates, using
reasonable assumptions. Identify the information and the assumptions. Information
developed for Section 4.18, Transportation, may be of value in this determination.

Current tables and associated information can be found at the Modeling Page within the EPA Office of Mobil Sources Web
site: http://www.epa.gov/omswww/models.htm.

4.2-S-33

8.c Compare the total emissions from refurbishment estimated in step 6 with the area’s
total emissions estimated in 8(b). In accordance with 40 CFR 51.853(i), if the total
emissions from refurbishment are 10% or more of the area’s total emissions, proceed to
Step 9. If not, the emissions are not regionally significant, and no further analysis is
required.
9.

For those pollutants identified in Step 8, use air dispersion modeling to estimate pollutant
concentrations in the ambient air, which in turn are used to evaluate the extent to which
refurbishment-related emission would cause or increase the frequency of exceeding
threshold emission levels during the refurbishment.16 If analyses based on peak
employment period emission indicate a potential for exceeding of annual air quality limits,
the licensee may account for the fact that the refurbishment period is less than a year and
that peak employment levels would not occur during the entire refurbishment period.

10.

If refurbishment-related emissions would cause or contribute to exceeding threshold
emission levels, the applicant should identify and analyze the extent to which potential
mitigation measures would minimize the adverse impact on air quality and should briefly
identify the rationale for not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.
Explain the extent to which mitigation measures directed at air quality will be coordinated
with mitigation of transportation impacts discussed in Section 4.18.

4.12

Impact on Public Health of Microbiological Organisms
With regard to public health effects of thermophilic organisms, Table B-1 states
These organisms are not expected to be a problem at most operating plants except
possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals that discharge to small
rivers. Without site-specific data, it is not possible to predict the effects
generically.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) requires that
If the applicant’s plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or discharges into a river
having an annual average flow rate of less than 3.15 × 1012 ft3/yr (9 × 1010 m3/yr), an
assessment of the impact of the proposed action on public health from thermophilic
organisms in the affected water must be provided.
Plants that use cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or small rivers [i.e., plants that have an annual
average flow rate of less than 3.15 × 1012 ft3/year (9 × 1010 m3/year)] to receive their thermal
discharge have a potential to enhance the concentration of thermophilic microorganisms. These
include the enteric pathogens Salmonella sp. and Shigella sp., as well as Pseudomonas aeriginosa,
thermophilic fungi, Legionella sp. in unusually high concentrations, and the free-living amoebae of
the genera Naegleria and Acanthomoeba. Of greatest concern is Naegleria (N.) sp., four species of
which have been isolated. To date, only one species N. fowleri, has been determined to be
pathogenic in humans.
16

Conditions on air quality models used for conformity analysis are contained in 40 CFR 51.859(c).

4.2-S-34

Information and Analysis Content
If the applicant can show that its plant does not use cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or small
rivers to receive its thermal discharge, this fact should be noted in the ER and no further
information or analysis is needed. If the plant does use cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or small
rivers to receive its thermal discharge, the ER should include the following.
1.

The State agency responsible for environmental health should be consulted as to whether
there is a concern about the potential existence and concentration of N. fowleri in the
receiving waters for plant cooling water discharge. The results of this consultation should
be documented in the ER.

If the State advises that tests should be conducted for concentration of N. fowleri in the
receiving waters, the tests should be performed when the facility has been operating at a
power level typical of the level anticipated during the license renewal period for at least a
month to ensure a steady state population during the sampling. Samples should be taken at
locations of potential public use.

An evaluation of the data should be performed and a determination made of the magnitude
of potential impacts of N. fowleri on public health during the license renewal term.

Proposed mitigation measures to minimize the exposure to members of the public should
be described, if deemed necessary, and the rationale for not implementing any measures
that were considered but rejected should be explained.

A letter report from the head of the State agency responsible for environmental health
stating concurrence with the applicant’s risk assessment and the proposed mitigation
strategy, if one is required, should be included in the ER.

4.13

Electromagnetic Fields–Acute Effects
Table B-1 reports that
Electrical shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from
induced charges in metallic structures have not been found to be a problem at most
operating plants and generally are not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the
significance of the electric shock potential at the site.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.23(c)(3)(ii)(H) requires that
If the applicant's transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of
connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations
of the National Electrical Safety Code for preventing electric shock from induced
currents, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock
hazard from the transmission lines must be provided.
4.2-S-35

This issue is discussed in Section 4.5.4.1 of NUREG-1437. It concerns transmission lines
built to connect the power plant with the existing transmission system, and reviewed as part of the
construction permit. Most transmission lines were designed to be in compliance with the National
Electric Safety Code (NESC) recommendations for electric shock hazard.17 However, unless that
utility has had an active program of transmission line management aimed at reviewing changes in
the uses of the land in the right-of-way and the operating characteristics of the transmission line,
and ensuring compliance with changes in the NESC, the line may not meet current NESC
recommendations.
Information and Analysis Content
If the transmission lines that were built to connect the plant to the transmission system
meet current NESC clearance standards, the applicant should demonstrate that fact in the ER. The
demonstration should take one of two forms: (1) a description of an ongoing program of power
line right of way supervision and management aimed at ensuring that current electrical shock
provisions of the NESC are met, or (2) a transmission line survey that develops the following
information.
1.

Identification of any sites or areas that do not meet current NESC clearance standards, and
any that may not meet the standards after anticipated changes in transmission line
operations or reasonably foreseeable changes in land use in the right of way.

Maps, photographs, or drawings indicating the locations of all sites that do not meet the
NESC clearance standards.

For those sites where transmission line characteristics, clearances, and human uses of the
transmission corridor may not meet current NESC standards, provide a description of
measures that could be taken to meet the standards, the measures the applicant plans or
proposes to undertake, and whether those measures will meet the standards. Consider
basic electrical design parameters, including transmission design voltage or voltages, line
capacity, conductor type and configuration, spacing between phases, minimum conductor
clearances to ground, maximum predicted electrical field strength(s) at 1 m above ground,
the predicted electrical field strength(s) at the edge of the right-of-way in kilovolts per
meter (kV/m), and the design bases for these values.

