Download:
pdf |
pdfNUREG-1437, Volume 1
Revision 2
Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants
Main Report
Chapters 1–8
Draft Report for Comment
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS
IN NRC PUBLICATIONS
NRC Reference Material
Non-NRC Reference Material
As of November 1999, you may electronically access
NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at the
NRC’s Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly
released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series
publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, licensee,
and vendor documents and correspondence; NRC
correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins and
information notices; inspection and investigative reports;
licensee event reports; and Commission papers and their
attachments.
Documents available from public and special technical
libraries include all open literature items, such as books,
journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices,
Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports.
Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports
and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings
may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.
NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations,
and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of Federal Regulations
may also be purchased from one of these two sources:
1. The Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Publishing Office
Washington, DC 20402-0001
Internet: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/
Telephone: (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2104
2. The National Technical Information Service
5301 Shawnee Road
Alexandria, VA 22312-0002
Internet: https://www.ntis.gov/
1-800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000
A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is
available free, to the extent of supply, upon written
request as follows:
Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Administration
Digital Communications and Administrative
Services Branch
Washington, DC 20555-0001
E-mail: [email protected]
Facsimile: (301) 415-2289
Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted
at the NRC’s Web site address www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
doc-collections/nuregs are updated periodically and may
differ from the last printed version. Although references to
material found on a Web site bear the date the material
was accessed, the material available on the date cited
may subsequently be removed from the site.
Copies of industry codes and standards used in a
substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are
maintained at—
The NRC Technical Library
Two White Flint North
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852-2738
These standards are available in the library for reference
use by the public. Codes and standards are usually
copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating
organization or, if they are American National Standards,
from—
American National Standards Institute
11 West 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036-8002
Internet: www.ansi.org
(212) 642-4900
Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in
laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical
specifications; or orders, not in NUREG-series publications.
The views expressed in contractor prepared publications in
this series are not necessarily those of the NRC.
The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and
administrative reports and books prepared by the staff
(NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR–XXXX),
(2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP–XXXX),
(3) reports resulting from international agreements
(NUREG/IA–XXXX),(4) brochures (NUREG/BR–XXXX), and
(5) compilations of legal decisions and orders of the
Commission and the Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and
of Directors’ decisions under Section 2.206 of the NRC’s
regulations (NUREG-0750), (6) Knowledge Management
prepared by NRC staff or agency contractors (NUREG/KMXXXX).
DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account of work
sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the
U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any employee,
makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any
legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use, or the
results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed in this publication, or represents that its use
by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.
NUREG-1437, Volume 1
Revision 2
Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants
Main Report
Chapters 1–8
Draft Report for Comment
Manuscript Completed: February 2023
Date Published: February 2023
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT
Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff.
Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please
specify the report number NUREG-1437, Revision 2 in your comments, and send them by the
end of the comment period specified in the Federal Register notice announcing the availability
of this report.
Addresses: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include
Docket ID NRC-2018-0296 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in
writing or in electronic form will be posted on the NRC website and on the Federal rulemaking
website http://www.regulations.gov.
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents
filed under Docket ID NRC-2018-0296.
Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive an automatic
email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 205550001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
For any questions about the material in this report, please contact: Jennifer Davis, Senior
Environmental Project Manager, or Kevin Folk, Senior Environmental Project Manager, at
1-800-368-5642, extension 3835 or 6944 (respectively), or by e-mail at [email protected]
or [email protected].
Please be aware that any comments that you submit to the NRC will be considered a public
record and entered into the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS). Do not provide information you would not want to be publicly available.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
ii
February 2023
1
COVER SHEET
2
3
Responsible Agency: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
4
5
Title: Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
(NUREG-1437) Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 2
6
7
For additional information or copies of this Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, contact:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Jennifer A. Davis, Senior Environmental Project Manager
Kevin T. Folk, Senior Environmental Project Manager
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Mail Stop T-4B72
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 3835 or 6944
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
ABSTRACT
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations allow for the renewal of commercial
nuclear power plant operating licenses. There are no specific limitations in the Atomic Energy
Act or the NRC’s regulations restricting the number of times a license may be renewed. To
support license renewal environmental reviews, the NRC published the first Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS) in 1996.
Per NRC regulations, a review and update of the LR GEIS is conducted every 10 years, if
necessary. The proposed action is the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Since publication of the 1996 LR GEIS, 59 nuclear power plants (96 reactor units) have
undergone license renewal environmental reviews and have received renewed licenses, the
results of which were published as supplements to the LR GEIS. This revision evaluates the
issues and findings of the 2013 LR GEIS (Revision 1). Lessons learned and knowledge gained
from initial license renewal (initial LR) and subsequent license renewal (SLR) environmental
reviews provide major sources of new information for this assessment. In addition, new
research, findings, public comments, changes in applicable laws and regulations, and other
information were considered in evaluating the environmental impacts associated with license
renewal. Additionally, this revision fully considers and evaluates the environmental impacts of
one term of SLR as well as initial LR.
35
36
37
38
39
40
The purpose of the LR GEIS is to identify and evaluate environmental issues that could result in
the same or similar impact at all nuclear power plants (or a distinct subset of plants) (i.e.,
generic issues) and determine which issues could result in different levels of impact, thus
requiring nuclear power plant-specific environmental analyses for impact determination. The
NRC has identified a total of 80 environmental issues for consideration in license renewal
reviews, 59 of which have been evaluated in the LR GEIS and their impacts determined to be
February 2023
iii
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1
2
3
applicable to license renewal for all nuclear power plants or a subset of plants. The LR GEIS
also discusses a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (initial LR or SLR),
which would be analyzed in detail in plant-specific supplements to the LR GEIS.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This NUREG provides voluntary guidance for implementing the mandatory information
collections in 10 CFR Part 51 that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 3150-0021. Send comments regarding
these information collections to the FOIA, Library, and Information Collections Branch
(T6A10M), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or by email to
[email protected], and to the OMB reviewer at: OMB Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (3150-0021). Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; email: [email protected].
29
Public Protection Notification
30
31
32
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for
information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a
currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
iv
February 2023
1
CONTENTS
2
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. iii
3
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xi
4
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... xiii
5
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE ................................. xxi
6
SHORTENED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NAMES USED IN THIS REPORT ..................... xxvii
7
CONVERSION TABLE ............................................................................................................ xxix
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... xxxi
S.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ........................................................ xxxiii
S.2 Development of the Revised Generic Environmental Impact Statement ............. xxxiv
S.3 Impact Definitions and Categories ........................................................................ xxxv
S.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................... xxxvi
S.5 Impacts from Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities Associated
with License Renewal (Initial or Subsequent) ..................................................... xxxvii
S.6 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................... xlvii
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
1.0
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the LR GEIS ......................................................................................... 1-2
1.2 Description of the Proposed Action......................................................................... 1-3
1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ........................................................... 1-3
1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ........................................................................ 1-4
1.5 Analytical Approach Used in the LR GEIS .............................................................. 1-4
1.5.1
Objectives ................................................................................................ 1-4
1.5.2
Methodology............................................................................................. 1-4
1.6 Scope of the LR GEIS Revision .............................................................................. 1-6
1.7 Decisions to Be Supported by the LR GEIS ........................................................... 1-8
1.7.1
Changes to Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Systems ................................. 1-9
1.7.2
Disposition of Spent Nuclear Fuel .......................................................... 1-10
1.7.3
Emergency Preparedness ...................................................................... 1-12
1.7.4
Safeguards and Security ........................................................................ 1-14
1.7.5
Need for Power ...................................................................................... 1-14
1.7.6
Seismicity, Flooding, and Other Natural Hazards .................................. 1-15
1.8 Implementation of the Rule (10 CFR Part 51)....................................................... 1-15
1.8.1
General Requirements ........................................................................... 1-15
1.8.2
Applicant’s Environmental Report .......................................................... 1-15
1.8.3
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement .................................... 1-16
1.8.4
Public Scoping and Public Comments ................................................... 1-16
1.8.5
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ........................... 1-16
1.8.6
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ........................... 1-16
February 2023
v
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Contents
1
2
3
1.9 Public Scoping Comments on the LR GEIS Update ............................................. 1-17
1.10 Lessons Learned .................................................................................................. 1-18
1.11 Organization of the LR GEIS ................................................................................ 1-19
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2.0
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................................ 2-1
2.1 Proposed Action...................................................................................................... 2-2
2.1.1
Nuclear Plant Operations during the License Renewal Term .................. 2-2
2.1.2
Refurbishment and Other Activities Associated with License
Renewal ................................................................................................... 2-3
2.1.3
Termination of Nuclear Plant Operations and Decommissioning
after License Renewal.............................................................................. 2-4
2.1.4
Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................... 2-5
2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 2-16
2.3 Alternative Energy Sources .................................................................................. 2-16
2.3.1
Fossil Fuel Energy Technologies ........................................................... 2-18
2.3.2
New Nuclear Energy Technologies ........................................................ 2-21
2.3.3
Renewable Energy Technologies .......................................................... 2-23
2.3.4
Non-Power Generating Alternatives ....................................................... 2-33
2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................... 2-36
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
3.0
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Description of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities and Operations ................................ 3-1
3.1.1
External Appearance and Settings ........................................................... 3-1
3.1.2
Nuclear Reactor Systems ........................................................................ 3-4
3.1.3
Cooling Water Systems .......................................................................... 3-13
3.1.4
Radioactive Waste Management Systems ............................................ 3-17
3.1.5
Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems ....................................... 3-21
3.1.6
Utility and Transportation Infrastructure ................................................. 3-22
3.1.7
Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Maintenance ............................... 3-24
3.2 Land Use and Visual Resources........................................................................... 3-25
3.2.1
Land Use ................................................................................................ 3-25
3.2.2
Visual Resources ................................................................................... 3-26
3.3 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise ..................................................................... 3-27
3.3.1
Meteorology and Climatology ................................................................. 3-27
3.3.2
Air Quality............................................................................................... 3-28
3.3.3
Noise ...................................................................................................... 3-33
3.4 Geologic Environment........................................................................................... 3-34
3.5 Water Resources .................................................................................................. 3-38
3.5.1
Surface Water Resources ...................................................................... 3-40
3.5.2
Groundwater Resources ........................................................................ 3-47
3.6 Ecological Resources ........................................................................................... 3-50
3.6.1
Terrestrial Resources ............................................................................. 3-50
3.6.2
Aquatic Resources ................................................................................. 3-54
3.6.3
Federally Protected Ecological Resources ............................................ 3-59
3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................... 3-84
3.7.1
Scope of Review .................................................................................... 3-84
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
vi
February 2023
Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
3.7.2
NEPA and NHPA ................................................................................... 3-85
3.7.3
Historic and Cultural Resources at Nuclear Power Plant Sites .............. 3-85
3.8 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................... 3-87
3.8.1
Power Plant Employment and Expenditures .......................................... 3-87
3.8.2
Regional Economic Characteristics ....................................................... 3-88
3.8.3
Demographic Characteristics ................................................................. 3-89
3.8.4
Housing and Community Services ......................................................... 3-90
3.8.5
Tax Revenue .......................................................................................... 3-91
3.8.6
Local Transportation .............................................................................. 3-92
3.9 Human Health ....................................................................................................... 3-92
3.9.1
Radiological Exposure and Risk ............................................................ 3-92
3.9.2
Nonradiological Hazards ...................................................................... 3-125
3.10 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................... 3-134
3.11 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention .................................................... 3-137
3.11.1 Radioactive Waste ............................................................................... 3-137
3.11.2 Hazardous Waste................................................................................. 3-144
3.11.3 Mixed Waste ........................................................................................ 3-144
3.11.4 Nonhazardous Waste........................................................................... 3-145
3.11.5 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization ...................................... 3-145
3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ............................................. 3-145
3.12.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................ 3-145
3.12.2 Observed Changes in Climate ............................................................. 3-150
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS .......................... 4-1
4.1 Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions ............................................ 4-2
4.1.1
Introduction .............................................................................................. 4-2
4.1.2
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ............................ 4-2
4.1.3
Environmental Consequences of Continued Operations and
Refurbishment Activities During the License Renewal Term
(Initial or Subsequent) .............................................................................. 4-3
4.1.4
Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ..................... 4-4
4.1.5
Environmental Consequences of Alternative Energy Sources ................. 4-5
4.1.6
Environmental Consequences of Terminating Nuclear Power Plant
Operations and Decommissioning ........................................................... 4-5
4.2 Land Use and Visual Resources............................................................................. 4-6
4.2.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action –
Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities................................ 4-6
4.2.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed
Action ....................................................................................................... 4-8
4.3 Air Quality and Noise ............................................................................................ 4-10
4.3.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action –
Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities.............................. 4-10
4.3.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed
Action ..................................................................................................... 4-17
4.4 Geologic Environment........................................................................................... 4-20
February 2023
vii
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action –
Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities.............................. 4-20
4.4.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed
Action ..................................................................................................... 4-21
Water Resources .................................................................................................. 4-22
4.5.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action –
Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities.............................. 4-23
4.5.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed
Action ..................................................................................................... 4-50
Ecological Resources ........................................................................................... 4-53
4.6.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action –
Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities.............................. 4-53
4.6.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed
Action ................................................................................................... 4-122
Historic and Cultural Resources ......................................................................... 4-126
4.7.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action –
Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities............................ 4-126
4.7.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed
Action ................................................................................................... 4-127
Socioeconomics .................................................................................................. 4-128
4.8.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action –
Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities............................ 4-128
4.8.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed
Action ................................................................................................... 4-132
Human Health ..................................................................................................... 4-134
4.9.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action –
Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities............................ 4-134
4.9.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed
Action ................................................................................................... 4-148
Environmental Justice ......................................................................................... 4-149
4.10.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action –
Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities............................ 4-149
4.10.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed
Action ................................................................................................... 4-151
Waste Management and Pollution Prevention .................................................... 4-151
4.11.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action –
Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities............................ 4-151
4.11.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed
Action ................................................................................................... 4-160
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ............................................. 4-161
4.12.1 Greenhouse Gas Impacts on Climate Change .................................... 4-162
4.12.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed
Action ................................................................................................... 4-163
4.12.3 Climate Change Impacts on Environmental Resources ....................... 4-164
Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ......................................................... 4-166
4.13.1 Air Quality............................................................................................. 4-168
4.4.1
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
viii
February 2023
Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
4.13.2 Surface Water Resources .................................................................... 4-168
4.13.3 Groundwater Resources ...................................................................... 4-168
4.13.4 Ecological Resources........................................................................... 4-169
4.13.5 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................... 4-169
4.13.6 Socioeconomics ................................................................................... 4-169
4.13.7 Human Health ...................................................................................... 4-170
4.13.8 Environmental Justice .......................................................................... 4-170
4.13.9 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention ..................................... 4-170
4.13.10 Climate Change ................................................................................... 4-170
4.14 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................... 4-171
4.14.1 Environmental Consequences of Fuel Cycles ..................................... 4-171
4.14.2 Replacement Energy Alternative Fuel Cycles ...................................... 4-184
4.14.3 Environmental Consequences of Terminating Operations and
Decommissioning ................................................................................. 4-187
4.15 Resource Commitments Associated with the Proposed Action .......................... 4-197
4.15.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ..................................... 4-197
4.15.2 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and
Long-Term Productivity ........................................................................ 4-198
4.15.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ..................... 4-199
20
5.0
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 5-1
21
6.0
LIST OF PREPARERS.................................................................................................... 6-1
22
7.0
DISTRIBUTION LIST ...................................................................................................... 7-1
23
8.0
GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................... 8-1
24
APPENDIX A – COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .................. A-1
25
26
27
APPENDIX B – COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND FINDINGS IN THIS
LR GEIS REVISION TO THE ISSUES AND FINDINGS IN TABLE B-1 OF
10 CFR PART 51 ............................................................................................ B-1
28
29
APPENDIX C – GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS
OF OPERATING DOMESTIC NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ........................ C-1
30
APPENDIX D – TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR LR GEIS ANALYSES .................................... D-1
31
APPENDIX E – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ..................... E-1
32
APPENDIX F – LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS ............................F-1
33
34
February 2023
ix
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
LIST OF FIGURES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Figure 2.3-1
Figure 2.3-2
Figure 2.3-3
Figure 2.3-4
Figure 2.3-5
Figure 2.3-6
Figure 2.3-7
Figure 2.3-8
Figure 2.3-9
Figure 2.3-10
Figure 2.3-11
Figure 2.3-12
Figure 2.3-13
Figure 3.1-1
Figure 3.1-2
Figure 3.1-3
Figure 3.1-4
Figure 3.3-1
Figure 3.4-1
Figure 3.4-2
Figure 3.6-1
Figure 3.9-1
Figure 3.9-2
Figure 3.9-3
Figure 3.11-1
Figure 3.11-2
Figure 3.12-1
Figure D.2-1
Figure D.2-2
Figure D.2-3
Figure D.5-1
February 2023
Schematic of a Natural Gas-Fired Plant ..................................................... 2-19
Schematic of a Coal-Fired Power Plant ...................................................... 2-20
Schematic of an Advanced Light Water Reactor. ....................................... 2-22
Schematic of a Light Water Small Modular Nuclear Reactor ..................... 2-23
Schematic of Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant ............................................ 2-25
Schematic of Concentrated Solar Power Plant .......................................... 2-26
Components of a Modern Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine ........................... 2-27
Major Offshore Wind Power Plant and Transmission Elements ................. 2-28
Cross Section of a Large Hydroelectric Plant ............................................. 2-29
Schematic of a Biomass/Waste-to-Energy Plant ........................................ 2-30
Schematic of a Hydrothermal Binary Power Plant ...................................... 2-31
Primary Types of Wave Energy Devices .................................................... 2-32