For any sites that will not meet NESC clearance standards, provide a detailed explanation
of the rationale for concluding that the standards are not appropriate to the situation or the
rationale for not making modifications to meet the standards.

4.14

Housing Impacts
Table B-1 concludes that

The National Electric Safety Code®, 1997 Edition, by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York
(1996). Section 23 deals with clearances. Section 232 deals specifically with clearances between above ground-conductors
and human activities, equipment, and structures.

4.2-S-36

Housing impacts are expected to be of small significance at plants located in a
medium or high population area and not in an area where growth control measures
that limit housing development are in effect. Moderate or large housing impacts of
the work force associated with refurbishment may be associated with plants located
in sparsely populated areas or in areas with growth control measures that limit
housing development.
Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(I) requires in part that
An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on housing availability . . .
within the vicinity of the plant must be provided.
This issue is discussed in Section 3.7.2 (Refurbishment) and Section 4.7.1 (License
Renewal Term) of NUREG-1437.
Impacts to housing availability result when the demand for housing, caused by the projectrelated population increase, approaches or exceeds the number of available housing units in the
vicinity of the plant. The magnitude of the impact will be determined by the number of additional
workers associated with refurbishment activities or continued operation and maintenance, and by
the population and housing inventory within the region. Cumulative housing impacts result when
the project-associated demand for housing combined with other anticipated increases in demand
together approach or exceed the number of available housing units.
Information and Analysis Content
The ER should contain the following.
4.14.1 Refurbishment
1.

Reference the estimates of the monthly incremental onsite work force associated with
refurbishment, reported in Section 3.4. If there will be no refurbishment or if
refurbishment involves no additional workers then there will be no impact on housing and
no further analysis is required.

Reference the number of in-migrating incremental refurbishment workers and their
dependents, and the anticipated residential distribution, reported in Section 3.4.

Using the regional demographic information from Chapter 2, determine whether the plant
is in a region of low, medium, or high population. This determination can be made using
Figure C.1, “Population categories, by sparseness and proximity,” and Table C.1,
“Sparseness and proximity measures used to classify potential case study sites,” from
Volume 2 of NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Appendices,” May 1996. If the region is one of medium or
high population where there are not growth control measures that limit housing
development, housing impacts are expected to be of small significance. If these conditions
are met, and if the number of additional on-site workers associated with refurbishment for
4.2-S-37

both license renewal and current term operation and refueling does not exceed the peak
work force estimate of 2,273 persons used for the socioeconomic impact analysis reported
in Section 3.7 of NUREG-1437, the finding of “small significance” may be adopted
without further analysis.
4.

If the conditions specified in number 3 above are not met, proceed with assessing the
following information from Chapter 2: Ongoing and anticipated population change and
economic development that could affect housing characteristics in the region or could
contribute to cumulative impacts during the period of refurbishment. This information
should be available from regional and local sources (e.g., government officials, planning
and economic development agencies, realtors).

From Chapter 2, reference the number, type, and location of housing units in the region.
Reference should be made to housing types (e.g., owner occupied, rental units, hotels or
motels, trailer parks), vacancy rates, and turnover. Information from local sources (e.g.,
government officials and realtors) about housing characteristics should supplement the
current decade U.S. Census data.

Based on the information above, make an assessment of the potential for impacts to
housing availability, comparing the projected incremental demand for housing associated
with the refurbishment and refueling related population increase to the stock of available
housing in the area. The assessment should consider the magnitude of potential impacts in
terms of housing availability,18 inflation, and changes in housing stock.

Describe mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts. The range
of mitigation measures considered and the type of mitigation proposed should be
commensurate with the potential magnitude and duration of the impacts. Mitigation might
include, at a minimum, hiring workers from the local area to the greatest extent possible.
Mitigation of large impacts could include developing trailer pads or supplying temporary
housing (e.g., mobile housing) on the site. The development and selection of appropriate
mitigation measures should involve discussion with local government officials. The
applicant should assess the effectiveness of the mitigation measures at reducing the
potential impacts and should briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any
measures that were considered but rejected.
4.14.2 License Renewal Term

Reference the estimates of the additional onsite work force during the license renewal term
that were reported in Section 3.4. If additional workers are not anticipated there will be no
impact on housing and no further analysis is required.
The following general thresholds for impact significance are provided as guidance. Site-specific factors may require some
flexibility in their application. Additional guidance is provided in Section 3.7.2 of NUREG-1437. Generally, small impacts
result when projected demand for housing would lower the vacancy rate for rental or for-sale dwellings by <1 percentage
point (e.g., a change from a 5% vacancy rate to a 4% vacancy rate), with rental and for-sale vacancy rates remaining above
2%. Moderate impacts result when projected demand for housing reduces rental and for-sale vacancy rates 1 but <5
percentage points, with overall vacancy remaining >1%. Large impacts result when projected demand would cause rental or
for-sale vacancy rates to drop by 5 percentage points or to drop to 1%.

4.2-S-38

Reference the number that were reported in Section 3.4 of in-migrating incremental
workers estimated for the license renewal term and their dependents and their predicted
residential distribution.

If the conditions specified in Item 3 in 4.14.1 above are met, replacing the peak number of
additional onsite workers associated with refurbishment with the number of additional
onsite workers during the license renewal term, then the finding of “small significance”
may be adopted for the license renewal term without further analysis.

If the conditions specified in Item 3 immediately above are not met, assess the following
information from Chapter 2: Ongoing and anticipated population change and economic
development that could affect housing characteristics in the region or could contribute to
cumulative impacts during the period of refurbishment. This information should be
available from regional and local sources (e.g., government officials, planning and
economic development agencies, realtors).

From Chapter 2, reference the number, type, and location of housing units in the region.
Reference should be made to housing types (e.g., owner occupied, rental units, hotels or
motels, trailer parks), vacancy rates, and turnover. Emphasis should be on housing trends
and projections that extend into the license renewal term. Information from local sources
(e.g., government officials and realtors) about housing characteristics should supplement
the current decade U.S. Census data.

Based on the information above, assess the potential for impacts to housing availability,
comparing the projected incremental demand for housing associated with license renewal
term-related population increase to the projected stock of available housing in the area.
The assessment should consider the magnitude of potential impacts in terms of housing
availability,18 inflation, and changes in housing stock.

Describe mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts. The range
of mitigation measures considered and the type of mitigation proposed should be
commensurate with the potential magnitude and duration of the impacts. Mitigation might
include, at a minimum, hiring workers from the local area to the greatest extent possible.
Mitigation of large impacts could include developing trailer pads or supplying temporary
housing (e.g., mobile housing) on the site. The development and selection of appropriate
mitigation measures should involve discussion with local government officials. The
applicant should assess the effectiveness of the mitigation measures for reducing the
potential impacts and should briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any
measures that were considered but rejected.

4.15

Public Utilities: Public Water Supply Availability
Table B-1 concludes that
An increased problem with water shortages at some sites may lead to impacts of
moderate significance on public water supply availability.
4.2-S-39

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(I) requires in part that
. . . [T]he applicant shall provide an assessment of the impact of population
increases attributable to the proposed project on the public water supply.
This issue is discussed in Section 3.7.4.5 (for refurbishment) and in Section 4.7.3.5 (for
operation) of NUREG-1437.
Information and Analysis Content
The ER should include the following information.
1.

The information developed for Section 3.4 on the work force, in-migrating population, and
residential location associated with refurbishment and with the renewal period.

If water used at the plant is provided by a water utility, identify anticipated increases in the
amount of water used during refurbishment and during the renewal term.

For each water utility service area that may be affected, provide information on the
capacity and utilization rate of the public water system projected to exist at the time of
peak refurbishment work force, as well as capacity and cumulative utilization rate caused
by general population increase during the renewal period. Document discussions with the
potentially affected water utilities as to whether the projected population increase will
stress the water supply or require an increase in capacity.

If the water supply will be stressed as a result of refurbishment or operation during the
renewal period, identify, in coordination with the water utility, what mitigating measures
would be appropriate. Describe these measures and state which, if any, will be taken.
Briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any measures that were considered but
rejected.

4.16

Education Impacts from Refurbishment
Table B-1 states that
Most sites would experience impacts of small significance but larger impacts are
possible depending on site- and project-specific factors.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(I) requires in part that
An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on . . . public schools (impacts
from refurbishment activities only) within the vicinity of the plant must be
provided.
This issue is discussed with regard to plant refurbishment in Section 3.7.4.1 of NUREG1437. Section 4.7.3.1 of NUREG-1437 placed this issue in Category 1 for the license renewal
period.
4.2-S-40

Impacts to education are a product of (1) the additional demand on the public education
system resulting from the refurbishment-related population growth and (2) the capacity of the
education system to absorb additional students. The capacity of the system to absorb additional
students is related to the size of the school system (i.e., larger school systems typically can absorb
more students than smaller systems) and whether the system already is experiencing growth
pressures. Section 3.7.4.1 of NUREG-1437 includes definitions of small, moderate, and large
impacts to education.19 Cumulative impacts can result if the project-related demand for education,
coupled with demand associated with other ongoing economic development or with changes in the
level of service (e.g., resulting from changes in fiscal policy), affects the school system’s ability to
provide educational services.
Information and Analysis Content
The analysis of potential effects on education in the ER is to include the following
information.
1.

The information developed for Section 3.4 on the incremental work force, in-migrating
population, the number of school-age children, and their residential locations during the
refurbishment period.

For each school system that may be affected, information on the classroom capacity and
student-teacher ratio projected to exist at the time of peak refurbishment work force.
Document discussions with the potentially affected school systems as to whether the
projected increase in students will stress the capacity of the school system.

If educational resources will be stressed by the additional students during the refurbishment
period, identify, in coordination with the school officials, what mitigation measures would
be appropriate. Describe these measures and state which, if any, will be taken. Briefly
explain the rationale for not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

4.17

Offsite Land Use
4.17.1 Refurbishment
Table B-1 concludes that
Impacts may be of moderate significance at plants in low population areas.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(I) requires in part that

Section 3.7.4.1 states: “In general, small impacts are associated with project-related enrollment increases of 3 percent or less.
Impacts are considered small if there is no change in the school systems’ abilities to provide educational services and if no
additional teaching staff or classroom space is needed. Moderate impacts generally are associated with 4 to 8 percent
increases in enrollment. Impacts are considered moderate if a school system must increase its teaching staff or classroom
space even slightly to preserve its pre-project level of service. . . . Large impacts are associated with project-related
enrollment increases above 8 percent.”

4.2-S-41

An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on . . . land-use . . . within the
vicinity of the plant must be provided.
This issue is discussed in Section 3.7.5 of NUREG-1437, in which general standards are
provided for determining the magnitude of land-use impacts.20 The phrase “vicinity of the plant”
used in the regulation and the phrase “study area” used in this footnote are synonymous. This area
is generally defined as the host county and municipality, as well as other counties or municipalities
in which a substantial segment of the in-migrating population would be expected to reside.
Impacts to off-site land use result when the development pressures resulting from the
project-related population increases result in changes to local land-use and development patterns.
Development pressures are closely tied to population increase impacts on housing covered in
Section 4.14. These changes can have either positive or negative impacts, depending upon the
value attributed to land-use changes by different individuals and groups. Cumulative land-use
impacts result when the project-associated population growth, combined with other population
growth and land-use pressures, induces changes to local land-use and development patterns.
Information and Analysis Content
The information and analyses developed in this section should build from the information
and analyses developed in Section 3.4 and Section 4.14 relevant to the period of refurbishment. If
there will be no additional workers due to refurbishment, there will be no impact on land-use and
no further analysis is required. If the population and growth control criteria given in Section 4.14
resulted in a determination that “. . . the impact on housing is expected to be minor and no further
analysis of project-specific impacts to housing is required,” it is likely that offsite land-use impacts
will also be minor. In any case, further screening for land-use impacts is appropriate. If the
applicant can demonstrate the validity of the following three conditions, it may be concluded that
the effects of refurbishment-related population growth on land-use and development patterns will
be small, and no further analysis is needed.