Components of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell ........................................................ 2-33
Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States .............. 3-5
Pressurized Water Reactor ........................................................................ 3-12
Boiling Water Reactor ................................................................................. 3-13
Schematic Diagrams of Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Systems ................. 3-18
Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Nonattainment
Areas, as of August 30, 2011 ..................................................................... 3-30
Occurrence of Prime Farmland and Other Farmland of Importance,
with Nuclear Power Plant Locations Shown ............................................... 3-36
2018 National Seismic Hazard Model Peak Horizontal Acceleration
with a 2 Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years with Nuclear
Power Plant Locations Shown .................................................................... 3-37
National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments ................. 3-82
Average, Median, and Extreme Values of the Collective Dose per
Boiling Water Reactors Reactor from 1994 to 2018 ................................. 3-101
Average, Median, and Extreme Values of the Collective Dose per
Pressurized Water Reactor from 1994 to 2018 ........................................ 3-102
Dose Distribution for All Commercial U.S. Reactors by Dose Range,
2014 through 2018 ................................................................................... 3-115
Typical Dry Cask Storage Systems .......................................................... 3-141
Locations of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations Licensed
by the NRC ............................................................................................... 3-143
Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Plants Relative to National
Climate Assessment Geographic Regions ............................................... 3-152
Average Annual Maximum Temperatures across the Continental
United States ............................................................................................... D-3
Average Annual Minimum Temperatures across the Continental
United States ............................................................................................... D-4
Average Annual Precipitation across the Continental United States ........... D-5
Level I Ecoregions of the United States .................................................... D-12
xi
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Figure E.3-1
Figure E.3-2
Figure E.3-3
Figure E.3-4
Figure E.3-5
Figure E.3-6
Figure E.3-7
Iodine Release to the Environment for SOARCA Unmitigated
Scenarios and the 1982 Siting Study SST1 Case ..................................... E-39
Cesium Release to the Environment for SOARCA Unmitigated
Scenarios and the 1982 Siting Study SST1 Case ..................................... E-39
Percentages of Cesium and Iodine Released to the Environment for
SOARCA Unmitigated Scenarios, the 1982 Siting Study SST1 Case,
and Historical Accidents ............................................................................ E-40
Comparison of Population-Weighted Average Individual Latent
Cancer Fatality Risk Results from NUREG-2161 to the NRC Safety
Goal ........................................................................................................... E-60
Uncertainty in Average Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk in the
2015 Containment Protection and Release Reduction Regulatory
Analysis ..................................................................................................... E-67
Complementary Cumulative Distribution Functions of Conditional
Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk within Five Annular Areas
Centered on the Sequoyah Plant .............................................................. E-77
Complementary Cumulative Distribution Functions of Conditional
Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk within Five Annular Areas
Centered on the Surry Plant ...................................................................... E-78
20
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xii
February 2023
LIST OF TABLES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Table 2.1-1
Table 2.3-1
Table 2.4-1
Table 2.4-2
Table 2.4-3
Table 2.4-4
Table 2.4-5
Table 3.1-1
Table 3.1-2
Table 3.1-3
Table 3.1-4
Table 3.2-1
Table 3.3-1
Table 3.3-2
Table 3.5-1
Table 3.6-1
Table 3.6-2
Table 3.6-3
Table 3.6-4
Table 3.6-5
Table 3.6-6
Table 3.6-7
Table 3.8-1
Table 3.8-2
Table 3.9-1
Table 3.9-2
February 2023
Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues under the
Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 2-5
Net Generation at Utility-Scale Facilities .................................................... 2-18
Construction under the Proposed Action and Alternatives –
Assessment Basis and Nature of Impacts .................................................. 2-37
Operations under the Proposed Action and Alternatives – Assessment
Basis and Nature of Impacts ...................................................................... 2-38
Postulated Accidents under the Proposed Action and Alternatives –
Assessment Basis and Impact Magnitude .................................................. 2-39
Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning
under the Proposed Action and Alternatives – Assessment Basis and
Nature of Impacts ....................................................................................... 2-40
Fuel Cycle under the Proposed Action and Alternatives – Assessment
Basis and Nature of Impacts ...................................................................... 2-41
Characteristics of Operating U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants ......... 3-6
Cooling Water System Source – Coastal or Estuarine Environment .......... 3-14
Cooling Water System Source – Great Lakes Environment ....................... 3-14
Cooling Water System Source – Freshwater Riverine or Impoundment
Environment ............................................................................................... 3-15
Percent of Land Cover Types within a 5-Mile Radius of Nuclear Power
Plants.......................................................................................................... 3-26
Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale .................................................................... 3-28
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Six Criteria Pollutants ............. 3-29
Comparison of Cooling Water System Attributes for Operating
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants ............................................................. 3-41
Factors That Influence the Impacts of Nuclear Power Plant Operation
on Aquatic Organisms ................................................................................ 3-58
Critical Habitats Evaluated in License Renewal Reviews, 2013–
Present ....................................................................................................... 3-62
NMFS-Issued Biological Opinions for Nuclear Power Plant Operation ...... 3-63
FWS-Issued Biological Opinions for Nuclear Power Plant Operation ........ 3-64
ESA Listed Species Evaluated in License Renewal Reviews, 2013–
Present ....................................................................................................... 3-69
EFH Evaluated in License Renewal Reviews, 2013–Present .................... 3-80
National Marine Sanctuaries Near Operating Nuclear Power Plants ......... 3-83
Local Employment and Tax Revenues at 15 Nuclear Plants from 2014
through 2020 .............................................................................................. 3-88
Population Classification of Regions around Selected Nuclear Power
Plants.......................................................................................................... 3-90
Occupational Dose Limits for Adults Established by 10 CFR Part 20 ........ 3-93
Design Objectives and Annual Standards on Doses to the General
Public from Nuclear Power Plants from Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 ............. 3-94
xiii
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Table 3.9-3
Table 3.9-4
Table 3.9-5
Table 3.9-6
Table 3.9-7
Table 3.9-8
Table 3.9-9
Table 3.9-10
Table 3.9-11
Table 3.9-12
Table 3.9-13
Table 3.9-14
Table 3.9-15
Table 3.9-16
Table 3.9-17
Table 3.9-18
Table 3.9-19
Table 3.9-20
Table 3.9-21
Design Objectives and Annual Standards on Doses to the General
Public from Nuclear Power Plants from 40 CFR 190, Subpart B ............... 3-95
Occupational Whole-Body Dose Data at U.S. Commercial Nuclear
Power Plants .............................................................................................. 3-96
Annual Average Measurable Occupational Dose per Individual for
U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in rem .......................................... 3-97
Annual Average Collective Occupational Dose for U.S. Commercial
Nuclear Power Plants in person-rem .......................................................... 3-97
Collective and Individual Worker Doses at Boiling Water Reactors
from 2016 to 2018 ...................................................................................... 3-98
Collective and Individual Worker Doses at Pressurized Water
Reactors from 2016 through 2018 .............................................................. 3-99
Annual Collective Dose and Annual Occupational Dose for
Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants from 2006 through
2018.......................................................................................................... 3-103
Annual Collective Dose and Annual Occupational Dose for Boiling
Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants from 2006 through 2018 ............... 3-104
Annual Collective Dose for Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power
Plants from 2006 through 2018 ................................................................ 3-106
Annual Collective Dose for Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power
Plants from 2006 through 2018 ................................................................ 3-107
Annual Average Measurable Occupational Doses at Pressurized
Water Reactor Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Sites from 2006
through 2018 ............................................................................................ 3-109
Annual Average Measurable Occupational Doses at Boiling Water
Reactor Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Sites from 2006
through 2018 ............................................................................................ 3-112
Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Collective Occupational
Dose per Plant for Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants
in person-rem ........................................................................................... 3-113
Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Collective Occupational
Dose per Plant for Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants in
person-rem ............................................................................................... 3-113
Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Individual Occupational
Whole-Body Dose for Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear
Power Plants in rem ................................................................................. 3-113
Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Individual Occupational
Whole-Body Dose for Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants in
rem ........................................................................................................... 3-114
Number of Workers at Boiling Water Reactors and Pressurized Water
Reactors Who Received Whole-Body Doses within Specified Ranges
during 2018............................................................................................... 3-114
Collective and Average Committed Effective Dose Equivalent for
Commercial U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Sites in 2018 ............................... 3-115
Doses from Gaseous Effluent Releases by Select Pressurized Water
Reactors from 2018 through 2020 ............................................................ 3-119
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xiv
February 2023
Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Table 3.9-22
Table 3.9-23
Table 3.9-24
Table 3.9-25
Table 3.9-26
Table 3.9-27
Table 3.9-28
Table 3.9-29
Table 3.11-1
Table 3.11-2
Table 3.12-1
Table 3.12-2
Table 4.3-1
Table 4.5-1
Table 4.6-1
Table 4.6-2
Table 4.6-3
Table 4.6-4
Table 4.6-5
Table 4.6-6
Table 4.6-7
Table 4.6-8
Table 4.6-9
Table 4.6-10
Table 4.6-11
Table 4.9-1
February 2023
Doses from Gaseous Effluent Releases by Select Boiling Water
Reactors from 2018 through 2020 ............................................................ 3-120
Dose from Liquid Effluent Releases by Select Pressurized Water
Reactor Nuclear Power Plants for 2018 through 2020 ............................. 3-121
Dose from Liquid Effluent Releases from Select Boiling Water Reactor
Nuclear Power Plants for 2018 through 2020 ........................................... 3-121
Average Annual Effective Dose Equivalent of Ionizing Radiation to
a Member of the U.S. Population for 2016 ............................................... 3-123
Nominal Probability Coefficients Used in ICRP (1991) ............................. 3-124
Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries by Industry Sector in
2020.......................................................................................................... 3-132
Incidence Rate of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in
Different Utilities in 2020 ........................................................................... 3-132
Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries for Selected
Occupations in 2020 ................................................................................. 3-133
Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shipped Offsite per Reactor from
Select Pressurized Water Reactor Power Plant Sites in 2020 ................. 3-139
Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shipped Offsite per Reactor from
Select Boiling Water Reactor Power Plant Sites in 2020 ......................... 3-140
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by State, 2020 ............................................. 3-146
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Operations at Nuclear
Power Plants ............................................................................................ 3-149
Emission Factors of Representative Fossil Fuel Plants ............................. 4-18
Water Withdrawal and Consumptive Use Factors for Select Electric
Power Technologies ................................................................................... 4-51
Estimated Radiation Dose Rates to Terrestrial Ecological Receptors
from Radionuclides in Water, Sediment, and Soils at U.S. Nuclear
Power Plants .............................................................................................. 4-60
Estimated Annual Bird Collision Mortality in the United States .................. 4-66
Commonly Impinged and Entrained Taxa at Nuclear Power Plants by
Ecosystem Type ......................................................................................... 4-76
Results of NRC Impingement and Entrainment Analyses at Nuclear
Power Plants, 2013–Present ...................................................................... 4-81
Results of NRC Thermal Analyses at Nuclear Power Plants, 2013–
Present ....................................................................................................... 4-86
Possible ESA Effect Determinations ........................................................ 4-113
Appropriate Type of Consultation by ESA Effect Determination .............. 4-114
Possible EFH Effect Determinations ........................................................ 4-118
Appropriate Type of Consultation by Type of Proposed Action and
EFH Effect Determination ......................................................................... 4-118
Types of Sanctuary Resources ................................................................ 4-120
Possible NMSA Effect Determinations ..................................................... 4-121
Additional Collective Occupational Dose for Different Actions under
Typical and Conservative Scenarios during the License Renewal
Term ......................................................................................................... 4-135
xv
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Table 4.12-1
Table 4.14-1
Table 4.14-2
Table 4.14-3
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table B.1-1
Table B.1-2
Table B.1-3
Table B.1-4
Table B.1-5
Table B.1-6
Table B.1-7
Table B.1-8
Table B.1-9
Table B.1-10
Table B.1-11
Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Representative Fossil Fuel
Plants........................................................................................................ 4-164
Table S-3 Taken from 10 CFR 51.51 on Uranium Fuel Cycle
Environmental Data .................................................................................. 4-175
Table S-4 Taken from 10 CFR 51.52 on the Environmental Impact of
Transporting Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled
Nuclear Power Reactor ............................................................................ 4-179
Population Doses from Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities Normalized to
One Reference Reactor Year ................................................................... 4-183
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Preparers ......................................... 6-1
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Preparers ......................................... 6-3
Comparison of Land Use-Related Environmental Issues and Findings
in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51............................................................................................ B-2
Comparison of Visual Resource-Related Environmental Issues and
Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51............................................................................................ B-4
Comparison of Air Quality-Related Environmental Issues and Findings
in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51............................................................................................ B-5
Comparison of Noise-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in
This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51............................................................................................ B-7
Comparison of Geologic-Related Environmental Issues and Findings
in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51............................................................................................ B-8
Comparison of Surface Water Resources-Related Environmental
Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of
Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 ....................................................................... B-9
Comparison of Groundwater Resources-Related Environmental
Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of
Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 ..................................................................... B-14
Comparison of Terrestrial Resources-Related Environmental Issues
and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51...................................................................................... B-19
Comparison of Aquatic Resources-Related Environmental Issues and
Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51.......................................................................................... B-25
Comparison of Federally Protected Ecological Resources-Related
Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior
Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 .................................................. B-37
Comparison of Historic and Cultural Resources-Related
Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior
Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 .................................................. B-40
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xvi
February 2023
Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Table B.1-12
Table B.1-13
Table B.1-14
Table B.1-15
Table B.1-16
Table B.1-17
Table B.1-18
Table B.1-19
Table B.1-20
Table D.2-1
Table D.5-1
Table D.5-2
Table D.5-3
Table D.7-1
Table E.3-1
Table E.3-2
Table E.3-3
Table E.3-4
Table E.3-5
February 2023
Comparison of Socioeconomics-Related Environmental Issues and
Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51.......................................................................................... B-41
Comparison of Human Health-Related Environmental Issues and
Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51.......................................................................................... B-45
Comparison of Postulated Accidents-Related Environmental Issues
and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51...................................................................................... B-50
Comparison of Environmental Justice-Related Environmental Issues
and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51...................................................................................... B-52
Comparison of Waste Management-Related Environmental Issues
and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51...................................................................................... B-53
Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate ChangeRelated Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision
to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 ..................................... B-59
Comparison of Cumulative Effects-Related Environmental Issues and
Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51.......................................................................................... B-61
Comparison of Uranium Fuel Cycle-Related Environmental Issues
and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51...................................................................................... B-62
Comparison of Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and
Decommissioning-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This
LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 ....... B-66
Common Sources of Noise and Decibels Levels ........................................ D-6
Level I Ecoregions and Corresponding Level III Ecoregions That
Occur in the Vicinity of Operating U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power
Plants......................................................................................................... D-10
Ecoregions in the Vicinity of Operating U.S. Commercial Nuclear
Power Plants ............................................................................................. D-13
Percent of Area Occupied by Wetland and Deepwater Habitats Within
5 Miles of Operating Nuclear Power Plants ............................................... D-17
Definition of Regions of Influence at 12 Nuclear Plants ............................ D-23
Comparison of 1996 LR GEIS Predicted Risks to License Renewal
Estimated Risks ........................................................................................... E-6
Pressurized Water Reactor Internal Event Core Damage Frequency
Comparison ............................................................................................... E-16
Boiling Water Reactor Internal Event Core Damage Frequency
Comparison ............................................................................................... E-17
Pressurized Water Reactor Internal Event Population Dose Risk
Comparison ............................................................................................... E-18
Boiling Water Reactor Internal Event Population Dose Risk
Comparison ............................................................................................... E-19
xvii
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Table E.3-6
Table E.3-7
Table E.3-8
Table E.3-9
Table E.3-10
Table E.3-11
Table E.3-12
Table E.3-13
Table E.3-14
Table E.3-15
Table E.3-16
Table E.3-17
Table E.3-18
Table E.3-19
Table E.3-20
Table E.3-21
Table E.3-22
Table E.3-23
Table E.3-24
Table E.3-25
Table E.5-1
Table F.5-1
Table F.5-2
Table F.5-3
Table F.5-4
Pressurized Water Reactor All Hazards Core Damage Frequency
Comparison ............................................................................................... E-22
Boiling Water Reactor All Hazards Core Damage Frequency
Comparison ............................................................................................... E-23
Pressurized Water Reactor All Hazards Population Dose Risk
Comparison ............................................................................................... E-24
Boiling Water Reactors All Hazards Population Dose Risk
Comparison ............................................................................................... E-25
Fire Core Damage Frequency Comparison ............................................... E-26
Seismic Core Damage Frequency Comparison ........................................ E-30
Pressurized Water Reactor and Boiling Water Reactor All Hazards
Core Damage Frequency Comparison ...................................................... E-33
Brief Source Term Description for Unmitigated Peach Bottom
Accident Scenarios and the SST1 Source Term from the 1982 Siting
Study ......................................................................................................... E-37
Brief Source Term Description for Unmitigated Surry Accident
Scenarios and the SST1 Source Term from the 1982 Siting Study .......... E-38
SOARCA Results: Long-Term Cancer Fatality Risk ................................. E-41
Changes in Large Early Release Frequencies for Extended Power
Uprates ...................................................................................................... E-45
Loss-of-Coolant Accident Consequences as a Function of Fuel
Burnup ....................................................................................................... E-49
Airborne Impacts of Low Power and Shutdown Accidents ........................ E-53
Impacts of Accidents at Spent Fuel Pools from NUREG-1738 .................. E-57
Uncertainty Analysis Inputs ....................................................................... E-68
Ratio of Consequence Results for Population Density Sensitivity
Cases in the 2015 Containment Protection and Release Reduction
Regulatory Analysis ................................................................................... E-70
Uncertain MELCOR Parameters Chosen for the SOARCA
Unmitigated Station Blackout Uncertainty Analyses .................................. E-74
Uncertain MACCS Parameter Groups Used in the SOARCA
Unmitigated Station Blackout Uncertainty Analyses .................................. E-75
Population-weighted Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk Statistics
that Are Conditional on the Occurrence of an Long-Term Station
Blackout for Five Circular Areas Centered on the Peach Bottom Plant .... E-76
Individual Early Fatality Risk Statistics that Are Conditional on the
Occurrence of a Long-Term Station Blackout for Five Circular Areas
with Specified Radii Centered on the Peach Bottom Plant ........................ E-79
Summary of Conclusions ........................................................................... E-90
State Environmental Requirements for Air Quality Protection ....................F-13
State Environmental Requirements for Water Resources Protection .........F-14
State Environmental Requirements for Waste Management and
Pollution Prevention....................................................................................F-15
State Environmental Requirements for Emergency Planning and
Response ...................................................................................................F-15
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xviii
February 2023
Tables
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Table F.5-5
Table F.5-6
Table F.6-1
Table F.6-2
Table F.6-3
Table F.6-4
Table F.6-5
Table F.6-6
February 2023
State Environmental Requirements for Ecological Resources
Protection ...................................................................................................F-16
State Environmental Requirements for Historic and Cultural
Resources Protection .................................................................................F-16
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Air
Quality Protection .......................................................................................F-17
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Water
Resource Protection ...................................................................................F-17
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Waste
Management and Pollution Prevention .......................................................F-18
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for
Emergency Planning and Response ..........................................................F-19
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for
Ecological Resource Protection ..................................................................F-20
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for
Historic and Cultural Resource Protection ..................................................F-21
xix
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
°C
°F
degree(s) Celsius
degree(s) Fahrenheit
ac
ADAMS
AEA
AEC
ALARA
APE
acre(s)
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
Atomic Energy Act
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
as low as is reasonably achievable
area of potential effect
BCG
BEIR
BMP
BTA
Btu
BWR
Biota Concentration Guide
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (National Research Council
Committee)
best management practice
best technology available
British thermal unit(s)
boiling water reactor
CAA
CCS
CDC
CDF
CEQ
CFR
CH4
cm
CO
CO2
CO2e
CWA
Clean Air Act
cooling canal system
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
core damage frequency
Council on Environmental Quality
Code of Federal Regulations
methane
centimeter(s)
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
carbon dioxide equivalent
Clean Water Act
dB
dBA
DOE
DPS
decibel(s)
A-weighted decibel(s)
U.S. Department of Energy
distinct population segment
EFH
EI
EIA
EIS
EMF
EPA
ESA
essential fish habitat
exposure index
Energy Information Administration
environmental impact statement
electromagnetic field
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Endangered Species Act
February 2023
xxi
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Nomenclature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
ESP
Exelon
early site permit
Exelon Generating Company LLC
F
FCDF
FES
FLEX
FPRA
FR
ft
ft2
ft3
FWS
Fujita (scale)
fire core damage frequency
final environmental statement
flexible coping
fire probabilistic risk assessment
Federal Register
foot (feet)
square foot (feet)
cubic foot (feet)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
gal
GEIS
GHG
gpm
GWd
GWd/MT
Gy
gallon(s)
generic environmental impact statement
greenhouse gas
gallon(s) per minute
gigawatt day(s)
Gigawatt-days (units of energy) per metric tonne
gray(s)
H2O
ha
hr
Hz
water; water vapor
hectare(s)
hour(s)
hertz
IAEA
ICRP
International Atomic Energy Agency
International Commission on Radiological Protection
IM&E
in.