(1)

Project-related population growth (including direct and indirect workers and their
families), when added to other anticipated or reasonably foreseeable population
growth, would not increase existing area population by more than 5 percent.

(2)

The project area has established development patterns. Established development
patterns are indicated if the community has established land use controls or
infrastructure in place to support reasonably foreseeable development.

In Section 3.7.5 of NUREG-1437 it is stated that:
Generally, if plant related population growth is less than 5 percent of the study area’s total population, off-site land-use
changes would be small, especially if the study area has established patterns of residential and commercial development, a
population density of at least 60 persons per square mile (2.6 km2), and at least one urban area with a population of 100,000
or more within 80 km (50 miles).
If refurbishment-related growth is between 5 and 20 percent of the study area’s total population, moderate new land-use
changes can be expected. Such impacts would most likely occur when the study area has established patterns of residential
and commercial development, a population density of 30 to 60 persons per square mile (2.6 km2), and one urban area within
80 km (50 miles).
... Large impacts were not induced at any site by population growth.

4.2-S-42

(3)

The project area is not extremely isolated or sparsely populated. Extreme isolation
is indicated if the area is more than 50 miles (80 km) from the nearest urban area
with a population of 100,000 or more; sparsely populated is indicated if the
population density is less than 60/mile2 (21/km2) within a 20-mile (32-km) radius
from the plant.

If any of these cannot be demonstrated, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action
on off-site land use should be provided in the ER.
The assessment should consider the size of the peak incremental labor force (onsite and
indirect) associated with the project, the number of workers expected to commute daily, the number
expected to migrate to the area and require temporary or permanent housing, the potential demand
for new temporary or permanent housing as determined in the analysis of potential housing effects,
land-use controls in the area, and the physical infrastructure in place in the area. If refurbishment
and refueling workers are to be on-site simultaneously, the analysis should consider the combined
work forces. Similarly, the analysis of impacts from post-relicensing refueling and maintenance
activities should consider potential effects of the total number of temporary refueling/maintenance
workers. Section 3.7.5 of NUREG-1437 provides definitions of small, moderate, and large landuse impacts.
Information in the ER for the analysis of potential effects on land use should include the
following.
1.

The information and analysis developed in Section 4.14.1 should be referenced.

A description of land-use controls, zoning, or restrictions in the area, including reasonably
foreseeable future changes.

A description of land-use patterns in the area, including the scale and type of commercial
development and the housing stock (see Section 4.14.1).

A description of existing and planned infrastructure (including gas, water, sewer, and power
lines and roads).

An analysis of the potential for population changes arising from refurbishment to cause
changes in patterns of land use. If potential changes in land use are identified, assess their
significance. Document discussions with local planning authorities as to their assessment
of the significance of any changes in patterns of land use.

If the local planning authorities believe the potential changes in land use are significant,
identify, in coordination with the authorities, mitigation measures that would be
appropriate. Describe these measures and state which, if any, will be taken and briefly
explain the rationale for not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.
4.17.2 License Renewal Term
Table B-1 states
4.2-S-43

Significant changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue
changes resulting from license renewal.
Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) requires, in part, that
An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on . . . land-use . . . within the
vicinity of the plant must be provided.
This issue is addressed in Section 4.7.4 of NUREG-1437. The specifics of the magnitude of
land-use change and impact predictor criteria, and the definition of the term “vicinity of the plant,”
are as given in Section 4.17.1 of this guide. Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 partially misstates the
conclusion reached in Section 4.7.4 of NUREG-1437. Section 4.7.4 concludes that “populationdriven land-use changes during the license renewal term at all nuclear plants will be small.” A
Category 2 finding for land-use changes during the license renewal term was made because of
potential tax-driven land-use changes and the inability to reach a generic conclusion as to whether
communities would see such changes as negative or positive. Until Table B-1 is changed,
applicants need only cite NUREG-1437 to address population-induced land-use change during the
license renewal term.
During the license renewal term, new land-use impacts could result from plant-related
population growth or from the use of tax payments from the plant by local government to provide
public services that encourage development. The resulting changes can have either positive or
negative impacts, depending upon the value attributed to land-use changes by different individuals
and groups. Cumulative land-use impacts result when tax revenues generated by the plant combine
with land-use pressures (e.g., rapid, unexpected population growth) to induce changes to local
land-use and development patterns.
Information and Analysis Content
The assessment should consider the size of the plant-generated revenues relative to the total
revenues of the taxing jurisdictions, land-use controls in the area, and the physical infrastructure in
place in the area.
Information for the analysis of potential effects on land use includes the following.
1.

The information and analyses developed in Section 4.14.2 should be referenced.

A description of land-use controls, zoning, or restrictions in the area, including reasonably
foreseeable future changes.

A description of land-use patterns in the area, including the scale and type of commercial
development and the housing stock (see Section 4.14.1).

A description of existing and planned infrastructure (gas, water, sewer, and power lines,
roads).

4.2-S-44

An estimate of the tax or other revenue to be paid to local governmental jurisdictions during
the license renewal term (considering all tax payments by the plant—not just the increment
arising from refurbishment-related improvements—whether paid directly to local
jurisdictions or indirectly through State tax revenue-sharing programs). Relevant
jurisdictions include the State, city, county, school district, or other special purpose districts
in which the plant is located.

The total revenue for the current year of the taxing jurisdictions and an estimate of total
revenue during the plant’s license renewal term.

If potential changes in land use are identified, assess their significance. Discuss with local
planning authorities whether tax revenue changes during the license renewal term will cause
land-use changes in their jurisdiction. Document discussions with local planning authorities
as to their assessment of the significance of any anticipated changes in patterns of land use.

4.18

Transportation
Table B-1 states that
Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic generated during plant
refurbishment and during the term of the renewed license are generally expected to
be of small significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with the
additional workers and the local road and traffic control conditions may lead to
impacts of moderate or large significance at some sites.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(J) requires that
All applicants shall assess the impact of highway traffic generated by the proposed
project on the level of service of local highways during periods of license renewal
refurbishment activities and during the term of the renewed license.
These impacts are addressed in Sections 3.7.4.2 and 4.7.3.2 of NUREG-1437.
Transportation impacts are related to the total size of the work force and to the prevailing
road and traffic conditions at the time of the project. Transportation effects result when projectrelated traffic induces a change in the level of service (LOS)21 such that LOS of C or higher occurs
on highway segments or intersections in the vicinity of the plant. Section 3.7.4.2 states that

Level of service is defined in Section 3.7.4.2 of NUREG-1437. See also Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity
Manual, Special Rpt 209, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1985.

4.2-S-45

LOS A and B are associated with small impacts because operation of individual users
is not substantially affected by the presence of other users. At this level, no delays
occur and no improvements are needed. LOS C and D are associated with moderate
impacts because the operation of individual users begins to be severely restricted by
other users, and at level D small increases in traffic cause operational problems.
Consequently, upgrading of roads or additional control systems may be required.
LOS E and F are associated with large impacts because the use of the roadway is at or
above capacity level, causing breakdowns in flow that result in long traffic delays and
potentially increased accident rates. Major renovations of existing roads or additional
roads may be needed to accommodate the traffic flow.
NUREG-1437 defines small, moderate, and large impacts to transportation in Section
3.7.4.2. Cumulative transportation impacts are the result of project-related traffic increases coupled
with traffic increases resulting from other activities (e.g., other large construction projects or new
economic development) in the area. Although plant-related traffic will use highway segments not
in the vicinity of the plant, such traffic likely will be dispersed over a number of roads. Highway
segments and intersections that are a considerable distance from the plant may need to be assessed
if the majority of project-related traffic will flow through them.
Information and Analysis Content
The information to analyze potential impacts to transportation includes the following.22
1.

From the refurbishment and license renewal term employment information provided in
Section 3.4, “Employment,” estimate the daily traffic associated with refurbishment
activities and with the license renewal term. The estimate should include commuting
workers (including refueling workers if the refueling and refurbishment activities will occur
simultaneously) and shipments of materials. The effect of carpooling and the availability
and use of public transportation should be considered in the estimate. Peak traffic times
should be determined or estimated.

A forecast, for both periods, of the highway segments and interchanges likely to be affected
by the increased traffic, inferred from current traffic patterns associated with operations and
refueling workers.

Information on recent LOS, capacity, and usage for highway segments and intersections
forecast to be impact areas. State or county departments of transportation typically maintain
these data.

Information from local sources (e.g., government officials, planning and economic
development agencies) about ongoing and anticipated economic development (e.g., new
construction or industry in the area of the plant) and changes in road conditions that could
affect LOS and be a contributor to cumulative impacts.

The information required for assessment of the transportation issue is much the same as some of the information required for
the assessment of the air quality issue, in Section 4.11 of this guide.

4.2-S-46

Based on this information, the applicant, for both periods, should project the volume of
project-related traffic likely to occur at each segment, calculate the increase in traffic on
affected highway segments and intersections, and project the LOS that would result during
peak periods on each segment. Consultation with local and State departments of
transportation, who often have guidelines about how LOS is affected by an increase in
traffic volume given specific road conditions, should facilitate the LOS determination. The
analysis and the resulting LOS for each segment or intersection considered should be
documented in the ER.

A discussion of potential mitigation measures, commensurate with the projected level of
impact, should be included in the ER. Mitigation measures could include, for example,
adjusting shift change time to nonpeak traffic times, busing, or road and traffic control
improvements. The applicant should estimate the potential effect of the mitigation
measures, include this assessment in the ER, and briefly explain the rationale for not
implementing the measures that were considered but rejected.

4.19

Historic and Archaeological Resources
Table B-1 states that
Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are expected to have no
more than small adverse impacts on historic and archaeological resources.
However, the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Federal agency to
consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether there are
properties present that require protection.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(K) requires that
All applicants shall assess whether any historic or archaeological properties will be
affected by the proposed project.
This issue is discussed in Section 3.7.7 and Section 4.7.7 of NUREG-1437.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470w-6, in
Section 106, requires that Federal agencies take into account the effects of the agency’s undertaking
(including issuance of a license) on properties included in or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places and, prior to approval of an undertaking, to afford the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The procedure for meeting
Section 106 reguirements is defined in regulations of the Advisory Council, “Protection of Historic
Properties” (36 CFR Part 800). The guidance that follows instructs the applicant as to the
information and analysis that is required for the NRC to comply with Section 106 requirements in a
manner that minimizes the potential for the consultation process with the Advisory Council to
delay review of the application. The applicant should also consider the effects on properties that
are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places but, nevertheless, are likely to be

4.2-S-47

considered by the State Historic Preservation Officer or local historians to have local historic value
and to contribute substantially to an area’s sense of historic character.23
Information and Analysis Content
The ER should include the following information.
1.

From Chapter 3 of this guide, identify those refurbishment and license renewal term
activities that could affect onsite or offsite historic properties.24 Such activities would
include ground disturbing activity, increases in traffic, and audio and visual intrusions.