IPE
IPEEE
ISFSI
ITS
impingement mortality and entrainment
inch(es)
Individual Plant Examination
Individual Plant Examination of External Events
independent spent fuel storage installation
incidental take statement
Kd
kg
km
kV
kW
kWh
partition coefficient
kilogram(s)
kilometer(s)
kilovolt(s)
kilowatt(s)
kilowatt-hour(s)
L
LAR
liter(s)
license amendment request
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxii
February 2023
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Nomenclature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
lb
LCF
LERF
LLW
Ln
LNT
LOA
LOCA
LOEL
lpm
LR GEIS
LWR
pound(s)
latent cancer fatality
large early release frequency
low-level (radioactive) waste
statistical sound level
linear no-threshold
letter of authorization
loss-of-coolant accident
lowest observed effects level
liter(s) per minute
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants
light water reactor
m
m2
m3
m3/s
mA
MACCS
MCR
MEI
mG
mg
mg/L
Mgd
mGy
MHz
mi
min
mL
MLd
MMBtu
MPa
mph
mrad
mrem
MSA
mSv
MT
mT
MTHM
MTU
MW
MW(e)
MW(t)
meter(s)
square meter(s)
cubic meter(s)
cubic meter(s) per second
milliampere(s)
MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System
main cooling reservoir
maximally exposed individual
milligauss
milligram(s)
milligram(s) per liter
million gallons per day
milligray(s)
megahertz
mile(s)
minute(s)
milliliter(s)
million liters per day
million Btu
megapascal(s)
mile(s) per hour
milliard(s)
millirem(s)
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
millisievert(s)
metric tonne(s)
millitesla(s)
metric tonne(s) of heavy metal
metric tonne(s) of uranium
megawatt(s)
megawatt(s) electric
megawatt(s) thermal
February 2023
xxiii
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Nomenclature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
MWh
NAAQS
NEPA
NGCC
NHPA
NMFS
NMSA
NO
NO2
NOAA
NOx
NPDES
NRC
NREL
NRHP
NTTF
megawatt-hour(s)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
natural gas combined cycle
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
nitrogen oxide
nitrogen dioxide
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
nitrogen oxides
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
National Register of Historic Places
Near-Term Task Force
ODCM
ONMS
OSHA
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
pCi
pCi/L
PDR
PM
PM10
PM2.5
ppm
ppmv
ppt
PRA
PSD
psi
PWR
picocurie(s)
picocuries per liter
Population dose risk
particulate matter
particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less
particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less
part(s) per million
parts per million by volume
part(s) per thousand
probabilistic risk assessment
prevention of significant deterioration
pound(s) per square inch
pressurized water reactor
QHO
quantitative health objective
RCRA
rem
REMP
ROW
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
roentgen-equivalent-man
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
right-of-way
s
SAMA
SAMG
SCDF
second(s)
severe accident mitigation alternative
severe accident management guideline
seismic core damage frequency
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxiv
February 2023
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Nomenclature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
scf
SEIS
SFP
SGTR
SHPO
SLR
SO2
SOARCA
SPRA
SRM
Sv
standard cubic foot (feet)
supplemental environmental impact statement
spent fuel pool
steam generator tube rupture
State Historic Preservation Office or Officer
subsequent license renewal
sulfur dioxide
state-of-the-art reactor consequence analysis
seismic probabilistic risk assessment
Staff Requirements Memorandum
sievert(s)
TEDE
T/yr
total effective dose equivalent
ton (s) per year
UA
UCB
UF6
USACE
USGCRP
uncertainty analysis
upper confidence bound
uranium hexafluoride
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Global Change Research Program
VOC
volatile organic compound
yr
year(s)
μCi
μGy
microcurie(s)
microgray(s)
February 2023
xxv
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
SHORTENED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NAMES
USED IN THIS REPORT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Arkansas
Beaver Valley
Braidwood
Browns Ferry
Brunswick
Byron
Callaway
Calvert Cliffs
Catawba
Clinton
Columbia
Comanche Peak
Cooper
Crystal River
Davis-Besse
Diablo Canyon
D.C. Cook
Dresden
Duane Arnold
Farley
Fermi
FitzPatrick
Fort Calhoun
Ginna
Grand Gulf
Harris
Hatch
Hope Creek
Indian Point
Kewaunee
LaSalle
Limerick
McGuire
Millstone
Monticello
Nine Mile Point
North Anna
Oconee
Oyster Creek
Palisades
Palo Verde
Peach Bottom
February 2023
Arkansas Nuclear One
Beaver Valley Power Station
Braidwood Station
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
Byron Station
Callaway Plant
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
Catawba Nuclear Station
Clinton Power Station
Columbia Generating Station
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
Cooper Nuclear Station
Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant
Dresden Nuclear Power Station
Duane Arnold Energy Center
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
Fort Calhoun Station
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant
Hope Creek Generating Station
Indian Point Energy Center
Kewaunee Power Station
LaSalle County Station
Limerick Generating Station
McGuire Nuclear Station
Millstone Power Station
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station
North Anna Power Station
Oconee Nuclear Station
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
Palisades Nuclear Plant
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
xxvii
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Shortened Nuclear Power Plant Names Used in This Report
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Perry
Pilgrim
Point Beach
Prairie Island
Quad Cities
River Bend
Robinson
St. Lucie
Salem
San Onofre
Seabrook
Sequoyah
South Texas
Summer
Surry
Susquehanna
Three Mile Island
Turkey Point
Vermont Yankee
Vogtle
Waterford
Watts Bar
Wolf Creek
Perry Nuclear Power Plant
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
Point Beach Nuclear Plant
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station
River Bend Station
H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant
Salem Nuclear Generating Station
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
Seabrook Station
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
South Texas Project Electric Generating Station
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
Surry Power Station
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station
Three Mile Island, Unit 1
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
Waterford Steam Electric Station
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
Wolf Creek Generating Station
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxviii
February 2023
CONVERSION TABLE
1
Multiply
By
To Obtain
To Convert English to Metric Equivalents
acres
0.4047
3
cubic feet (ft )
0.02832
cubic yards (yd3)
0.7646
curies (Ci)
3.7 1010
degrees Fahrenheit (F) -32
0.5555
feet (ft)
0.3048
gallons (gal)
3.785
gallons (gal)
0.003785
inches (in.)
2.540
miles (mi)
1.609
pounds (lb)
0.4536
rads
0.01
rems
0.01
short tons (tons)
907.2
short tons (tons)
0.9072
square feet (ft2)
0.09290
square yards (yd2)
0.8361
square miles (mi2)
2.590
yards (yd)
0.9144
hectares (ha)
cubic meters (m3)
cubic meters (m3)
becquerels (Bq)
degrees Celsius (C)
meters (m)
liters (L)
cubic meters (m3)
centimeters (cm)
kilometers (km)
kilograms (kg)
grays (Gy)
sieverts (Sv)
kilograms (kg)
metric tons (t)
square meters (m2)
square meters (m2)
square kilometers (km2)
meters (m)
To Convert Metric to English Equivalents
becquerels (Bq)
2.7 10-11
centimeters (cm)
0.3937
cubic meters (m3)
35.31
cubic meters (m3)
1.308
cubic meters (m3)
264.2
degrees Celsius (C) +17.78
1.8
grays (Gy)
100
hectares (ha)
2.471
kilograms (kg)
2.205
kilograms (kg)
0.001102
kilometers (km)
0.6214
liters (L)
0.2642
meters (m)
3.281
meters (m)
1.094
metric tons (t)
1.102
sieverts (Sv)
100
square kilometers (km2)
0.3861
square meters (m2)
10.76
square meters (m2)
1.196
curies (Ci)
inches (in.)
cubic feet (ft3)
cubic yards (yd3)
gallons (gal)
degrees Fahrenheit (F)
rads
acres
pounds (lb)
short tons (tons)
miles (mi)
gallons (gal)
feet (ft)
yards (yd)
short tons (tons)
rems
square miles (mi2)
square feet (ft2)
square yards (yd2)
February 2023
xxix
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to
issue licenses to operate commercial nuclear power plants for up to 40 years and permits the
renewal of these licenses. By regulation, the NRC is allowed to renew these licenses for up to
an additional 20 years, depending on the outcome of the safety and environmental reviews.
There are no specific limitations in the Atomic Energy Act or the NRC’s regulations restricting
the number of times a license may be renewed.
8
9
10
11
12
NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 54.17(c) (10 CFR
54.17(c)) allow a license renewal application to be submitted within 20 years of license
expiration, and NRC regulations at 10 CFR 54.31(b) specify that a renewed license will be for a
term of up to 20 years plus the length of time remaining on the current license. As a result,
renewed licenses may be for a term of up to 40 years.
13
14
15
16
17
18
The license renewal process is designed to ensure safe operation of the nuclear power plant
and protection of the environment during the license renewal term. Under the NRC’s
environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which implements Section 102(2) of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating
license requires an analysis of the environmental effects of the action and the preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS).
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
To support the preparation of license renewal EISs, the NRC conducted a comprehensive
review to identify the environmental effects of license renewal. The review determined which
environmental effects could result in the same or similar (generic) impact at all nuclear power
plants or a subset of plants and which effects could result in different levels of impact, requiring
nuclear power plant-specific analyses for an impact determination. The review culminated in
the issuance of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants (LR GEIS), NUREG-1437, in May 1996, followed by the publication of the final rule that
codified the LR GEIS findings on June 5, 1996 (61 Federal Register [FR] 28467).1
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
The 1996 LR GEIS2 improved the efficiency of the license renewal environmental review
process by (1) identifying and evaluating all of the environmental effects that may occur when
renewing commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses, (2) identifying and evaluating the
environmental effects that are expected to be generic (the same or similar) at all nuclear plants
or a subset of plants, and (3) defining the number and scope of the environmental effects that
need to be addressed in nuclear power plant-specific EISs. For the issues that cannot be
evaluated generically, the NRC conducts nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called plantspecific) environmental reviews and prepares plant-specific supplemental EISs (SEISs) to the
LR GEIS. The generic environmental findings in the LR GEIS are applicable to the 20-year
license renewal increment, either an initial license renewal (initial LR) term or the first
subsequent license renewal (SLR) term, plus the number of years remaining on the current
license, up to a maximum of 40 years.
1
Final rules were also issued in December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537), and September 3, 1999
(64 FR 48496).
2 Any reference to the 1996 LR GEIS includes the two-volume set published in May 1996 and
Addendum 1 to the LR GEIS published in August 1999.
February 2023
xxxi
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The 1996 final rule codified the findings of the 1996 LR GEIS into regulations at 10 CFR
Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of
a Nuclear Power Plant,” and Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” (61 FR 28467, June 5, 1996). As stated in the final rule, the
Commission recognized that environmental issues might change over time and that additional
issues may need to be considered. Based on this recognition, and as further stated in the rule
and in the introductory paragraph to Appendix B to Subpart A in Part 51 of the regulations, the
Commission intends to review the material in Appendix B, including Table B-1 and the
underlying LR GEIS, on a 10-year basis, and update it if necessary.
10
11
12
13
14
Subsequently, the NRC completed its first 10-year review of the 1996 LR GEIS and Table B-1
on June 20, 2013. That review of the LR GEIS considered lessons learned and knowledge
gained from completed license renewal environmental reviews since 1996. The updated LR
GEIS, Revision 1, and final rule (78 FR 37282), including Table B-1, redefined the number and
scope of the NEPA issues that must be addressed in license renewal environmental reviews.
15
16
17
18
19
20
The NRC began the second 10-year review on August 4, 2020, by publishing a notice of intent
to review and potentially update the LR GEIS (85 FR 47252), which contained the staff’s
preliminary analysis, including for SLR. The notice invited public comments and proposals for
specific environmental areas that should be updated. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.29, the NRC
conducted scoping and held a series of public meetings (see 85 FR 47252 for more details).
The scoping period concluded on November 2, 2020.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
In July 2021, the NRC staff submitted a rulemaking plan via SECY-21-0066 requesting
Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking to amend Table B-1 and update the LR GEIS and
associated guidance. In February 2022, the Commission issued Staff Requirements
Memorandum (SRM)-SECY-21-0066, disapproving the staff’s recommendation and directing
the staff to develop a rulemaking plan that aligned with the Commission’s adjudicatory Order
CLI-22-03, and recent decisions in Orders CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-04, which concluded that the
2013 GEIS did not apply to SLR applications. The SRM also directed the NRC staff to include
in the rulemaking plan a proposal to revise the LR GEIS, Table B-1, other regulations, and
associated guidance, to fully account for one term of SLR.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
The NRC staff submitted a revised rulemaking plan via SECY-22-0024 in March 2022 that
requested Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking that aligned with the Commission’s
Order CLI-22-03 and recent decisions in Orders CLI-22-02 and CLI-22-04 regarding the NEPA
analysis of SLR applications by updating NRC regulations and revising the LR GEIS, Table B-1,
and associated guidance to fully account for one term of SLR. In April 2022, the Commission
issued SRM-SECY-22-0024 approving the staff’s recommendation to proceed with the
rulemaking.
37
38
39
40
41
In April 2022, pursuant to SRM-SECY-21-0066, the staff also submitted a second paper to the
Commission, SECY-22-0036, which concluded that no further updates to the LR GEIS were
needed beyond those identified in SECY-22-0024 and that the rulemaking effort identified in
SECY-22-0024 should constitute the agency’s 10-year update to the LR GEIS. In June 2022,
the Commission approved these recommendations in SRM-SECY-22-0036.
42
43
44
45
The proposed revisions to the LR GEIS are based on the consideration of (1) comments
received from the public during the public scoping period, (2) a review of comments received on
plant-specific SEISs, and (3) lessons learned and knowledge gained from previously completed
and ongoing initial LR and SLR environmental reviews, (4) and Commission direction in SRM-
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxxii
February 2023
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
SECY-22-0024. In addition, new scientific research, public comments, changes in
environmental regulations and impacts methodology, and other new information were
considered in evaluating the potential impacts associated with nuclear power plant continued
operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Since development of the 2013 LR GEIS, 15 nuclear power plants have undergone initial LR
environmental reviews. For the purposes of this review, the NRC also considered five SLR
environmental reviews, including two environmental reviews (i.e., for North Anna and Point
Beach plants) for which the NRC has issued a draft SEIS, but not a final SEIS. The purpose of
the review for this LR GEIS is to determine if the findings presented in the 2013 LR GEIS
remain valid for initial LR and support the scope of license renewal, consider whether those
findings also apply to SLR, and to update or revise those findings as appropriate. When
conducting a thorough update to the LR GEIS that reflects the “hard look” that is required for a
NEPA document, the NRC considered changes in applicable laws and regulations, new data,
collective experience, and lessons learned and knowledge gained from conducting initial LR and
SLR environmental reviews since development of the 2013 LR GEIS. These developments and
practical insights informed this LR GEIS revision. In doing so, the NRC considered the need to
modify, add to, group, subdivide, or delete any of the 78 environmental issues evaluated in the
2013 LR GEIS.
19
S.1
20
21
22
The proposed action is the renewal of commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses. A
renewed license is just one of a number of conditions that licensees must meet to be allowed to
continue to operate the nuclear power plant during the renewal term.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The purpose and need for the proposed action (license renewal) is to provide an option for the
continued operation of the nuclear power plant beyond the current licensing term to meet future
system power-generation needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, system,
and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers. Unless there are findings in
the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act or in the NEPA environmental review that
would lead the NRC to not renew the operating license, the NRC has no role in the energyplanning decisions of power plant owners, State regulators, system operators, and, in some
cases, other Federal agencies as to whether the nuclear power plant should continue to
operate.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
In addition, the NRC has no authority or regulatory control over the ultimate selection of
replacement energy alternatives. The NRC also cannot ensure the selection of environmentally
preferable replacement power alternatives. While a range of reasonable replacement energy
alternatives are discussed in the LR GEIS, and evaluated in detail in plant-specific supplements
to the LR GEIS, the only alternative to license renewal within NRC’s decisionmaking authority is
to not renew the operating license. The environmental impacts of not renewing the operating
license are addressed under the no action alternative.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
At some point, all nuclear power plants will terminate reactor operations and begin the
decommissioning process. Under the no action alternative, reactor operations would be
terminated at or before the end of the current operating license. The no action alternative,
unlike the other alternatives, does not expressly meet the purpose and need of the proposed
action (license renewal), because it does not provide an option for energy-planning
decisionmakers in meeting future electric power system needs. No action, on its own, would
likely create a need for replacement power, energy conservation and efficiency (demand-side
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
February 2023
xxxiii
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
5
management), purchasing power from outside the region, or some combination of these
options. Thus, a range of reasonable replacement energy alternatives is described in the LR
GEIS, including fossil fuel, new nuclear, and renewable energy sources. Conservation and
power purchasing are also considered as replacement energy alternatives to license renewal
because they represent other options for electric power system planners.
6
S.2
Development of the Revised Generic Environmental Impact Statement
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
This LR GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach the NRC used to evaluate the
environmental impacts of renewing the operating licenses of commercial nuclear power plants
for an additional 20 years beyond the current license term, plus the number of years remaining
on the current license, up to a maximum of 40 years. The environmental consequences of both
initial LR and SLR include (1) impacts associated with continued operations and any
refurbishment activities similar to those that have occurred during the current license term;
(2) impacts of various alternatives to the proposed action; (3) impacts from the termination of
nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning after the license renewal term (with
emphasis on the incremental effect caused by an additional 20 years of operation); (4) impacts
associated with the uranium fuel cycle; (5) impacts of postulated accidents (design-basis
accidents and severe accidents); (6) cumulative effects of the proposed action; and (7) resource
commitments associated with the proposed action, including unavoidable adverse impacts,
relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of resources. The LR GEIS also discusses the impacts of various reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action (initial LR or SLR). The environmental consequences of
these activities are discussed in the LR GEIS.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
For this revision, the NRC staff reviewed and evaluated the 78 environmental issues and impact
findings from the 2013 LR GEIS. Experience gained from license renewal reviews conducted
since development of the 2013 LR GEIS provides a source of new information for the evaluation
presented in this LR GEIS revision. In addition, new research, findings, and other information
were considered in evaluating the significance of impacts associated with initial LR and SLR.
The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if the 2013 LR GEIS findings remain valid and
apply to SLR. In doing so, the NRC considered the need to modify, add to, group, subdivide, or
delete any of the 78 issues evaluated in the 2013 LR GEIS.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
In a notice of intent published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2020 (85 FR 47252), the
NRC notified the public of its preliminary analysis and plan to review and potentially revise the
LR GEIS, including to address SLR, and to provide an opportunity to participate in the
environmental scoping process. This step was the initial opportunity for public participation in
the LR GEIS revision. The NRC held four public webinars in August 2020 (August 19, 2020 and
August 27, 2020, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time and 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time).
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Participation in the scoping process by members of the public and local, State, Tribal, and
Federal government agencies was encouraged and used to (1) determine whether to update the
2013 LR GEIS; (2) define the proposed action; (3) determine the scope of the update and
identify whether there are any significant new issues to be analyzed in depth; (4) identify and
eliminate from detailed study issues that are peripheral, are not significant, or have been
covered by prior environmental review; (5) identify environmental assessments and other EISs
under development or consideration related to the scope of the LR GEIS update; (6) identify
other review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action; and (7) describe how
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxxiv
February 2023
Executive Summary
1
2
the LR GEIS revision will be prepared. In addition, the NRC proposed to address SLRs in the
LR GEIS revision.
3
4
5
6
7
The scoping period for this LR GEIS revision was from August 4, 2020 to November 2, 2020.
The NRC staff reviewed the transcripts from the public meetings and all written material
received during the scoping period and identified individual comments. All comments and
suggestions received orally during the scoping meetings or in writing were considered. The
NRC staff issued a scoping summary report in June 2021.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
In evaluating the impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and considering comments
received during the scoping period, as well as the Commission’s direction in SRM-SECY-220024, the NRC identified 80 environmental issues: 72 environmental issues were associated
with continued operations, refurbishment, and other supporting activities; 2 with postulated
accidents; 1 with termination of plant operations and decommissioning; 4 with the uranium fuel
cycle; and 1 with cumulative effects (impacts). For all of these issues, the incremental effect of
license renewal was the focus of the evaluation.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
For each potential environmental issue, the revised LR GEIS (1) describes the nuclear power
plant activity during the initial LR or SLR term that could affect the resource; (2) identifies the
resource that is affected, (3) evaluates past license renewal reviews and other available
information, including information related to impacts during a SLR term; (4) assesses the nature
and magnitude of the environmental impact on the affected resource during initial LR or SLR;
(5) characterizes the significance of the effect; (6) determines whether the results of the analysis
apply to all nuclear power plants (whether the environmental issue is Category 1, Category 2, or
uncategorized); and (7) considers additional mitigation measures for adverse impacts.
23
24
25
26
27
28
The scope of the revised LR GEIS also discusses a range of alternatives to license renewal,
including replacement power generation (using fossil fuels, nuclear, and renewables), energy
conservation and efficiency (demand-side management), and purchased power. It also
evaluates the impacts from the no action alternative (not renewing the operating license). This
LR GEIS includes the NRC’s evaluation of construction, operation, postulated accidents,
decommissioning, and fuel cycles for replacement energy alternatives.
29
S.3
30
31
32
The NRC’s environmental impact standard considers Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
terminology, including CEQ revisions in Part 1501—NEPA and Agency Planning
(40 CFR 1501).
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
In considering whether the effects of the proposed action are significant, the NRC analyzes the
potentially affected environment and degree of the effects of the proposed action (initial LR or
SLR). The potentially affected environment consists of the affected area and its resources,
such as listed species and designated critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
For nuclear power plant-specific environmental issues, significance would depend on the effects
in the local area—including (1) both short- and long-term effects; (2) both beneficial and adverse
effects; (3) effects on public health and safety; and (4) effects that would violate Federal, State,
Tribal, or local law protecting the environment (40 CFR 1501.3(b)).
41
42
43
Based on this, the NRC has established three significance levels for potential impacts: SMALL,
MODERATE, and LARGE. The three significance levels, presented in a footnote to Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, are defined as follows:
Impact Definitions and Categories
February 2023
xxxv
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
•
SMALL: 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.
5
6
•
MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,
important attributes of the resource.
7
8
•
LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize
important attributes of the resource.
9
10
11
12
In addition to determining the impacts for each environmental issue, the NRC also determined
whether the analysis in the LR GEIS could be applied to all nuclear power plants (or plants with
specified design or site characteristics). Issues were assigned Category 1 or Category 2 as
follows:
13
Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:
14
15
16
–
The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to
apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of
cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics;
17
18
19
20
–
A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been
assigned to the impacts (except for offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level waste disposal and offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts
from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste); and
21
22
23
–
Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the
analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation
measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
24
25
For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is
required in future SEISs unless new and significant information is identified.
26
27
Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and
therefore, require additional plant-specific review.
28
S.4
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
For purposes of the evaluation in this LR GEIS revision, the “affected environment” is the
environment currently existing around operating commercial nuclear power plants. Current
conditions in the affected environment are the result of past construction and operations at the
plants. The NRC has considered the effects of these past and ongoing impacts and how they
have shaped the environment. The NRC evaluated impacts of license renewal that are
incremental to existing conditions. These existing conditions serve as the baseline for the
evaluation and include the effects of past and present actions at the nuclear power plant sites
and vicinity. This existing affected environment comprises the environmental baseline against
which potential environmental impacts of license renewal are evaluated.
38
39
40
41
In the LR GEIS, the NRC describes the affected environment in terms of the following resource
areas or subject matter areas: (1) description of nuclear power plant facilities and operations;
(2) land use and visual resources; (3) meteorology, air quality, and noise; (4) geologic
environment; (5) water resources (surface water and groundwater resources); (6) ecological
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxxvi
February 2023
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
5
6
resources (terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, and federally protected ecological
resources); (7) historic and cultural resources; (8) socioeconomics; (9) human health
(radiological and nonradiological hazards and postulated accidents); (10) environmental justice;
(11) waste management and pollution prevention (radioactive and nonradioactive waste); and
(12) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. The affected environments of the
operating plant sites represent diverse environmental conditions.
7
8
S.5 Impacts from Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities Associated
with License Renewal (Initial or Subsequent)
9
10
11
12
13
The NRC identified 80 environmental issues related to continued operations and refurbishment
associated with both initial LR or SLR. Twenty of the issues were identified as Category 2
issues and would require plant-specific evaluations in future SEISs. Fifty-nine issues have been
evaluated and determined to be generic to all nuclear power plants or to a subset of plants, and
one issue is uncategorized. The conclusions for each issue are listed below by resource area.
14
Land Use
15
16
17
18
•
The impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on onsite land use would be
SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal would be a small fraction of the nuclear power plant site and
would only involve land that is controlled by the licensee. This is a Category 1 issue.
19
20
21
•
The impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on offsite land use would be
SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected by continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal. This is a Category 1 issue.
22
23
24
•
The impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on offsite land use in transmission
line right-of-ways (ROWs) would be SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs would continue
with no change in offsite land use restrictions. This is a Category 1 issue.
25
Visual Resources
26
27
28
29
•
30
Air Quality
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
•
The impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on the visual appearance
(aesthetics) of plant structures or transmission lines from continued operations and
refurbishment would be SMALL. No important changes to the aesthetics are expected from
continued operations and refurbishment. This is a Category 1 issue.
Air quality impacts from continued operations and refurbishment activities would be SMALL
at all plants. Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire pumps and routine
operations of boilers used for space heating are minor. Impacts from cooling tower
particulate emissions even under the worst-case situations have been small. Emissions
resulting from refurbishment activities at locations in or near air quality nonattainment or
maintenance areas would be short-lived and would cease after these activities are
completed. Operating experience has shown that the scale of refurbishment activities has
not resulted in exceedance of the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants, and best
management practices (BMPs), including fugitive dust controls and the imposition of permit
conditions in State and local air emissions permits, would ensure conformance with
applicable State or Tribal implementation plans. This is a Category 1 issue.
February 2023
xxxvii
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
1
2
3
•
4
Noise
5
6
7
•
8
Geologic Environment
The impacts on air quality from continued operations of transmission lines would be SMALL.
Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen from transmission lines is insignificant and does
not contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases. This is a Category 1 issue.
The impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on offsite noise levels would be
SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory guidelines for offsite receptors. This is
a Category 1 issue.
9
10
11
•
12
Surface Water Resources
13
14
15
16
•
The non-cooling system impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on surface
water use and quality would be SMALL if BMPs are employed to control soil erosion and
spills. Surface water use would not increase significantly or would be reduced if
refurbishment occurs during a plant outage. This is a Category 1 issue.
17
18
19
•
Altered current patterns would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures. These impacts have been SMALL at operating nuclear power plants.
This is a Category 1 issue.
20
21
22
•
Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures. These impacts have been SMALL at operating nuclear power plants.
This is a Category 1 issue.
23
24
25
•
Effects on thermal stratification in lakes would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the
intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been SMALL at operating nuclear
power plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
26
27
28
•
Scouring effects would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge
structures. These impacts have been SMALL at operating nuclear power plants. This is a
Category 1 issue.
29
30
31
32
33
34
•
The impacts from discharges of metals during continued operations and refurbishment
would be SMALL. Discharges of metals in cooling system effluent have not been found to
be a problem at operating nuclear power plants that have cooling-tower-based heat
dissipation systems and have been mitigated at other plants. Discharges are monitored as
part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. This
is a Category 1 issue.
35
36
37
38
•
The discharge and effects of biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills are
regulated by State and Federal environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored and
controlled as part of the NPDES permit process. These impacts have been SMALL at
operating nuclear power plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
39
40
41
•
Surface water use conflicts at plants with once-through cooling systems have not been
found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants that have once-through heat
dissipation systems and the impacts would be SMALL. This is a Category 1 issue.
The impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities on geology and soils would
be SMALL for all nuclear plants and would not change appreciably during the license
renewal term. This is a Category 1 issue.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxxviii
February 2023
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
•
Surface water use conflicts could occur at nuclear power plants that rely on cooling ponds or
cooling towers using makeup water from a river. Impacts could be SMALL or MODERATE,
depending on makeup water requirements, water availability, and competing water
demands. This is a Category 2 issue.
5
6
7
8
9
•
The effects of dredging on surface water quality would be SMALL. Dredging to remove
accumulated sediments in the vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain
barge shipping has not been found to be a problem for surface water quality. Dredging is
performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from State or
local agencies. This is a Category 1 issue.
10
11
12
13
•
The impacts of temperature effects on sediment transport capacity would be SMALL.
Temperature effects on sediment capacity have not been found to be a problem at operating
nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
This is a Category 1 issue.
14
Groundwater Resources
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
•
The non-cooling system impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on groundwater
would be SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated during continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal. Industrial practices involving the use of
solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals and/or the use of wastewater
ponds or lagoons have the potential to contaminate site groundwater, soil, and subsoil.
Contamination is subject to State or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-regulated
cleanup and monitoring programs. The application of BMPs for handling any materials
produced or used during these activities would reduce impacts. This is a Category 1 issue.
23
24
•
Groundwater use conflicts are not anticipated for nuclear power plants that withdraw less
than 100 gallons per minute and the impacts would be SMALL. This is a Category 1 issue.
25
26
27
•
Groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users could occur at nuclear power
plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute. Impacts could be SMALL,
MODERATE, or LARGE. This is a Category 2 issue.
28
29
30
31
32
33
•
For plants that have closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw makeup water from a river,
groundwater use conflicts could result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-flow
conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge. The significance of impacts would depend on
makeup water requirements, water availability, and competing water demands. The impacts
on groundwater quality could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. This is a Category 2
issue.
34
35
36
37
•
The impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities on groundwater quality
resulting from water withdrawals would be SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at operating
nuclear power plants would not significantly degrade groundwater quality. This is a
Category 1 issue.
38
39
40
41
42
•
For plants that have cooling ponds, the impacts on groundwater quality could be SMALL or
MODERATE. The significance of the impact would depend on cooling pond operation;
water quality; site hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction of surface water and
groundwater); and the location, depth, and pump rate of water wells. This is a Category 2
issue.
43
44
45
•
Radionuclides released to groundwater, particularly tritium, due to inadvertent leaks of
radioactive liquids from plant components and pipes could result in SMALL or MODERATE
groundwater quality impacts. Such leaks have occurred at numerous plants. Groundwater
February 2023
xxxix
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
1
2
3
protection programs have been established at all operating nuclear power plants to minimize
the potential impact from any inadvertent releases. This is a Category 2 issue.
Terrestrial Resources
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
•
Non-cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources may be SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE. The magnitude of the effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and
refurbishment, unrelated to operation of the cooling system, would depend on numerous
site-specific factors, including ecological setting, planned activities during the license
renewal term, and characteristics of the plants and animals present in the area. Application
of BMPs and other conservation initiatives would reduce the potential for impacts. This is a
Category 2 issue.
11
12
13
14
•
Exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides would be SMALL. Doses to terrestrial
organisms from continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment during the
license renewal term would be expected to remain well below U.S. Department of Energy
exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms. This is a Category 1 issue.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
•
Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources for plants that have once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds would be SMALL. Continued operation of nuclear power plant
cooling systems during license renewal could cause thermal effluent additions to receiving
water bodies, chemical effluent additions to surface water or groundwater, impingement of
waterfowl, disturbance of terrestrial plants and wetlands by maintenance dredging, and
erosion of shoreline habitat. However, plants where these impacts have occurred
successfully mitigated the impact, and it is no longer of concern. These impacts are not
expected to be significant issues during the license renewal term. This is a Category 1
issue.
24
25
26
27
28
29
•
Cooling tower impacts on terrestrial plants would be SMALL. Continued operation of
nuclear power plant cooling towers could deposit particulates and water droplets or ice on
vegetation and lead to structural damage or changes in terrestrial plant communities.
However, plants where these impacts occurred successfully mitigated the impact. These
impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the license renewal term. This is a
Category 1 issue.
30
31
32
33
34
35
•
The impacts of bird collisions with plant structures and transmission lines would be SMALL.
Bird mortalities from collisions with nuclear power plant structures and in-scope transmission
lines would be negligible for any species and are unlikely to threaten the stability of local or
migratory bird populations or result in noticeable impairment of the function of a species
within the ecosystem. These impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the
license renewal term. This is a Category 1 issue.
36
37
38
39
40
41
•
Nuclear power plants could consume water at rates that cause occasional or intermittent
water use conflicts with nearby and downstream terrestrial and riparian communities. Such
impacts could noticeably affect riparian or wetland species or alter characteristics of the
ecological environment. The one plant where impacts have occurred successfully mitigated
the impact. Impacts are expected to be SMALL at most nuclear power plants but could be
MODERATE at some. This is a Category 2 issue.
42
43
44
45
46
•
Transmission line ROW management impacts on terrestrial resources would be SMALL. Inscope transmission lines tend to occupy only industrial-use or other developed portions of
nuclear power plant sites and, therefore, the effects of ROW maintenance on terrestrial
plants and animals during the license renewal term would be negligible. Application of
BMPs would reduce the potential for impacts. This is a Category 1 issue.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xl
February 2023
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
•
5
Aquatic Resources
Electromagnetic field (EMF) effects on terrestrial plants and animals would be SMALL. Inscope transmission lines tend to occupy only industrial-use or other developed portions of
nuclear power plant sites and, therefore, the effects of EMFs on terrestrial plants and
animals would be negligible. This is a Category 1 issue.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
•
The impacts of impingement mortality and entrainment (IM&E) of aquatic organisms at
nuclear power plants that have once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds may be
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Impacts would generally be SMALL at nuclear power
plants that have implemented best technology requirements for existing facilities under
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b). For all other nuclear power plants that have oncethrough cooling systems or cooling ponds, impacts could be SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE depending on characteristics of the cooling water intake system, results of
impingement and entrainment studies performed at the plant, trends in local fish and
shellfish populations, and implementation of mitigation measures. This is a Category 2
issue.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
•
The impacts of IM&E of aquatic organisms at nuclear power plants that have cooling towers
would be SMALL. No significant impacts on aquatic populations associated with IM&E at
nuclear power plants that have cooling towers have been reported, including effects on fish
and shellfish from direct mortality, injury, or other sublethal effects. Impacts during the
license renewal term would be similar and small. Further, the effects of these cooling water
intake systems would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES permit conditions
established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b). This is a Category 1 issue.
23
24
25
26
27
28
•
Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton would be SMALL at all nuclear power plants.
Entrainment has not resulted in noticeable impacts on phytoplankton or zooplankton
populations near operating nuclear power plants. Impacts during the license renewal term
would be similar and small. Further, the effects would be mitigated through adherence to
NPDES permit conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b). This is a
Category 1 issue.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
•
The effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms at nuclear power plants that have
once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds may be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.
Effects would generally be SMALL at nuclear power plants that adhere to State water quality
criteria or that have and maintain a valid CWA Section 316(a) variance. For all other nuclear
power plants that have once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds, impacts could be
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE depending on site-specific factors, including the ecological
setting of the plant, characteristics of the cooling system and effluent discharges, and
characteristics of the fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms present in the area. This is
a Category 2 issue.
38
39
40
41
42
43
•
The effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms at nuclear power plants that have
cooling towers would be SMALL. Thermal effluents have not resulted in noticeable impacts
on aquatic communities at nuclear power plants that have cooling towers. Impacts during
the license renewal term would be similar and small. Further, effects would be mitigated
through adherence to State water quality criteria or CWA Section 316(a) variances. This is
a Category 1 issue.
44
45
46
•
Infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents would be SMALL at all nuclear power
plants. Continued operation of nuclear power plant cooling systems could result in certain
infrequently reported thermal impacts, including cold shock, thermal migration barriers,
February 2023
xli
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
accelerated maturation of aquatic insects, proliferation of aquatic nuisance organisms,
depletion of dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, eutrophication, and increased
susceptibility of exposed fish and shellfish to predation, parasitism, and disease. Most of
these effects have not been reported at operating nuclear power plants. Plants that have
experienced these impacts successfully mitigated the impact, and it is no longer of concern.
Infrequently reported thermal impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the
license renewal term. This is a Category 1 issue.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
•
The effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms would be SMALL. Heavy
metal leaching from condenser tubes was an issue at several operating nuclear power
plants. These plants successfully mitigated the issue, and it is no longer of concern.
Cooling system effluents would be the primary source of nonradiological contaminants
during the license renewal term. Implementation of BMPs and adherence to NPDES permit
limitations would minimize the effects of these contaminants on the aquatic environment.