On a copy of the site map or, if appropriate, the site vicinity map included in Chapter 2,
identify the areas of potential effects if historic properties were to be found.

On the map, identify historic properties that may be affected. All on-site historic properties
and any off-site historic properties located in or near areas of potential effects should be
identified. These properties should be described in the text. Properties can be identified by
referring to the “National Register of Historic Places,” 36 CFR Part 60; consultation with
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), local preservation officials, and nearby
Native American Tribal officials; and field surveys.

If historic properties are found in or near areas of potential effects, assess those effects.
Criteria of effect and adverse effect are given in 36 CFR 800.9. Applicants are encouraged
to involve the SHPO and local historic preservation officials in the assessment. The
assessment should lead to one of three conclusions.
1.
2.
3.

No effect: the undertaking will not affect historic properties;
No adverse effect: the undertaking will affect one or more historic
properties, but the effect will not be harmful;
Adverse effect: the undertaking will harm one or more historic properties.

If an adverse effect will occur, the applicant, in consultation with the SHPO and other
interested parties should identify measures to make the refurbishment or license renewal
term activities less harmful.

4.20

Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
Table B-1 states that

This criterion is a NEPA consideration, not related to NHPA requirements.

Historic property is defined in 36 CFR 800.2(e): “Historic property means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building,
structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register. This term includes, for the purposes of these
regulations, artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term ‘eligible for
inclusion in the National Register’ includes both properties formally determined as such by the Secretary of the Interior and
all other properties that meet National Register listing criteria.” National Register criteria for listing are found in 36 CFR
Part 60.

4.2-S-48

The probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open
bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts from
severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe
accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such
alternatives.
Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that
If the staff has not previously considered severe accident mitigation alternatives for
the applicant’s plant in an environmental impact statement or related supplement or
in an environmental assessment, a consideration of alternatives to mitigate severe
accidents must be provided.
Severe accident mitigation alternatives are discussed in Section 5.4 of NUREG-1437.
The analyses performed for Chapter 5, “Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents,” of
NUREG-1437 represent adequate, plant-specific estimates of the environmental impacts of severe
accidents. However, the Commission determined that a site-specific consideration of severe
accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) will be required at the time of license renewal unless a
previous consideration of such alternatives regarding plant operation has been included in a final
environmental impact statement, or final environmental assessment, or a related supplement. The
applicant should provide the relevant citation. If no such citations exist, the applicant should
provide the following information.
Information and Analysis Content
The identification of possible SAMAs and evaluation of their merits should use the
information and analyses developed for the plant-specific individual plant examination (IPE) for
severe accident vulnerabilities (and modifications made subsequent thereto) and, when available,
the plant-specific individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE) for severe accident
vulnerabilities (e.g., earthquakes, fires, winds). If an IPEEE has not been completed, the applicant
may use the results of IPEEEs performed for other plants, adjusted for plant-specific variables. In
preparing the SAMA analyses, applicants may be guided by analyses performed for previous
applications for renewal of operating licenses and by the NRC for Watts Bar Unit 1 Nuclear Power
Plant, NUREG-0498, Supplement 1, “Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,” April 1995,2 and supplements to NUREG-1437.2 In
structuring the analysis, the applicant should consider the methodology presented in NUREG/BR0184, “Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook,” January 1997.2
The results of the following analytical steps should be presented in the ER, and the
methodology or analytical process should be described.
1.

Based on the plant-specific risk study and supplementary analyses, identify and characterize
the leading contributors to core damage frequency and offsite risk (i.e., population dose).
The frequency and contributors to core damage frequency and large release frequency are
generally available from the plant-specific risk study, such as the IPE. Development of
4.2-S-49

offsite risk information may require additional site-specific analyses if the existing risk
study does not include an assessment of offsite consequences.
2.

From the IPEEE and any other external event analyses, provide estimates of the incremental
contribution to dose consequence risk identified from the IPE.

Identify practical physical plant modifications and plant procedural and administrative
changes that can reduce severe accident dose consequence risk. For each modification or
change, estimate the approximate reduction in risk.

Estimate the value of the reduction in risk. Value is usually calculated for public health,
occupational health, offsite property, and onsite property. A detailed discussion of
calculating values is found in Chapter 5 of NUREG/BR-0184.

Estimate the approximate cost of each modification and procedural and administrative
change found to reduce the dose consequence risk of severe accidents. Potential SAMAs
that are not expected to be cost beneficial, even when uncertainties in the analysis (e.g., a
factor of 10) are taken into consideration, may be screened out based on a bounding
analysis.

Perform a more detailed value-impact analysis for remaining SAMAs to identify any plant
modifications and procedural changes that may be cost effective (see Chapter 5 of
NUREG/BR-0184).

List plant modifications and procedural changes (if any) that have or will be implemented to
reduce the severe accident dose consequence risk.

4.21

Transportation of Radiological Waste

This is a Category 1 issue and the impacts are small as long as the fuel used is not enriched
beyond 5 percent uranium-235 and average burnup for the peak rod does not exceed 62,000
Mwd/MTU.
Table B-1states that
The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235 with
average burnup for the peak rod to current levels approved by NRC up to 62,000
MWd/MTU and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to a
repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada are found to be consistent with the
impact values contained in Summary Table S-4—Environmental Impact of Fuel and
Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. If fuel
enrichment or burnup conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an
assessment of the implications for the environmental values reported in Sec. 51.52.
This issue is discussed in Section 5.4 and Section 5.5.2.5 of NUREG-1437, which has been
updated by Volume 1, Addendum 1, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
4.2-S-50

Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report Section 6.3—`Transportation,’ Table 9.1, `Summary of
findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,’ Final Report,”2 August
1999.
Addendum 1 provided the technical basis to the final rule, 64 FR 48496, September 3,
1999, that changed the transportation of fuel and waste from a Category 2 issue to Category 1. The
staff is closely monitoring industry and NRC programs that would lead to fuel burnup higher than
62,000 MWd/MTU to modify the September 3, 1999, rule in a timely manner. Meanwhile, any
potential applicant for license renewal seeking approval for burnup beyond 62,000 MWd/MTU
should request early guidance from the NRC staff on how to handle this issue in the ER.
4.22

Environmental Justice
Table B-1 states that
The need for and the content of an analysis of environmental justice will be
addressed in plant-specific reviews.