This is a Category 1 issue.
15
16
17
18
•
Exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides would be SMALL. Doses to aquatic
organisms from continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment during license
renewal would be expected to remain well below U.S. Department of Energy exposure
guidelines developed to protect these organisms. This is a Category 1 issue.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
•
The effects of dredging on aquatic resources would be SMALL. Dredging at nuclear power
plants is expected to occur infrequently, would be of relatively short duration, and would
affect relatively small areas. Continued operation of many plants may not require any
dredging. Adherence to BMPs and CWA Section 404 permit conditions would mitigate
potential impacts at plants where dredging is necessary to maintain the function or reliability
of cooling systems. Dredging is not expected to be a significant issue during the license
renewal term. This is a Category 1 issue.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
•
Water use conflicts with aquatic resources at nuclear power plants that have cooling ponds
or cooling towers using makeup water from a river may be SMALL or MODERATE. Nuclear
power plants could consume water at rates that cause occasional or intermittent water use
conflicts with nearby and downstream aquatic communities. Such impacts could noticeably
affect aquatic plants or animals or alter characteristics of the ecological environment during
the license renewal term. The one plant where impacts have occurred successfully
mitigated the impact. Impacts are expected to be SMALL at most nuclear power plants but
could be MODERATE at some. This is a Category 2 issue.
34
35
36
37
38
39
•
Non-cooling system impacts on aquatic resources would be SMALL. No significant impacts
on aquatic resources associated with landscape and grounds maintenance, stormwater
management, or ground-disturbing activities at operating nuclear power plants have been
reported. Impacts from continued operation and refurbishment during the license renewal
term would be similar and small. Application of BMPs and other conservation initiatives
would reduce the potential for impacts. This is a Category 1 issue.
40
41
42
43
44
•
Impacts of transmission line ROW management on aquatic resources would be SMALL. Inscope transmission lines tend to occupy only industrial-use or other developed portions of
nuclear power plant sites and, therefore, the effects of ROW maintenance on aquatic plants
and animals during the license renewal term would be negligible. Application of BMPs
would reduce the potential for impacts. This is a Category 1 issue.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xlii
February 2023
Executive Summary
1
Federally Protected Ecological Resources
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
•
The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment on
federally listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction
would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; listed
species and critical habitats present in the action area; and plant-specific factors related to
operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other ground-disturbing
activities. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under ESA Section 7(a)(2)
would be required if license renewal may affect listed species or critical habitats under this
agency's jurisdiction. This is a Category 2 issue.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
•
The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment on
federally listed species and critical habitats under National Marine Fisheries Service
jurisdiction would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting;
listed species and critical habitats present in the action area; and plant-specific factors
related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other grounddisturbing activities. Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service under ESA
Section 7(a)(2) would be required if license renewal may affect listed species or critical
habitats under this agency's jurisdiction. This is a Category 2 issue.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•
The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment on
essential fish habitat (EFH) would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the
ecological setting; EFH present in the area, including habitats of particular concern; and
plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges,
and other activities that may affect aquatic habitats. Consultation with the National Marine
Fisheries Service under Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 305(b) would be required if license
renewal could result in adverse effects to EFH. This is a Category 2 issue.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
•
The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment on
sanctuary resources would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the
ecological setting; national marine sanctuaries present in the area; and plant-specific factors
related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other activities
that may affect aquatic habitats. Consultation with the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
under National Marine Sanctuaries Act Section 304(d) would be required if license renewal
could destroy, cause the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources. This is a Category 2 issue.
32
Historic and Cultural Resources
33
34
35
36
37
38
•
39
Socioeconomics
40
41
42
43
•
Although most nuclear power plants have large numbers of employees with higher than
average wages and salaries, employment, income, recreation, and tourism, impacts from
continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be
SMALL. This is a Category 1 issue.
44
45
•
Impacts on tax revenue would be SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local
jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in lieu of tax (PILOT) payments,
Impacts from continued operations and refurbishment on historic and cultural resources
located onsite and in the transmission line ROW are analyzed on a plant-specific basis. The
NRC will perform a NEPA and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106
analysis, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, in its preparation of the SEIS. The NHPA
Section 106 analysis includes consultation with the State and Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers, Indian Tribes, and other interested parties. This is a Category 2 issue.
February 2023
xliii
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
1
2
3
or tax payments on energy production. The amount of tax revenue paid during the license
renewal term as a result of continued operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal is not expected to change. This is a Category 1 issue.
4
5
6
7
8
9
•
Changes to community services and education resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal would be SMALL. With little or no change in
(1) employment at the licensee’s plant, (2) value of the power plant, (3) payments on energy
production, and (4) PILOT payments expected during the renewal term, community and
educational services would not be affected by continued power plant operations. This is a
Category 1 issue.
10
11
12
13
14
15
•
Population and housing impacts would be SMALL because changes resulting from
continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to regional
population and housing availability and value would be small. With little or no change in
employment at the licensee’s plant expected during the license renewal term, population
and housing availability and values would not be affected by continued power plant
operations. This is a Category 1 issue.
16
17
18
•
Transportation impacts would be SMALL because changes resulting from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to traffic volumes would be
small. This is a Category 1 issue.
19
Human Health
20
21
22
23
•
Radiation doses to plant workers from continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal are expected to be within the range of doses experienced during the
current license term and would continue to be well below regulatory limits. The impacts from
radiation doses to plant workers would be SMALL. This is a Category 1 issue.
24
25
26
27
•
Radiation doses to the public from continued operations and refurbishment associated with
the license renewal term are expected to continue at current levels and would be well below
regulatory limits. The impacts from radiation doses to the public would be SMALL. This is a
Category 1 issue.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
•
Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected to be minimized by the licensee implementing
good industrial hygiene practices as required by permits and Federal and State regulations.
Chemical releases to the environment and the potential for impacts on the public are
expected to be minimized by adherence to discharge limitations of NPDES and other
permits. The impacts from chemical hazards to plant workers would be SMALL. This is a
Category 1 issue.
35
36
37
38
•
Microbiological hazards to plant workers would be SMALL. Occupational health impacts are
expected to be controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene practices
to minimize worker exposures as required by permits and Federal and State regulations.
This is a Category 1 issue.
39
40
41
42
43
•
Microbiological hazards to the public are not expected to be a problem at most operating
plants but could result in SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE impacts at plants that have
cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or that discharge to waters of the United States accessible to
the public. Impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics. This is a Category 2
issue.
44
45
•
The effects of EMFs associated with nuclear plants and associated transmission lines on
human health are uncertain. Studies of 60-hertz (Hz) EMFs have not uncovered consistent
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xliv
February 2023
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
5
evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that
have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects
cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of the
science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible.
This issue has not been categorized.
6
7
8
9
10
•
Impacts from continued operations and refurbishment on worker safety would be SMALL.
Physical occupational safety and health hazards are generic to all types of electrical
generating stations, including nuclear power plants, and are of small significance if the
workers adhere to safety standards and use personal protective equipment as required by
Federal and State regulations. This is a Category 1 issue.
11
12
13
14
15
16
•
Electric shock hazards could result in SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE impacts. Electrical
shock potential is of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in adherence
with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Without a review of conformance with
NESC criteria of each nuclear power plant’s in-scope transmission lines, it is not possible to
determine the generic significance of the electrical shock potential. This is a Category 2
issue.
17
Postulated Accidents
18
19
20
21
22
23
•
The environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are SMALL for all nuclear plants. Due
to the requirements for nuclear plants to maintain their licensing basis and implement aging
management programs during the license renewal term, the environmental impacts from
design-basis accident risk during an initial license renewal or SLR term should not differ
significantly from those calculated for the design-basis accident assessments conducted as
part of the initial plant licensing process. This is a Category 1 issue.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
•
For severe accidents, the probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases,
fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic
impacts from severe accidents are SMALL for all plants. Severe accident mitigation
alternatives do not warrant further plant-specific analysis because the demonstrated
reductions in population dose risk and continued severe accident regulatory improvements
substantially reduce the likelihood of finding cost-effective significant plant improvements.
Additionally, all license renewal applicants expected to reference this LR GEIS have already
considered severe accident mitigation and therefore would not need to do so again under
Commission policy. This is a Category 1 issue.
33
Environmental Justice
34
35
36
•
37
Waste Management
38
39
40
41
•
The impacts from low-level waste (LLW) storage and disposal would be SMALL. The
comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public doses being
achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts on the environment would remain
SMALL during the license renewal term. This is a Category 1 issue.
42
43
44
•
The impacts from onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel would be SMALL during the license
renewal term, as defined as the licensed life for operation of a reactor evaluated in NUREG2157. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of
Impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, Indian Tribes, and subsistence
consumption resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal will be addressed in nuclear plant-specific reviews. This is a Category 2 issue.
February 2023
xlv
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
5
operation can be safely accommodated onsite during the license renewal term with small
environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
For the period after the licensed life for reactor operations, the impacts of onsite storage of
spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are discussed in NUREG–2157 and
as stated in [10 CFR] § 51.23(b), shall be deemed incorporated into this issue.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
•
For the impacts from offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
disposal, the Commission has not assigned a single significance level. The EPA dose limits
established for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada apply. The Commission
concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion,
for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be
eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of
significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal, this issue is
considered Category 1.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
•
The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of storage and long-term
disposal of mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are SMALL. The
comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are in place ensure
proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for
the public and the environment at all plants. License renewal would not increase the small
continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants.
This is a Category 1 issue.
21
22
23
24
25
•
The impacts from nonradioactive waste storage and disposal would be SMALL. No
changes to systems that generate nonradioactive waste are anticipated during the license
renewal term. Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling,
storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure to toxic materials for the public and the
environment at all plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
26
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
•
GHG impacts on climate change from continued operation and refurbishment associated
with license renewal are expected to be SMALL. GHG emissions from routine operations at
nuclear power plants are typically very minor because such plants, by their very nature, do
not normally combust fossil fuel to generate electricity. GHG emissions from construction
vehicles and other motorized equipment for refurbishment activities would be intermittent
and temporary, restricted to the refurbishment period. Worker vehicle GHG emissions for
refurbishment would be similar to worker vehicle emissions from normal nuclear power plant
operations. This is a Category 1 issue.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
•
Climate change can have additive effects on environmental resource conditions that may
also be directly impacted by continued operations and refurbishment during the license
renewal term. The effects of climate change can vary regionally and climate change
information at the regional and local scale is necessary to assess trends and the impacts on
the human environment for a specific location. The impacts of climate change on
environmental resources are location-specific and cannot be evaluated generically. This is
a Category 2 issue.
42
Cumulative Effects
43
44
45
46
•
Cumulative effects or impacts are those effects that result from the incremental effects of the
proposed license renewal action when added to the effects of other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or
person undertakes such actions. The cumulative effects of continued operations and
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xlvi
February 2023
Executive Summary
1
2
3
4
refurbishment associated with license renewal must be considered on a nuclear plantspecific basis. The effects depend on regional resource characteristics, the incremental
resource-specific effects of license renewal, and the cumulative significance of other factors
affecting the environmental resource. This is a Category 2 issue.
5
Uranium Fuel Cycle
6
7
8
9
•
The individual offsite radiological impacts resulting from portions of the uranium fuel cycle,
other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste, would be SMALL. The impacts
on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases during the license renewal term
would remain at or below the NRC’s regulatory limits. This is a Category 1 issue.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
•
For the collective offsite radiological impacts from the uranium fuel cycle other than the
disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste, there are no regulatory limits applicable to
collective doses to the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of estimating
health effects based on collective doses may not be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are
designed and operated to meet the applicable regulatory dose limits and standards.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the collective impacts are acceptable. This is a
Category 1 issue.
17
18
•
The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an
operating license for any plant would be SMALL. This is a Category 1 issue.
19
20
•
The impacts of transporting materials to and from uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers,
the public, and the environment are expected to be SMALL. This is a Category 1 issue.
21
Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning
22
23
24
25
•
26
S.6
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
This LR GEIS also evaluates the impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and
describes a range of alternatives to license renewal, including the no action alternative (not
renewing the operating license). It also evaluates the impacts of replacement energy
alternatives (fossil fuel, nuclear, and renewables), energy conservation and efficiency (demandside management), and purchased power. The impacts of renewing the operating license of a
nuclear power plant are comparable to the impacts of replacement energy alternatives.
Replacement energy alternatives could require the construction of a new power plant and/or
modification of the electric transmission grid. New power plants would also have operational
impacts. Conversely, license renewal does not require new construction and operational
impacts beyond what is already being experienced. Other alternatives not requiring
construction or causing operational impacts include energy conservation and efficiency
(demand-side management), delayed retirement, repowering, and purchased power.
39
40
41
42
43
The operational impacts of license renewal are comparable to the operational impacts of
replacement energy alternatives in some resource areas (socioeconomics) but are different in
other resource areas (air emissions, fuel cycles, land use, and water consumption). Renewable
energy alternatives (wind, ocean wave, and current power generation) have very few
operational impacts, while others (biomass combustion and conventional hydropower) can have
Termination of plant operations and decommissioning would occur eventually regardless of
license renewal. The additional 20-year period of operation under the license renewal term
would not affect the impacts of shutdown and decommissioning on any resource or at any
plant. This is a Category 1 issue.
Comparison of Alternatives
February 2023
xlvii
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
1
2
considerable impacts. In addition, some renewable energy alternatives (wind and solar) have
relatively low but regionally variable capacity factors.
3
4
5
6
7
License renewal and replacement energy alternatives differ in other respects, including accident
consequences and fuel-cycle impacts. A severe accident under the license renewal and the
new nuclear alternative may have a low probability but potentially high consequence, and,
compared to renewables, fossil fuel power generation may require large amounts of land for fuel
extraction and storage.
8
9
10
11
12
In addition, impacts from terminating power plant operations and decommissioning also differ.
License renewal delays the date of terminating reactor operations and decommissioning but
generally does not alter the level of impact. In comparison, impacts from terminating operations
and decommissioning of some replacement energy alternatives could be greater than those
from license renewal.
13
14
15
16
17
18
Under NEPA, the NRC has an obligation to consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action (license renewal). The LR GEIS facilitates that analysis by providing NRC review teams
with environmental information related to the range of reasonable replacement energy
alternatives as of the time this LR GEIS was prepared. A plant-specific analysis of replacement
energy alternatives will be performed for each SEIS, taking into account changes in technology
and science since the preparation of this LR GEIS.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xlviii
February 2023
1.0
1
INTRODUCTION
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 (42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.) authorizes the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to issue licenses to operate commercial nuclear power plants for
up to 40 years. The 40-year length of the original license period was imposed for economic and
antitrust reasons rather than the technical limitations of the nuclear power plant. NRC
regulations allow for the renewal of these licenses for up to an additional 20 years, depending
on the outcome of an assessment determining whether the nuclear power plant can continue to
operate safely and protect the environment during the 20-year period of extended operation.
There are no specific limitations in the AEA or the NRC’s regulations restricting the number of
times a license may be renewed.
11
12
13
14
15
The NRC’s regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 54.17(c)
allow a license renewal application to be submitted within 20 years of license expiration, and the
NRC’s regulations at 10 CFR 54.31(b) specify that a renewed license will be for a term of up to
20 years plus the length of time remaining on the current license. As a result, renewed licenses
may be for a term of up to 40 years.
Contents of Chapter 1.0
•
Purpose of the LR GEIS (Section 1.1)
•
Description of the Proposed Action (Section 1.2)
•
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action (Section 1.3)
•
Alternatives to the Proposed Action (Section 1.4)
•
Analytical Approach Used in the LR GEIS (Section 1.5)
•
Scope of the LR GEIS Revision (Section 1.6)
•
Decisions to Be Supported by the LR GEIS (Section 1.7)
•
Implementation of the Rule (Section 1.8)
•
Public Scoping Comments on the LR GEIS Update (Section 1.9)
•
Lessons Learned (Section 1.10)
•
Organization of the LR GEIS (Section 1.11)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The license renewal process is designed to ensure the safe operation of the nuclear power plant
and protection of the environment during the license renewal term. Under the NRC’s
regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing
and Related Regulatory Functions”, which implement Section 102(2) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.), the renewal of a nuclear power
plant operating license requires an analysis of the environmental effects of the proposed action
and the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).
23
24
25
26
To support the preparation of license renewal EISs, the NRC conducted a comprehensive
review to identify the environmental effects of license renewal. The review determined which
environmental effects could result in the same or similar (generic) impact at all nuclear power
plants or a subset of plants and which effects could result in different levels of impact, requiring
February 2023
1-1
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
nuclear plant-specific analyses for an impact determination. The review culminated in the
issuance of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS), in May 1996, followed by the publication of the final rule that codified
the LR GEIS findings on June 5, 1996 (61 Federal Register [FR] 284671; NRC 1996, NRC
1999b).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The 1996 LR GEIS2 improved the efficiency of the license renewal environmental review
process by (1) identifying and evaluating all of the environmental effects that may occur when
renewing commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses, (2) identifying and evaluating the
environmental effects that are expected to be generic (the same or similar) at all nuclear power
plants or a subset of plants, and (3) defining the number and scope of the environmental effects
that need to be addressed in nuclear power plant-specific EISs. For the issues that could not be
evaluated generically, the NRC would conduct nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called
plant-specific) environmental reviews and prepare plant-specific supplemental EISs (SEISs) to
the LR GEIS. The generic environmental findings in this LR GEIS are applicable to the 20-year
license renewal increment, either an initial license renewal (initial LR) term or the first
subsequent license renewal (SLR) term, plus the number of years remaining on the current
license, up to a maximum of 40 years.
Generic Environmental Impact Statement
A GEIS is an EIS that assesses the scope and impact of the environmental effects that would
be associated with an action (such as license renewal) at numerous sites.
18
1.1
Purpose of the LR GEIS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This LR GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach the NRC used to evaluate the
incremental environmental impacts of renewing the operating licenses of commercial nuclear
power plants for an additional 20 years beyond the current license term, plus the number of
years remaining on the current license, up to a maximum of 40 years. The LR GEIS also
provides the technical basis for the Commission’s license renewal regulations in 10 CFR Part
51. In the 1996 LR GEIS and related rulemaking, the Commission determined that certain
impacts associated with the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license were the same
or similar for all plants or subset of plants and could be treated on a generic basis. In this way,
repetitive reviews of these impacts could be avoided. The Commission based its generic
assessment of certain environmental impacts on the following factors:
29
30
31
•
License renewal will involve nuclear power plants for which the environmental impacts of
operation are well understood as a result of lessons learned and knowledge gained from
operating experience and completed license renewals.
32
33
•
Activities associated with license renewal are expected to be within this range of operating
experience; thus, environmental impacts can be reasonably predicted.
34
•
Changes in the environment around nuclear power plants are gradual and predictable.
1
Final rules were also issued on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537) and September 3, 1999 (64 FR
48496).
2
Any reference in this document to the 1996 LR GEIS includes the two-volume set published in May
1996 (NRC 1996) and Addendum 1 to the LR GEIS published in August 1999 (NRC 1999b).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1-2
February 2023
Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The LR GEIS is intended to improve the efficiency of the license renewal environmental review
process by (1) providing an evaluation of the types of environmental impacts that may occur by
an initial LR of commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses or SLR (specifically limited to
one term of SLR), (2) identifying and assessing impacts that are expected to be generic
(the same or similar) at all nuclear plants (or plants with specified plant or site characteristics),
and (3) defining the number and scope of environmental issues that need to be addressed in
plant-specific SEISs. The LR GEIS also provides information that aids in the preparation of
plant-specific EISs.
9
1.2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Description of the Proposed Action
The NRC’s environmental regulations in 10 CFR 51.20, require the preparation of an EIS to
address the impacts of renewing a plant’s operating license. The EIS requirements for a plantspecific license renewal review are specified in 10 CFR 51.71 and 51.95. The NRC’s public
health and safety and other technical requirements for the renewal of operating licenses are
found in 10 CFR Part 54. Part 54 requires applicants to perform safety evaluations and
assessments of nuclear power plants and provide the NRC with sufficient information to analyze
the impacts of continued operation for the requested license renewal term. Applicants are
required to assess the effects of aging on passive and long-lived systems, structures, and
components.
The Proposed Action
To renew commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
To provide an option to continue nuclear power plant operations beyond the current licensing
term to meet future system generating needs.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Most nuclear power plant licensees (either a public utility or non-utility plant owner) are
expected to begin preparation for license renewal about 10 to 20 years before expiration of their
current operating licenses. Inspection, surveillance, testing, and maintenance programs to
support continued nuclear power plant operations during the license renewal term would be
integrated gradually over a period of years. Any refurbishment-type activities undertaken for the
purposes of license renewal have generally been completed during normal plant refueling or
maintenance outages before the original license expires. Activities associated with license
renewal and operation of a nuclear power plant for an additional 20 years are discussed in
Chapter 2.0.
28
1.3
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
The Commission acts on each application submitted by a licensee for the renewal of
commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses per Section 103 of the AEA. A renewed
license is just one of several conditions that each licensee must meet to operate its nuclear
power plant during the license renewal term. State regulators, system operators, and in some
cases, other Federal agencies, ultimately decide whether the nuclear power plant will continue
to operate based on factors such as need for power or other factors within the State’s
jurisdiction or owner’s control. Economic considerations play a primary role in this decision.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
February 2023
1-3
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The purpose and need for the proposed action (issuance of a renewed license) is to provide an
option that allows for baseload power generation capability beyond the term of the current
nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs. Such needs
may be determined by other energy-planning decisionmakers, such as State, utility, and, where
authorized, Federal agencies (other than the NRC). Unless there are findings in the safety
review required by the AEA or the NEPA environmental review that would lead the NRC to
reject a license renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning
decisions about whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate.
9
10
11
12
13
14
From the perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing
an operating license is to maintain the availability of the nuclear power plant to meet system
energy requirements beyond the term of the plant’s current license. In cases of interstate
generation or other special circumstances, Federal agencies such as the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission or the Tennessee Valley Authority may be involved in making these
decisions.
15
1.4
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
In plant-specific license renewal environmental reviews, the NRC considers the environmental
consequences of the proposed action, the no action alternative (i.e., not renewing the operating
license), and the environmental consequences of various alternatives for replacing or offsetting
the nuclear power plant’s generating capacity. No conclusions are made in the LR GEIS about
the relative environmental consequences of license renewal, the no action alternative, and the
construction and operation of alternative facilities for generating electric energy. However,
information presented in the LR GEIS can be used by the NRC and applicants in performing the
plant-specific analysis of alternatives.
24
25
26
27
28
In plant-specific environmental reviews, the NRC compares the environmental impacts of
license renewal with those of the no action alternative and replacement energy alternatives 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 (10 CFR 51.95(c)(4)).
29
1.5
30
1.5.1
31
32
33
34
35
36
The LR GEIS serves to facilitate the NRC’s environmental review process by identifying and
evaluating environmental impacts that are considered generic and common to all, or a subset
of, nuclear power plants. Plant-specific environmental issues will be addressed in separate
SEISs to the LR GEIS. Generic impacts will be reconsidered in plant-specific SEISs only if
there is new and potentially significant information with respect to the conclusions in this LR
GEIS.
37
1.5.2
38
39
40
41
42
Environmental impacts of license renewal and the resources that could be affected by continued
operation and any refurbishment undertaken for the purposes of license renewal were identified.
The general analytical approach for identifying environmental impacts was to (1) describe the
nuclear power plant activity that could affect the resource, (2) identify the resource that is
affected, (3) evaluate past license renewal reviews and other available information, (4) assess
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Analytical Approach Used in the LR GEIS
Objectives
Methodology
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1-4
February 2023
Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
the nature and magnitude of the environmental impact from initial LR or SLR on the affected
resource, (5) characterize the significance of the effects, and (6) determine whether the results
of the analysis apply to all, or a subset of, nuclear power plants (whether the environmental
issue is Category 1 or Category 2, as described below). Identifying environmental impacts
(or issues) was done in an iterative rather than a stepwise manner. For example, after
information was collected and levels of significance were reviewed, impacts were reexamined to
determine if any should be removed, added, consolidated, or divided.
8
1.5.2.1
Defining Environmental Issues
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The NRC updated the LR GEIS in 2013. The 2013 LR GEIS presents the findings of a
systematic inquiry into the environmental impacts of license renewal resulting in the
identification of 78 environmental issues (or impacts). Public and stakeholder comments on
previous plant-specific license renewal reviews were analyzed in an effort to reevaluate the
existing environmental issues and identify new issues. As a result, the NRC considered the
need to modify, add to, group, subdivide, or delete any of the 78 environmental issues
evaluated in the 2013 LR GEIS. In this revised LR GEIS, the NRC has evaluated 80
environmental issues.
17
1.5.2.2
18
19
20
21
22
Information from license renewal environmental reviews performed since development of the
2013 LR GEIS was collected and reviewed. Searches of the open scientific literature,
databases, and websites were conducted for each resource area. This information was
collected and evaluated to determine if the environmental issues and findings in the 2013 LR
GEIS needed to be revised for initial LR and to update those findings to apply to SLR.
23
1.5.2.3
24
25
26
The NRC’s environmental impact standard considers Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
terminology, including CEQ revisions in Part 1501—NEPA and Agency Planning
(40 CFR 1501).
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
In considering whether the effects of the proposed action are significant, the NRC analyzes the
potentially affected environment and degree of the effects of the proposed action (license
renewal – either initial LR or SLR). The potentially affected environment consists of the affected
area and its resources, such as listed species and designated critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). For plant-specific environmental
issues, significance would depend on the effects in the local area, including (1) short- and longterm effects, (2) beneficial and adverse effects, (3) effects on public health and safety, and
(4) effects that would violate Federal, State, Tribal, or local law protecting the environment
(40 CFR 1501.3(b)).
36
37
38
Based on this, the NRC has established three significance levels for potential impacts: SMALL,
MODERATE, and LARGE. The three significance levels, presented in a footnote to Table B–1
in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, are defined as follows:
39
40
41
42
•
Collecting Information
Impact Definitions and Categories
SMALL – 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.
February 2023
1-5
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Introduction
1
2
•
MODERATE – environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,
important attributes of the resource.
3
4
•
LARGE – environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize
important attributes of the resource.
5
6
7
8
These levels are used for describing the environmental impacts of the proposed action as well
as the impacts of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Resource-specific
effects or impact definitions from applicable environmental laws and executive orders, other
than SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE, are provided where appropriate.
9
10
11
12
For issues in which the probability of occurrence is a key consideration (i.e., postulated
accidents), the probability of occurrence has been factored into the impact determination.
Mitigation measures that could be used to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or
compensate for adverse impacts are discussed where appropriate.
13
14
15
16
17
In addition to determining the impacts for each environmental issue, a determination is also
made for each issue about whether the environmental analysis in the LR GEIS could be applied
to all nuclear power plants (or plants with specified design or site characteristics). Based on the
applicability of the impact analysis, each issue is assigned either Category 1 or Category 2.
These categories are defined below.
18
•
Category 1 – the analysis reported in the LR GEIS has shown the following:
19
20
21
–
The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to
apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of
cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristics;
22
23
24
25
–
A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been
assigned to the impacts (except for offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level waste disposal and offsite radiological impacts – collective impacts
from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste); and
26
27
28
–
Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the
analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation
measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
29
30
31
•
32
33
34
35
36
37
If all three Category 1 criteria apply to an issue, the NRC relies on the generic finding and
analysis in this LR GEIS when conducting license renewal environmental reviews as
documented in plant-specific SEISs, provided no new and significant information is identified
requiring additional analysis. For issues that do not meet all three Category 1 criteria, the issue
is considered Category 2, and a plant-specific impact analysis is required for that issue in the
SEIS.
38
1.6
39
40
41
42
The introduction in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 states that, on a 10-year cycle,
the Commission intends to review the material in Appendix B, including Table B-1, and update
it, if necessary (61 FR 28467). Therefore, the NRC began the latest review in April 2020,
approximately 7 years after the completion of the previous revision cycle in June 2013.
Category 2 – the analysis reported in the LR GEIS has shown that one or more of the
criteria of Category 1 cannot be met and therefore, additional plant-specific review is
required.
Scope of the LR GEIS Revision
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1-6
February 2023
Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
Subsequently, the NRC published a notice of intent in the Federal Register on August 4, 2020
(85 FR 47252), that notified the public of the NRC’s intent to review and potentially update Table
B-1 and the 2013 LR GEIS; indicated the results of the NRC staff’s preliminary review, including
consideration of SLR; and invited public comments and proposals for other areas that should be
updated.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
At the conclusion of the scoping period, the staff began drafting a rulemaking plan. In July
2021, the NRC staff submitted SECY-21-0066, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power
Plant Operating Licenses – Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)” (NRC
2021l), to request Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking to amend Table B-1 and update
the LR GEIS and associated guidance. The rulemaking plan also proposed to remove the word
“initial” from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3), which details when license renewal applicants may rely on the
LR GEIS’s findings for Category 1 issues in preparing environmental reports in support of those
applications. These changes would have enabled SLR applicants to also rely on the LR GEIS
for Category 1 issues. The rulemaking plan would also have made corresponding changes to
the LR GEIS and the associated guidance, to indicate their applicability to SLRs.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
In February 2022, the Commission issued Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM)-SECY-210066, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses –
Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)” (NRC 2022c), disapproving the
staff’s recommendation and directing the staff to develop a rulemaking plan that aligned with the
Commission’s adjudicatory orders in CLI-22-03, CLI-22-02, and CLI-22-04, which concluded
that the 2013 LR GEIS did not apply to SLR applications. The SRM also directed the NRC staff
to include in the rulemaking plan a proposal to remove the word “initial” from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)
and to revise the LR GEIS, Table B-1, and associated guidance, to fully account for one term of
SLR.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The NRC staff submitted SECY-22-0024, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses – Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)” (NRC 2022b),
in March 2022 requesting Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking that would align with the
Commission’s orders CLI-22-02, CLI-22-03, and CLI-22-04 regarding the NEPA analysis of SLR
applications by removing the word “initial” from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) and revising the LR GEIS,
Table B-1 and associated guidance to fully account for one term of SLR. In April 2022, the
Commission issued SRM-SECY-22-0024, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses – Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)” (NRC 2022d),
approving the staff’s recommendation to proceed with the rulemaking.
34
35
36
37
38
In April 2022, pursuant to SRM-SECY-21-0066, the staff also submitted a second paper to the
Commission, SECY-22-0036, which concluded that no further updates to the LR GEIS were
needed beyond those identified in SECY-22-0024 and that the rulemaking effort identified in
SECY-22-0024 should constitute the agency’s 10-year update to the LR GEIS. In June 2022,
the Commission approved these recommendations in SRM-SECY-22-0036.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
To support this review, the NRC staff reviewed and evaluated the environmental issues and
impact findings in the 2013 LR GEIS for both initial LR and SLR. Lessons learned and
knowledge gained during previous license renewal environmental reviews provided a major
source of new information for this review. Public comments received during license renewal
environmental reviews were reexamined to validate existing environmental issues and identify
new ones. Since 2013, 15 commercial nuclear power plants have undergone an initial LR
environmental review. For the purposes of this review, the NRC also considered five SLR
environmental reviews including two reviews (i.e., North Anna and Point Beach) where the NRC
February 2023
1-7
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
has issued a draft SEIS, but not a final SEIS. The purpose of the review for this LR GEIS was
to determine if the findings presented in the 2013 LR GEIS support the scope of license renewal
including initial LR and SLR. In doing so, the NRC considered the need to modify, add to,
group, subdivide, or delete any of the 78 environmental issues evaluated in the 2013 LR GEIS.
In summary, new research, findings, public comments, changes in applicable laws and
regulations, and other information were considered in evaluating the environmental impacts
associated with license renewal. As a result of this review, the NRC proposes 80 environmental
issues for detailed consideration in this LR GEIS.
9
1.7
Decisions to Be Supported by the LR GEIS
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The decisions to be supported by the LR GEIS are whether or not to renew the operating
licenses of individual commercial nuclear power plants for an additional 20 years. The LR GEIS
was developed to support these decisions and to serve as a basis from which future NEPA
analyses for the license renewal of individual nuclear power plants would tier. According to
CEQ guidelines (CEQ 2022), tiering refers to “… the coverage of general matters in broader
environmental impact statements or environmental assessments (such as national program or
policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as
regional or basin-wide program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating
by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the
statement subsequently prepared.” CEQ also states that, “Tiering in such cases is appropriate
when it helps the lead agency focus on the issues [that] are ripe for decision and exclude from
consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe.” The LR GEIS provides the NRC
decisionmaker with important environmental information considered common to all (or a subset
of) nuclear power plants and allows greater focus to be placed on plant-specific (i.e.,
Category 2) issues.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The scope of the environmental review for license renewal consists of the range of actions,
alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an EIS. The purpose of scoping is to identify
significant issues related to the proposed action. Scoping also identifies and eliminates from
detailed study issues that are not significant or have been covered by a prior environmental
review. Having a defined scope for the environmental review allows the NRC to concentrate on
the essential issues resulting from the actions being considered rather than on issues that may
have been or are being evaluated in different regulatory review processes, such as the license
renewal safety review (NRC 2006a).
Environmental Impact Statements
10 CFR 51.70(b): The draft environmental impact statement will state how alternatives
considered in it and decisions based on it will or will not achieve the requirements of Sections
101 and 102(1) of NEPA. (See also the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations
for Implementing NEPA, 40 CFR 1502.2(d))
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The NEPA process for license renewal under 10 CFR Part 51 focuses on environmental
impacts rather than on issues related to safety. Safety issues become important to the
environmental review when they could result in environmental impacts, which is why the
environmental effects of postulated accidents are considered in the LR GEIS and in plantspecific supplements to the LR GEIS. Under 10 CFR Part 54, the staff safety review considers
nuclear power plant aging management of systems, structures, and components. The
environmental issues are not considered as part of the safety review. Nuclear power plant
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1-8
February 2023
Introduction
1
2
3
safety issues are considered under 10 CFR Part 50. Safety issues that are raised during the
environmental review are forwarded to the appropriate NRC organization for consideration and
appropriate action (NRC 2006a).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The Commission determined that the NRC's regular ongoing oversight activities are sufficient to
ensure the safety of active components during the period of extended operation, therefore the
Commission determined to only consider aging for passive, long-lived components in license
renewal reviews. Actions subject to NRC approval for license renewal are limited to the
performance of specific activities and programs necessary to manage the effects of aging on the
passive, long-lived structures and components identified in accordance with 10 CFR Part 54.
Accordingly, the LR GEIS does not serve as the NEPA review for other activities or programs
outside the scope of the NRC’s 10 CFR Part 54 license renewal review.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
For other actions, separate NEPA reviews must be conducted regardless of whether the action
is necessary as a consequence of receiving a renewed license, even if the activity was
specifically addressed in the LR GEIS. For example, the environmental impacts of spent fuel
pool expansion are addressed in the LR GEIS in the context of the environmental
consequences of approving a renewed operating license. However, any plant-specific
application submitted to the NRC to expand spent fuel pool capacity at a given facility would still
require its own separate NEPA review. These separate NEPA reviews may reference and
otherwise use applicable environmental information contained in the LR GEIS. For example, an
environmental assessment prepared for a separate spent fuel pool expansion request may use
the information in the LR GEIS to support a finding of no significant impact (see June 5, 1996
final rule [61 FR 28467]).
23
24
25
26
27
28
There are many factors that the NRC takes into consideration when deciding whether to renew
the operating license of a nuclear power plant. The analyses of environmental impacts
evaluated in this LR GEIS will provide the NRC’s decisionmaker with important environmental
information for use in the overall decisionmaking process. There are also decisions outside the
regulatory scope of license renewal that cannot be made on the basis of the final LR GEIS
analysis. These decisions include the issues addressed in the following sections.
29
1.7.1
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
The NRC will not make a decision or any recommendations on the basis of information
presented in this LR GEIS regarding changes to nuclear power plant cooling systems, other
than those involving safety-related issues, to mitigate adverse impacts under the jurisdiction of
State or other Federal agencies. Implementation of the provisions of the Clean Water Act
(CWA; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.), including those regarding cooling system operations and
design specifications, is the responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In many cases, the EPA delegates such authority to the individual States. To operate a nuclear
power plant, licensees must comply with the CWA, including associated requirements imposed
by the EPA or the State, as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting system under CWA Section 402 and State water quality certification
requirements under CWA Section 401. The EPA or the State, not the NRC, sets the limits for
effluents and operational parameters in plant-specific NPDES permits. Nuclear power plants
cannot operate without a valid3 NPDES permit and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
Changes to Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Systems
3
A valid NPDES permit is considered to be one that is either current (i.e., within its current effective date)
or one that has expired but has been “administratively continued” by the permitting authority upon the
timely submission of an application for renewal pursuant to the provisions of 40 CFR 122.6.