Environmental justice was not reviewed in NUREG-1437. Executive Order 12898,
“Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations,” issued on February 11, 1994, is designed to focus the attention of Federal agencies on
the human health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities.25 The
NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) is guided in its consideration of environmental
justice by Attachment 4, “NRR Procedures for Environmental Justice Reviews,” to NRR Office
Letter No. 906, Revision 2, “Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and
Considering Environmental Issues,” September 21, 1999. NRR Office Letter No. 906 is revised
periodically. The environmental justice review involves identifying off-site environmental impacts,
their geographic locations, minority and low-income populations that may be affected, the
significance of such effects and whether they are disproportionately high and adverse compared to
the population at large within the geographic area, and if so, what mitigative measures are
available, and which will be implemented. The NRC staff will perform the environmental justice
review to determine whether there will be disproportionately high human heath and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations and report the review in its SEIS. The staff’s
review will be based on information provided in the ER and developed during the staff’s sitespecific scoping process.
Information and Analysis Content
The ER should include the following information to assist the staff in its environmental
justice review.
1.

From Chapter 2, provide by political jurisdiction the composition of minority and lowincome persons within 80 km (50 miles) of the plant. Migrant workers as well as full time
Minority categories are defined as Black/African American; American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut; Asian or Pacific Islander;
other non-white; and Hispanic origin. Low-income is defined as being below the poverty level as defined by the Bureau of the
Census.

4.2-S-51

residents should be included. Provide these data by census tract/block for those geographic
areas where the potential has been identified in Chapter 4 for adverse impacts from
refurbishment and from continued operation during the renewal term. The most recent
Bureau of the Census demographic information should be supplemented with demographic
information from State and local planning agencies.
2.

Identify in Chapter 4, Chapter 5, and Chapter 6 the geographic location of each
environmental impact and proposed mitigating action addressed.

CHAPTER 5. ASSESSMENT OF NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION
The regulatory requirement to report new and significant information of which the applicant
is aware and the definition of new and significant information is discussed in the “General
Guidance” section in the Introduction of this regulatory guide. While the identification of new and
significant information may result from the scoping process (including the staff’s site visit) and
from public comments on the draft SEIS, it is appropriate for the applicant to identify any new and
significant information early. To achieve early identification, the NRC encourages the applicant, as
it develops the ER, to employ methods that will reveal potential new and significant information.
To the extent the following information exists, it should be summarized in this chapter of the ER.
1.

Describe the information gathering and review process used in developing this ER. Explain
how the process would result in the identification of new and significant information
concerning Category 1 issues and issues not listed in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR
Part 51. The explanation should address (1) the methods used by the applicant that will
make it cognizant of new information, if it exists, and (2) the process for evaluating the
significance of new information, if found. Examples of means for identifying new
information include review of environmental monitoring results, review of related scientific
literature, surveys of the applicant’s environmental and operations staff, exchange of
information among licensees through peer groups and industry organizations, consultations
with academicians knowledgeable of the local environment, and consultations with Federal,
State, Tribal, and local environmental, natural resource, permitting, and land use agencies.
The description of the review process for evaluating new information for significance
should include the organizational procedures for handling reports of new information and
the criteria used to determine the applicability of such information. An applicant who is not
cognizant of any new and significant information should so state in the ER.

Describe any new and significant information identified and the associated environmental
impacts.

For each impact, describe mitigation measures that were considered and the measures that
will be implemented.

Detailed supporting documentation need not be included in the ER, but should be available
for review by the NRC. Supporting documentation may include (1) a general description of the
participants involved, their organizational affiliations, how they interact among themselves, and the
role that they served in the process; (2) a description of consultations with academicians and
4.2-S-52

Federal, State, Tribal, and local environmental natural resource, permitting, and land use agencies;
and (3) a description of new information that was identified and the assessment of its significance.

CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY OF LICENSE RENEWAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING
ACTIONS
6.1

License Renewal Impacts

This section should provide a summary, preferably in tabular form, of the environmental
impacts related to license renewal for the plant. The summaries should be descriptive and
informative rather than evaluative or comparative. The presentation of material should be
organized by environmental resource area, such as the subject areas used in Table B-1.
6.2

Mitigation

This section should provide a summary, preferably in tabular form, of each mitigative action
committed to in this ER.
6.3

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

This section should summarize “Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be
avoided should the proposal be implemented,” as required by 10 CFR 51.45(b)(2). Unavoidable
adverse effects should be identified in Chapters 4 and 5, in detail commensurate with the
significance of the effects.
6.4

Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments

This section should summarize “any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources
which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented,” as required by 10 CFR
51.45(b)(5). Irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources include energy and materials
consumed, resources and materials committed over the license renewal term, and additional waste
materials that will be generated by extended operations. In addition to summarizing irreversible
and irretrievable resource commitments discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, this section should briefly
describe the magnitude and significance of irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources
that are not addressed in those sections. Discussions should be proportionate to the significance of
the resource commitments.
6.5

Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity of the Environment

This section should summarize “the relationship between local short-term uses of man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” as required by 10
CFR 51.45(b)(4). For operational impacts, short-term may be taken to mean the operating life of
the plant and long-term should be taken to be the period beginning after the end of its licensed
operating life and continuing as long as the past operations of the plant could have discernible
impacts. For refurbishment impacts, short-term may be taken to include the refurbishment period
4.2-S-53

and long-term may be taken to be the period beginning with the completion of refurbishment.
Long-term should be interpreted in the context of the nature of the affected resource. For some
resources, there may be no long-term impacts, such as those affected by refurbishment or
operations that return to normal conditions after operations cease). For other resources, there may
be only long-term impacts, such as global warming impacts of increasing or reducing combustion
of fossil fuels.
The discussion should recognize that license renewal may have both adverse and beneficial
impacts on the long-term productivity of the environment. The term “productivity” should be
interpreted broadly, to include both the productivity of resources useful for human activity and the
productivity and stability of ecological systems, even those that are not used directly by humankind.
Chapter 7.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

Regarding alternatives, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) states in part that
. . . [T]he applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of
alternatives and any other matters described in § 51.45. The report is not required to
include discussion of need for power or economic costs and economic benefits of
the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such
costs and benefits are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of
an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. The
environmental report need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental
effects of the proposed action and the alternatives.
Requirements for the treatment of alternatives in an EIS are presented in Section 5 of
Appendix A to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. These requirements are consistent with the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14), which
require that an EIS26
(a)

(b)

(f)

Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and
for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss
the reasons for their having been eliminated.
Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail
including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their
comparative merits.
Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
Include the alternative of no action.
Identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in
the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another
law prohibits the expression of such a preference.
Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed
action or alternatives.

Additional guidance on alternatives is provided by CEQ’s “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations” (46 FR 18026, March 23, 1981, and as amended 51 FR 15618, April 25, 1986).

4.2-S-54

In deciding whether or not to approve license renewal, the NRC will consider the
environmental impacts of alternatives as well as those of the proposed action. The NRC considers
environmental effects of license renewal according to 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5).
In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant to Part 54 of this
chapter, the Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse environmental
impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal
for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
7.1

No-Action Alternative

For license renewal, the no-action alternative is defined as the alternative of not renewing
the license. At license expiration, plant operations would terminate and decommissioning activities
would commence. The environmental impacts of terminating nuclear power plant operations and
decommissioning are discussed in Section 8.4 of NUREG-1437. The ER should contain an
analysis of the no-action alternative, including impacts on land use, water quality, air quality,
ecological resources, human health, social and economic stucture, waste management, aesthetics,
and cultural resources. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts should be considered. The level of
effort expended on impact analyses of alternatives should be commensurate with the significance of
the impacts. Material from NUREG-1437 may be summarized and incorporated by reference to the
extent it is applicable.
7.2

Alternatives that Meet System Generating Needs

7.2.1 Alternatives Considered
The range of alternatives to be considered should be focused by the stated purpose and need
for the proposed action. The statement of purpose and need adopted by the NRC and stated in
NUREG-1437 and in Chapter 1 of this regulatory guide focuses on meeting future power system
generating needs. Alternatives that meet the stated purpose and need are (1) build new generating
capacity, (2) purchase the power from outside the system, and (3) reduce power requirements
through demand reduction. The ER should demonstrate that the applicant has considered these or
similar alternatives. The applicant should identify the criteria used in evaluating the reasonableness
of the alternatives and explain which alternatives will not be considered further and why. The ER
should identify the alternatives that will be carried forward for comparison with license renewal.
The ER should discuss the extent to which these alternatives have been considered by State
authorities (e.g., public service commissions and environmental, natural resource, or energy
agencies) and how such considerations relate to the applicant’s evaluation.
7.2.2 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
This section should describe the impacts of the alternatives identified for further
consideration. The impacts should be described in sufficient detail so that reviewers may compare
the adverse and beneficial impacts of the alternatives with those of renewing the operating license.
Impact analyses should consider land use, water quality, air quality, ecological resources, human
health, social and economic systems, waste management, aesthetics, and cultural resources. The
impacts analyses should include direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. For each alternative, the
analysis should identify and, to the extent possible, quantify, unavoidable adverse impacts,
4.2-S-55

irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments, and tradeoffs between short-term use and
long-term productivity of the environment. To the extent possible, each alternative should be
analyzed on a site- or region-specific basis. Each impact should be analyzed in proportion to its
significance. Chapter 8 of NUREG-1437 includes the results of an analysis of the generic
environmental impacts of several electricity generating technologies. These results may be utilized
to the extent that they are applicable.

Chapter 8. COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF
LICENSE RENEWAL WITH THE ALTERNATIVES
This section should present the impacts of the proposed action, the no action alternative,
and other reasonable alternatives in comparative form in order to sharply define the issues and
provide a clear basis for the NRC to “determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts
of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning
decisionmakers would be unreasonable.” This comparison may be presented in any of several
formats. Often the comparison is presented in a tabular format such as Tables 8.1 and 8.2 of
NUREG-1437. The comparison should emphasize the more significant impacts of each alternative.

Chapter 9. STATUS OF COMPLIANCE
According to 10 CFR 51.45(d), an applicant must discuss the status of compliance in the
ER.
The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, licenses, approvals and other
entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed action and
shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental
report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable
environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to,
applicable zoning and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution
limitations or requirements which have been imposed by Federal, State, regional,
and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection.
Appendix H of Volume 2 of NUREG-14372 summarizes the major Federal statutes that may
relate to license renewal applications.

4.2-S-56

REGULATORY ANALYSIS
A separate regulatory analysis was not prepared for this regulatory guide. NUREG-1440,
“Regulatory Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for the Environmental Review for Renewal of
Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses” (May 1996), provides the regulatory basis for this guide.
NUREG-1440 was prepared for the amendment to 10 CFR Part 51 with respect to requirements for
the environmental review for renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses, which was
promulgated on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537). A copy of NUREG-1440 is available for
inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; phone (202)634-3273; fax (202)634-3343. In addition, copies may
be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, PO Box
37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available for purchase from the National
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

ADAMS Accession Number
ML003710495

4.2-S-57

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	C:\RG 4.2 Supp 1.wpd
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	0000-00-00