February 2023
1-9
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Introduction
1
1.7.2
Disposition of Spent Nuclear Fuel
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The NRC will not make a decision or any recommendations on the basis of the information
presented in this LR GEIS regarding the disposition of spent nuclear fuel at nuclear power plant
sites. The scope of this LR GEIS with regard to the management and ultimate disposition of
spent nuclear fuel for the timeframe after the period of extended operation is limited to the
findings codified at 10 CFR 51.23 of the September 19, 2014 Continued Storage of Spent
Nuclear Fuel, Final Rule (79 FR 56238) and associated NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Continued Storage GEIS; NRC
2014c; 79 FR 56263).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
In 1982, the Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq.), and
on January 7, 1983, the President signed it into law. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act defined the
Federal Government’s responsibility to provide permanent disposal in a deep geologic
repository for spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste from commercial and defense
activities. Under amended provisions (1987) of this Act, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
has the responsibility to locate, build, and operate a repository for such wastes. The NRC has
the responsibility to establish regulations governing the construction, operation, and closure of
the repository, consistent with environmental standards established by the EPA.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The 1987 amendments required DOE to evaluate only the suitability of the site at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, for a geologic disposal facility. In addition, the amendments outlined a
detailed approach for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste involving review by the
President, Congress, State and Tribal governments, NRC, and other Federal agencies. In
February 2002, after many years of studying the suitability of the site, DOE recommended to the
President that the Yucca Mountain site be developed as a long-term geologic repository for
high-level waste. In April 2002, the Governor of Nevada notified Congress of his State’s
objection to the proposed repository. Subsequently, Congress voted to override the objection of
the State.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
DOE submitted a license application to the NRC for construction authorization for a repository at
Yucca Mountain in June 2008. Upon acceptance of the application, the NRC started its
technical evaluation. However, on March 3, 2010, DOE filed a motion with the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board (Board) seeking permission to withdraw its application for authorization to
construct a high-level waste geological repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Board
denied that request on June 29, 2010, in LBP-10-11 (NRC 2010d), and the parties filed petitions
asking the Commission to uphold or reverse this decision. On October 1, 2010, the
Commission directed the staff to perform an orderly closure of its Yucca Mountain activities. As
part of the orderly closure, the NRC staff prepared three technical evaluation reports
documenting its work.
37
38
39
40
41
42
On September 9, 2011, the Commission issued Memorandum and Order CLI-11-07, stating that
it found itself evenly divided about whether to take the affirmative action of overturning or
upholding the Board’s June 29, 2010 decision. Exercising its inherent supervisory authority, the
Commission directed the Board to complete all necessary and appropriate case management
activities by September 30, 2011. On September 30, 2011, the Board issued a Memorandum
and Order suspending the proceeding (NRC 2011c).
43
44
45
In August 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision
directing the NRC to resume its review of the DOE’s license application (On Petition for Writ of
Mandamus 2013). In November 2013, the Commission directed the NRC staff to complete the
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1-10
February 2023
Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
safety evaluation report and requested that DOE prepare the EIS supplement that the NRC staff
had determined to be necessary. DOE informed the NRC that it would update a 2009 technical
analysis it provided to the NRC, but that it would not prepare a supplement to its EISs. In
January 2015, the NRC staff completed the five-volume safety evaluation report. In February
2015, the Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare the EIS supplement, which was
completed in May 2016 as NUREG-2184 (NRC 2016a). Although the adjudicatory proceeding
remains suspended, these materials along with other NRC nonsensitive Yucca Mountain-related
documents are available to the public as part of the NRC staff’s activities to retain the
accumulated knowledge and experience gained as a result of its Yucca Mountain-related
activities. These documents can be viewed on the NRC’s public website
(https://www.nrc.gov/waste/hlw-disposal.html).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Historically, the NRC’s Waste Confidence Decision and Rule represented the Commission’s
determination that spent fuel could continue to be stored safely and without significant
environmental impacts at reactor sites for a period of time after the end of the licensed life for
operation. The Commission incorporated the generic determinations in a previous version of
10 CFR 51.23, which satisfied the NRC’s obligations under NEPA for specific licensing actions
that would foreseeably generate spent fuel and high-level waste. Because the Waste
Confidence Rule was originally developed in 1984, the NRC updated the Rule; the last update
was completed in 2010.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
On December 23, 2010, the Commission published in the Federal Register a revision of the
Waste Confidence Decision and Rule to reflect information gained from experience in the
storage of spent nuclear fuel and the increased uncertainty in the siting and construction of a
permanent geologic repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
(75 FR 81032 and 75 FR 81037). In response to the 2010 Waste Confidence Decision and
Rule, the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont, along with several other
parties challenged the Commission’s NEPA analysis in the decision, which provided the
regulatory basis for the rule. On June 8, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
Circuit, in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (New York v. NRC 2012), vacated the NRC’s Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule, after finding that it did not comply with NEPA.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
In response to the court’s ruling, the Commission issued CLI-12-16 (NRC 2012e) on August 7,
2012, in which the Commission determined that it would not issue licenses that rely upon the
Waste Confidence Decision and Rule until the issues identified in the court’s decision are
appropriately addressed by the Commission. In SRM-COMSECY-12-0016 (dated September 6,
2012 [NRC 2012g]), the Commission directed the NRC staff to proceed with a rulemaking that
included the development of a generic EIS to support a revised Waste Confidence Decision and
Rule and to publish both the EIS and the revised decision and rule in the Federal Register within
24 months (by September 6, 2014).
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Two LR GEIS issues in Table B-1 were affected by the court’s decision. These issues which
relied, wholly or in part, on the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule, were the “onsite storage
of spent nuclear fuel” and “offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
disposal.” Both of these issues were classified as Category 1 in the 1996 rule; the 2009
proposed rule continued the Category 1 classification for both of these issues. As part of its
response to the New York v. NRC decision, the NRC revised these two issues accordingly in
the 2013 LR GEIS and in the June 2013 Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of
Nuclear Power Plant Operating License, Final Rule (78 FR 37282). Specifically, the NRC
revised the Category 1 ‘‘onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel’’ issue to limit the period of time
covered by the issue to only the license renewal term with an impact level of SMALL. Similarly,
February 2023
1-11
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Introduction
1
2
3
the NRC revised the Category 1 issue, ‘‘offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and
high-level waste disposal’’ by reclassifying the issue from Category 1 having an impact level of
SMALL to uncategorized having an impact level of uncertain.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The Commission’s direction in SRM-COMSECY-12-0016 led to the 2014 Continued Storage
Final Rule (79 FR 56238), which replaced the Waste Confidence Decision and Rule with a new
regulation at 10 CFR 51.23 that codified the discussion of environmental impacts in NUREG2157. In addition, the 2014 Continued Storage Final Rule made conforming changes to the two
environmental issues in Table B-1 that were affected by the vacated 2010 Waste Confidence
Rule: ‘‘onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” and ‘‘offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste disposal.’’ The Commission revised the Table B-1 finding for “onsite
storage of spent nuclear fuel” to add the phrase “during the license renewal term” to make clear
that the SMALL impact is for the license renewal term only. In addition, a new paragraph was
added for this issue in Table B-1 to address the impacts of onsite storage of spent fuel during
the continued storage period. The second paragraph of the column entry was revised to read,
“For the period after the licensed life for reactor operations, the impacts of onsite storage of
spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are discussed in NUREG-2157 and as
stated in § 51.23(b), shall be deemed incorporated into this issue.” As defined in the Continued
Storage Final Rule, the phrase “licensed life for reactor operations” refers to the term of the
license to operate a reactor and assumes an original licensed life of 40 years and up to two
20-year license extensions for each reactor. The changes reflect that the Category 1 findings
for the issue of “onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel” cover the environmental impacts
associated with the storage of spent nuclear fuel during the license renewal term as well as the
period after the licensed life for reactor operations.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
For the issue “offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal,”
the Continued Storage Final Rule revised the finding to reclassify the impact determination as a
Category 1 issue with no impact level assigned. The finding column entry for this issue was
also revised to reference EPA’s radiation protection standards for the high-level waste and
spent nuclear fuel disposal components of the fuel cycle. As stated in the Continued Storage
Final Rule (79 FR 56238), while the status of a geologic repository including a repository at
Yucca Mountain, remains uncertain, the NRC believes that the current radiation standards for
Yucca Mountain are protective of public health and safety and the environment. Further, the
Continued Storage GEIS (NRC 2014c) concludes that deep geologic disposal remains
technically feasible.
34
35
36
Lessons learned and knowledge gained from operating experience and license renewal
environmental reviews completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS regarding these
issues are discussed in Section 4.11.1 of this LR GEIS.
37
1.7.3
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The NRC will not make a decision or any recommendations on the basis of information
presented in this LR GEIS regarding emergency preparedness at nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power plant owners, government agencies, and State and local officials work together
to create a system for emergency preparedness and response that will serve the public in the
unlikely event of an emergency. The emergency plans for nuclear power plants cover
preparations for evacuation, sheltering, and other actions to protect residents near plants in the
event of a serious incident.
Emergency Preparedness
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1-12
February 2023
Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
In the United States, 92 commercial nuclear power reactors are licensed to operate at 54 sites
in 28 States. Each site has onsite and offsite emergency plans to assure that adequate
protective measures can be taken to protect the public in the event of a radiological emergency.
Federal oversight of emergency preparedness for licensed nuclear power plants is shared by
the NRC and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NRC and FEMA have a
Memorandum of Understanding (44 CFR Part 353 Appendix A), under which FEMA has the
lead in overseeing offsite planning and response, and the NRC assists FEMA in carrying out
this role. The NRC has statutory responsibility for the radiological health and safety of the
public and retains the lead for oversight of onsite preparedness.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Before a nuclear power plant is licensed to operate, the NRC must have reasonable assurance
that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological
emergency. The NRC’s decision of reasonable assurance is based on licensees complying with
NRC regulations and guidance. In addition, licensees and area response organizations must
demonstrate that they can effectively implement emergency plans and procedures during
periodic evaluated exercises. As part of the reactor oversight process, the NRC reviews
licensees’ emergency planning procedures and training. These reviews include regular drills
and exercises that assist licensees in identifying areas for improvement, such as the interface of
security operations and emergency preparedness. Each nuclear power plant owner is required
to exercise its emergency plan with the NRC, FEMA, and offsite authorities at least once every
2 years to ensure that State and local officials remain proficient in implementing their
emergency plans. Licensees also self-test their emergency plans regularly by conducting drills.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
FEMA findings and determinations about the adequacy and capability of implementing offsite
plans are communicated to the NRC. The NRC reviews the FEMA findings and determinations
as well as the onsite findings. The NRC then makes a determination about the overall state of
emergency preparedness. The NRC uses the overall findings and determinations to make
radiological health and safety decisions before issuing licenses and in its continuing oversight of
operating reactors. The NRC has the authority to take action, including shutting down any
reactor deemed not to provide reasonable assurance of the protection of public health and
safety.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
The Commission considered the need for a review of emergency planning issues in the context
of license renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR Part 54, which included public
notice and comment. As discussed in the statement of consideration for rulemaking
(56 FR 64966), the programs for emergency preparedness at nuclear power facilities apply to all
nuclear power facility licensees and require the specified levels of protection from each licensee
regardless of nuclear power plant design, construction, or license date. Requirements related to
emergency planning are in the regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
These requirements apply to all operating licenses and will continue to apply to facilities with
renewed licenses. Through its standards and required exercises, the Commission reviews
existing emergency preparedness plans throughout the life of any facility, keeping up with
changing demographics and other site-related factors.
41
42
43
44
Therefore, the Commission has determined that there is no need for a special review of
emergency planning issues in the context of an environmental review for license renewal
(NRC 2006a). Thus, decisions and recommendations concerning emergency preparedness at
nuclear power plants are ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of license renewal.
February 2023
1-13
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Introduction
1
1.7.4
Safeguards and Security
2
3
4
5
6
The NRC requires that nuclear power plants be both safe and secure. Safety refers to
operating the nuclear power plant in a manner that protects the public and the environment.
Security refers to protecting the nuclear power plant (using people, equipment, and
fortifications) from intruders who wish to damage or destroy it in order to harm people and the
environment.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Security issues such as safeguards planning are not tied to a license renewal action but are
considered to be issues that need to be dealt with continuously as a part of a nuclear power
plant’s current (and renewed) operating license. Security issues are periodically reviewed and
updated at every operating nuclear power plant. These reviews continue throughout the period
of an operating license, whether it is the original or renewed license. If issues related to security
are discovered at a nuclear power plant, they are addressed immediately, and any necessary
changes are reviewed and incorporated under the operating license (NRC 2006a). As such,
decisions and recommendations concerning safeguards and security at nuclear power plants
are ongoing and outside the regulatory scope of this LR GEIS.
16
1.7.5
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The NRC will not make a decision or any recommendations on the basis of information
presented in this LR GEIS regarding the need for power provided by nuclear power plants.
The regulatory authority over licensee economics (including the need for power) falls within the
jurisdiction of the States and, to some extent, within the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. The proposed rule for license renewal published on September 17,
1991 (56 FR 47016), had originally included a cost-benefit analysis and consideration of
licensee economics as part of the NEPA review. However, during the comment period, State,
Federal, and licensee representatives expressed concern about the use of economic costs and
cost-benefit balancing in the proposed rule and the 1996 LR GEIS. They noted that CEQ
regulations interpret NEPA as requiring only an assessment of the cumulative effects of a
proposed Federal action on the natural and human-made environment and that the
determination of the need for generating capacity has always been a State responsibility. For
this reason, the purpose and need for license renewal was defined by the Commission in the
June 5, 1996 final rule as follows (61 FR 28467):
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Need for Power
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) decisionmakers.
10 CFR 51.95(c)(2) states, in part:
The supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to
include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the
proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such benefits
and costs are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of an
alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1-14
February 2023
Introduction
1
1.7.6
Seismicity, Flooding, and Other Natural Hazards
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The NRC will not make a decision or any recommendations on the basis of information
presented in this LR GEIS regarding seismic risk and flooding at nuclear power plants. The
NRC’s assessment of seismic and flood hazards for existing nuclear power plants is a separate
and distinct process from license renewal reviews. Seismic and flood hazard issues are
appropriately addressed by the NRC on an ongoing basis at all licensed nuclear facilities as part
of its regulatory oversight activities. As such, decisions and recommendations concerning
seismic risk and flooding at nuclear power plants are outside the regulatory scope of this LR
GEIS. Following the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant resulting from the
March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami, the NRC established the
Near-Term Task Force as directed by the Commission on March 23, 2011, in COMGBJ-110002 (NRC 2011e). In consideration of the lessons learned following the Fukushima Dai-ichi
accident, the NRC staff developed an enhanced process to make sure that there is an ongoing
assessment of information on a range of natural hazards that could potentially pose a threat to
nuclear power plants. The framework developed as part of this process provides a graded
approach that allows the NRC to proactively, routinely, and systematically seek, evaluate, and
respond to new hazard information (NRC 2016f). In 2017, the Commission approved the staff’s
process enhancements for an ongoing assessment of natural hazard information (NRC 2017).
19
1.8
20
1.8.1
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The regulatory requirements for conducting a NEPA review for license renewal are similar to the
NEPA review requirements for other major nuclear plant licensing actions. Consistent with the
current NEPA practice for nuclear plant licensing actions, an applicant is required to submit an
environmental report that assesses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed
action, considers alternatives to the proposed action, and evaluates any alternatives for
reducing adverse environmental effects. For license renewal, the NRC prepares a draft SEIS to
the LR GEIS for public comment and issues a final SEIS after considering public comments on
the draft.
29
1.8.2
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The applicant’s environmental report must contain an assessment of the environmental impacts
of renewing a license, the environmental impacts of alternatives, and mitigation alternatives. In
assessing the environmental impacts of license renewal for the environmental report, the
applicant should refer to the summary of findings on environmental issues for license renewal in
Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51. The license renewal applicant is not required to assess the
environmental impacts of Category 1 issues listed in Table B-1 unless the applicant is aware of
new and significant information that would change the conclusions in the LR GEIS. For
Category 2 issues listed in Table B-1, the applicant must provide a plant-specific assessment of
the impacts. The NRC’s regulation in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) specifies the areas that must be
analyzed for the Category 2 issues in the environmental report.
40
41
42
43
44
The NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR 51.45(c) and 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) require license renewal
applicants to consider alternatives for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects
associated with the proposed action. Typically, this consideration is limited to the Category 2
NEPA issues listed in Table B-1. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.45(d), the environmental report must
also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local
Implementation of the Rule (10 CFR Part 51)
General Requirements
Applicant’s Environmental Report
February 2023
1-15
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
environmental standards. In addition, the NRC’s regulation in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) specifically
excludes the consideration of need for power, the economic costs and benefits of the proposed
action, or alternatives to the proposed action in the environmental report for license renewal,
except when such consideration is essential for determining whether to include an alternative in
the range of alternatives or is relevant to mitigation. Other issues excluded from consideration
in the environmental report include issues not related to the environmental effects of the
proposed action (license renewal) and associated alternatives. The applicant should also
demonstrate the consideration of a range (set) of reasonable alternatives to license renewal in
the environmental report and is not limited to the alternatives and energy technologies
presented in this LR GEIS. Information provided in the applicant’s environmental report will be
used in preparing the NRC’s SEIS.
12
1.8.3
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
As required by 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the NRC is required to prepare a SEIS to the LR GEIS for
each license renewal environmental review. The SEIS serves as the NRC’s analysis of the
environmental impacts of license renewal as well as a comparison of the impacts of alternatives.
This document also presents the NRC’s recommendation about the environmental impact of
license renewal. SEISs for license renewal do not need to include a discussion of the need for
power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the proposed action or of alternatives to
the proposed action (10 CFR 51.95(c)(2)).
20
1.8.4
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The NRC conducts public scoping meetings to inform the public about the license renewal
process and receive comments on the scope of the NRC’s plant-specific environmental review.
At the conclusion of the scoping period, NRC reviews and considers public comments in a
scoping summary report. In addition, the draft SEIS is issued for public comment (see
10 CFR 51.73). In reviewing public scoping comments on the proposed action and comments
on the draft SEIS, the NRC determines whether each comment provides any new and
significant information compared to the information and conclusions presented in the LR GEIS
(for Category 1 issues) as well as the information it provides on Category 2 issues considered in
the SEIS. If comments are determined to provide new and significant information that could
change the conclusions in the LR GEIS, these comments will be addressed in the SEIS.
31
1.8.5
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The NRC’s draft SEIS presents an analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed
license renewal action and the environmental impacts of the alternatives to the proposed action.
The NRC considers (1) the summary of findings on environmental issues for license renewal of
nuclear power plants in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 for Category 1 issues, (2) plant-specific
environmental impact analyses of Category 2 issues, and (3) any new and significant
information from the applicant’s environmental report or identified through public scoping and
comment to reach a conclusion regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal. These
impacts are then compared to the environmental impacts of replacement energy alternatives.
40
1.8.6
41
42
43
The NRC issues a final SEIS in accordance with 10 CFR 51.91 and 51.93 after considering
(1) public comments, (2) the plant-specific environmental impact analysis of Category 2 issues,
and (3) new and significant information involving Category 1 issues summarized in Table B-1.
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Public Scoping and Public Comments
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1-16
February 2023
Introduction
1
2
3
4
The NRC provides a record of its decision regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed
license renewal action (see 10 CFR 51.102 and 51.103). All comments on the draft SEIS are
addressed by the NRC in the final SEIS in accordance with 10 CFR 51.91(a)(1). Comments
regarding Category 1 issues are addressed in the following manner:
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
•
The NRC’s response to a comment regarding the applicability of the analysis of an impact
codified in the rule (i.e., 10 CFR Part 51) to the plant in question may be a statement and
explanation of its view that the analysis is adequate including, if applicable, consideration of
the significance of any new information. A commenter dissatisfied with such a response
may file a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. Procedures for the submission of
petitions for rulemaking are explained in 10 CFR Part 2. If a commenter is successful in
persuading the Commission that the new information does indicate that the analysis of an
impact codified in the rule is incorrect in significant respects (either in general or with respect
to the particular plant), then a rulemaking proceeding will be initiated.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
•
If a commenter provides new information that is relevant to the plant and is also relevant to
other plants (i.e., generic information) and that information demonstrates that the analysis of
an impact codified in the rule is incorrect, the NRC will seek Commission approval either to
suspend the application of the rule on a generic basis with respect to the analysis or to delay
granting the renewal application (and possibly other renewal applications) until the rule can
be amended. This LR GEIS would reflect the corrected analysis and any additional
consideration of alternatives as appropriate.
21
22
23
24
25
•
If a commenter provides new, plant-specific information that demonstrates that the analysis
of an impact codified in the rule is incorrect with respect to the particular plant, then the NRC
staff will seek Commission approval to waive the application of the rule with respect to that
analysis in that specific renewal proceeding. The SEIS would reflect the corrected analysis
as appropriate.
26
27
The NRC will also consider comments on Category 2 issues and make any necessary changes
to the SEIS or explain why no changes were needed.
28
1.9
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
In support of the proposed review and update of the LR GEIS, the NRC staff conducted a
thorough environmental scoping process in 2020. The scoping process was conducted in
accordance with Commission direction and the NRC’s regulations in Appendix B,
“Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” to
Subpart A, “National Environmental Policy Act – Regulations Implementing Section 102(2),” of
10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related
Regulatory Functions”. The introduction in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 states
that, on a 10-year cycle, the Commission intends to review the material in Appendix B, including
Table B-1, and update it, if necessary (61 FR 28467). Thus, the NRC began the latest review in
April 2020, approximately 7 years after the completion of the previous revision cycle in
June 2013.
40
41
42
43
44
45
On August 4, 2020, the NRC staff issued a Federal Register notice (85 FR 47252) initiating the
scoping process to solicit public input to support the review to determine whether to update the
LR GEIS, including updates to address SLR. It provided the public and other governmental
entities with an opportunity to comment on the review and propose areas for updating, in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.29. The NRC staff also directly contacted other Federal agencies,
States, and Tribes to invite their participation.
Public Scoping Comments on the LR GEIS Update
February 2023
1-17
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The scoping process consisted of a 90-day public comment period and included four webinar
meetings conducted on August 19, 2020, and August 27, 2020, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. and
from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. to receive comments from the public. Because of the COVID-19
public health emergency, no in-person meetings were held. The contents of each webinar
meeting were transcribed by a court reporter. On August 19, approximately 40 people attended
the two public webinar meetings, including representatives from the nuclear industry and
Federal and State agencies. On August 27, approximately 20 people collectively attended the
two webinar meetings, including representatives from the nuclear industry and Federal and
State agencies. The official transcripts are available in NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) (NRC 2020j). The public scoping period ended on
November 2, 2020.
12
13
14
15
16
17
At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff issued Environmental Impact Statement
Scoping Process Summary Report, Review and Update of the Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437), dated June 2021 (NRC
2021e). The report contains (1) comments received during the public meeting, via email, and
through Regulations.gov; (2) public comments grouped by subject area; and (3) NRC staff
responses to those comments.
18
19
All comments received were considered as part of the staff’s review and update and are
referenced in Appendix A.
20
1.10 Lessons Learned
21
22
23
24
25
26
As previously discussed, the NRC reviewed and evaluated the impacts of license renewal. In
conducting a thorough update to the LR GEIS that reflects the “hard look” that is required for a
NEPA document, the NRC considered changes in applicable laws and regulations, new data in
its possession, collective experience, and lessons learned and knowledge gained from
conducting environmental reviews for initial LR and SLR since 2013. These developments and
practical insights provided a significant source of new information for this LR GEIS revision.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The purpose of this review and evaluation was to determine if the findings presented in the 2013
LR GEIS support the scope of license renewal, including for initial LR and SLR. In doing so, the
NRC considered the need to modify, add, group, subdivide, or delete any of the 78 issues in the
2013 LR GEIS. After this review and evaluation, the NRC identified 80 environmental issues for
detailed consideration in this LR GEIS revision. The following summarizes the types of
proposed changes to Table B-1. These changes are listed by order of appearance in Table B-1,
not by order of significance:
34
35
36
37
•
One Category 2 issue, “Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds at inland sites),”
and a related Category 1 issue, “Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds in salt
marshes),” were consolidated into a single Category 2 issue, “Groundwater quality
degradation (plants with cooling ponds).”
38
39
40
41
42
43
•
Two related Category 1 issues, “Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants),” and
“Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and
eutrophication,” and the thermal effluent component of the Category 1 issue, “Losses from
predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses,” were
consolidated into a single Category 1 issue, “Infrequently reported effects of thermal
effluents.”
44
45
•
One Category 2 issue, “Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with
once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds),” and the impingement component of a
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1-18
February 2023
Introduction
Category 1 issue, “Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms
exposed to sublethal stresses,” were consolidated into a single Category 2 issue,
“Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling ponds).”
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
•
One Category 1 issue, “Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with
cooling towers),” and the impingement component of the Category 1 issue, “Losses from
predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses,” were
consolidated into a single Category 1 issue, “Impingement mortality and entrainment of
aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers).”
10
11
12
13
14
•
One Category 2 issue, “Threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish
habitat,” was divided into three Category 2 issues: (1) “Endangered Species Act: federally
listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction,” (2) “Endangered
Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under National Marine Fisheries
Service jurisdiction,” and (3) “Magnuson-Stevens Act: essential fish habitat.”
15
16
•
Two new Category 2 issues, “National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources” and
“Climate change impacts on environmental resources,” were added.
17
•
One Category 2 issue, “Severe accidents,” was changed to a Category 1 issue.
18
•
One new Category 1 issue, “Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change,” was added.
19
•
Several issue titles and findings were revised for clarity.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Historically, the issues identified in the LR GEIS have served to accurately categorize most
environmental impacts associated with license renewal. While there have been a number of
instances where new (but not significant) information was discovered during a license renewal
environmental review for Category 1 issues since publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, the number
of instances where information was determined to be both new and significant has been limited.
Most notably, in the SEIS for second renewal of Turkey Point, the NRC found that new
information for the Category 1 (generic) issue “Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants with
Cooling Ponds in Salt Marshes)” was both new and significant for the initial LR term (NRC
2019c). As noted above, that issue was consolidated with a Category 2 issue, “Groundwater
quality degradation (cooling ponds at inland sites),” into a new Category 2 issue, “Groundwater
quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds).”
31
1.11 Organization of the LR GEIS
32
33
34
35
36
Consistent with the 2013 LR GEIS, this LR GEIS revision adopts the NRC’s standard format for
EISs as established in 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix A. This LR GEIS is organized
according to a more typical NEPA resource-based approach to presenting impacts where all
components of the proposed action and alternatives are presented for each resource area. The
following list describes the contents of each chapter of the LR GEIS:
37
38
39
40
•
Chapter 2 presents brief descriptions of the proposed action (including nuclear plant
operations, refurbishment, and termination of operations and decommissioning) during the
license renewal term and a summary of impacts, the no action alternative, and energy
alternatives.
41
42
43
44
•
Chapter 3 presents a general description of the affected environment in the vicinity of
operating commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. Included are descriptions
of nuclear power plant facilities and operations followed by general descriptions of existing
conditions in the following topical areas: (1) land use and visual resources; (2) meteorology,
February 2023
1-19
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
air quality, and noise; (3) geologic environment; (4) water resources (surface water
resources and groundwater resources); (5) ecological resources (terrestrial resources,
aquatic resources, and federally protected ecological resources); (6) historic and cultural
resources; (7) socioeconomics; (8) human health (radiological and nonradiological hazards);
(9) environmental justice; (10) waste management and pollution prevention; and
(11) greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
7
8
9
10
11
12
•
Chapter 4 presents the environmental consequences associated with the proposed action
(license renewal) and energy alternatives (including the incremental effects of continued
operations and refurbishment) on each of the topical areas presented in Chapter 3. Impacts
common to all alternatives (including the environmental consequences of fuel cycles and
terminating power plant operations), cumulative effects (impacts), and resource
commitments associated with the proposed action are also discussed.
13
•
Chapter 5 presents the references for Chapters 1 through 4.
14
15
•
Chapter 6 presents a list of the preparers of this LR GEIS, their affiliations, authorship
responsibilities, and qualifications.
16
17
•
Chapter 7 provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and persons receiving copies of the
LR GEIS.
18
•
Chapter 8 provides for a glossary of terms used in the LR GEIS.
19
20
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1-20
February 2023
2.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is the renewal of a commercial nuclear power plant’s operating license.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) regulations in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, implementing Section 102(2) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.), requires the consideration of
alternatives to renewing the nuclear power plant’s operating license and the comparison of the
impacts of renewing the operating license to the environmental impacts of reasonable
alternatives. This allows the NRC to determine whether the environmental impacts of license
renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning
decisionmakers would be unreasonable. If the NRC decides not to renew the operating license
of a nuclear power plant, energy-planning decisionmakers will then have to find alternative
means of addressing energy needs. Alternatives to license renewal include other means of
generating electricity, as well as offsetting demand using conservation and energy efficiency
measures (demand-side management), delaying planned retirements of other existing plants, or
purchasing sufficient power to replace the capacity supplied by the existing nuclear power
plant.
Contents of Chapter 2.0
•
Proposed Action (Section 2.1)
•
No Action Alternative (Section 2.2)
•
Alternative Energy Sources (Section 2.3)
•
Comparison of Alternatives (Section 2.4)
17
18
19
20
If the NRC renews the operating license, the decision about whether or not to continue nuclear
power plant operations will be made by the licensee and State or other Federal (non-NRC)
decisionmakers. This decision may be based on economic, reliability, operational, policy, and
environmental objectives.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 2.1 below in this revision of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS) describes the proposed action, including nuclear
plant operations during the license renewal term (initial license renewal (initial LR) or
subsequent license renewal (SLR)), refurbishment, and other activities associated with license
renewal. Most of these activities would be the same as or similar to those already occurring at
the nuclear plant. Termination of nuclear plant operations would occur at or before the end of
the license renewal term, and decommissioning activities would commence after reactor
operations have ceased.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
The impacts of the proposed action and any refurbishment activities that may be undertaken in
support of license renewal are summarized in Section 2.1.4, including each of the identified
80 environmental issues, their significance (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, as defined in
Section 1.5), and whether the impact designation would apply to all or a subset of nuclear
plants. Section 2.2 describes the no action alternative (not renewing the operating license), and
Section 2.3 presents alternatives for replacing existing nuclear generating capacity using other
energy sources, including fossil fuel, new nuclear, renewable energy, and offsetting existing
nuclear generating capacity, including demand-side management, delayed retirement, and
February 2023
2-1
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
purchased power. The potential environmental consequences (impacts) of the proposed action
and alternatives to the proposed action are presented in Chapter 4.0.
3
4
5
6
The NRC does not reach a generic conclusion regarding the impacts of alternatives to license
renewal and will consider these impacts in nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called plantspecific) supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs). However, Section 2.4
presents a summary comparison of the impacts of the proposed action to these alternatives.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action Considered in the LR GEIS
7
•
Not renewing the operating licenses of commercial nuclear power plants (no action
alternative).
•
Replacing existing nuclear generating capacity using other energy sources (including
fossil fuel, new nuclear, and renewable energy).
•
Offsetting existing nuclear generation capacity using conservation and energy efficiency
(demand-side management), delayed retirement, or purchased power.
2.1
Proposed Action
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
As stated in Section 1.2, the proposed action is the renewal of commercial nuclear power plant
operating licenses. For the NRC to determine whether the license should be renewed, an
applicant is required to perform certain safety analyses to demonstrate that the nuclear power
plant and the licensee can effectively manage the effects of aging and continue safe reactor
operations during the renewal term. These safety analyses include an assessment of the
effects of potential age-related degradation of certain long-lived, passive systems, structures,
and components (SSCs). This requires applicants to describe the conditions under which the
plant would operate during the license renewal term. A description of nuclear plant operations
during the license renewal term is provided in Section 2.1.1.
17
18
19
20
21
Applicants may also conduct refurbishment activities (replacement of major components and
systems) necessary to continue reactor operation during the renewal term. These are
described in Section 2.1.2. Section 2.1.3 presents an overview of the termination of nuclear
plant operations and decommissioning process. Termination of operations and
decommissioning impacts are addressed in Section 4.14.3.
22
2.1.1
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
This section describes nuclear plant operations, maintenance, and refueling activities, including
aging management reviews, required for license renewal. During the license renewal term,
nuclear plants would continue to operate in the same manner as they do now. All nuclear
reactors currently operating in the United States are light water reactors, of which there are two
basic types—pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs). A brief
description of these reactors and baseline conditions during their operation are presented in
Chapter 3.0.
30
Activities conducted at nuclear plants include:
31
•
reactor operations;
32
•
waste management (processing, storage, packaging, and offsite shipment of wastes);
Nuclear Plant Operations during the License Renewal Term
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-2
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
•
security (includes site security personnel);
2
•
office and clerical work (management, public relations, and support staff);
3
•
laboratory analysis;
4
•
surveillance, monitoring, and maintenance (e.g., equipment testing and inspections); and
5
•
refueling and other outages (additional workers during outage).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
These activities are expected to continue during the license renewal term. Certain SSCs such
as the reactor pressure vessel, reactor containment building, and piping would continue to
operate into the license renewal term. The regulations in 10 CFR Part 54 place certain
requirements on licensees to make sure that such SSCs continue to operate safely.
Incremental aging management activities implemented to allow operation of a nuclear power
plant beyond the original 40-year license term are assumed to fall under one of two broad
categories: (1) surveillance, monitoring, inspection, testing, trending, and recordkeeping
actions, most of which are repeated at regular intervals, and (2) major refurbishment actions,
which usually occur infrequently and possibly only once in the life of the plant for any given item.
Refurbishment activities are discussed in Section 2.1.2.
16
17
18
19
The NRC finds that the approaches to environmental impacts from refurbishment activities
contained in the previous LR GEISs are valid and conservative. The approaches yield
environmental impacts that are likely greater than—or at least equal to—the actual impacts
during the license renewal term.
20
2.1.2
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The NRC assumes that licensees may need to conduct refurbishment activities to ensure the
safe and economic operation of nuclear plants during the license renewal term. Refurbishment
activities include replacement and repair of SSCs. Replacement activities include replacing
steam generators and pressurizers for PWRs and recirculation piping systems for BWRs. It is
assumed that some applicants may undertake construction projects to replace or improve power
plant infrastructure. Such projects could include construction of new parking lots, roads, storage
facilities, office buildings, structures, and other facilities.
28
29
30
31
32
33
The number of SSCs involved in refurbishment and the frequency and duration of each activity
would vary. In many circumstances, refurbishment activities (e.g., steam generator and reactor
vessel head replacement) have already taken place at a number of nuclear plants. These
refurbishment-type activities were conducted for economic, reliability, or efficiency reasons
during refueling or maintenance outages (i.e., not for license renewal). In addition, very few
applications have identified any refurbishment activities associated with license renewal.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Impacts from refurbishment activities outside of license renewal are assumed to have been
considered in annual site evaluation reports, environmental operating reports, and Radiological
Environmental Monitoring Program reports. Detailed analyses of environmental impacts have
not been performed for refurbishment actions in this LR GEIS revision because these actions
would vary at each nuclear plant. Refurbishment activities proposed by license renewal
applicants in their environmental report will be addressed in plant-specific environmental
reviews. Chapter 4.0 of this LR GEIS considers the impacts of representative or bounding
refurbishment activities in a number of resource areas.
Refurbishment and Other Activities Associated with License Renewal
February 2023
2-3
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
2.1.3
Termination of Nuclear Plant Operations and Decommissioning after License
Renewal
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Environmental impacts caused by the licensee’s decision to permanently cease nuclear plant
operations and enter into decommissioning are outside the scope of the LR GEIS. This
includes impacts from terminating reactor operations and the removal of fuel from the reactor
vessel, regardless of when or why the decision is made. Decommissioning impacts are
addressed in NUREG-0586, Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of
Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors,
(Decommissioning GEIS) (NRC 2002c).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Most nuclear plant activities and systems dedicated to reactor operations would cease after
reactor shutdown. Some activities (e.g., security and spent nuclear fuel management) would
continue, while other activities (administration, laboratory analysis, and reactor surveillance,
monitoring, and maintenance) may be reduced or eliminated. Shared systems at a nuclear
power plant that have multiple units would continue to operate but at reduced capacity until all
units cease operation. The cessation of activities needed to maintain and operate the reactor
would reduce the need for workers at the nuclear power plant, but it would not lead to the
immediate dismantlement of the reactor or its infrastructure.
18
19
20
21
22
The decommissioning process begins when the licensee informs the NRC that it has
permanently ceased reactor operations, defueled, and intends to decommission the nuclear
plant. Regulations in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i) and 10 CFR 52.110(d)(1) require licensees to
submit a post-shutdown decommissioning activity report (PSDAR) to the NRC, and forward a
copy to the affected State(s), no later than 2 years after the cessation of reactor operations.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The licensee must describe all planned activities in the PSDAR, including the schedule and
estimated costs for radiological decommissioning (excluding site restoration and spent fuel
management costs). The licensee also documents the evaluation of the environmental impacts
of planned decommissioning activities at the nuclear plant and provides a basis for why impacts
are bounded by previously issued environmental review documents (e.g., Decommissioning
GEIS, NRC 2002c). The licensee must also describe any decommissioning activities whose
impacts are not bounded and how the impacts will be addressed prior to conducting these
activities at the nuclear plant (e.g., through regulatory exemption or license amendment
requests). The licensee is required to update the PSDAR if there are any significant changes in
decommissioning activity, costs, schedule, or environmental impact.
33
34
35
36
Once the NRC receives the PSDAR, the report is docketed and a notice of receipt is published
in the Federal Register to solicit public comments. The NRC conducts a public meeting near
the nuclear plant to discuss the licensee’s decommissioning plans and schedule, answer
questions, and solicit comments.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The licensee submits a License Termination Plan with final status survey strategy to the NRC
near the end of decommissioning, at least 2 years before the operating license can be
terminated. Prior to completing decommissioning, the licensee must conduct a survey
demonstrating compliance with site release criteria established in the License Termination Plan.
The NRC verifies the survey results by one or more of the following methods: a quality
assurance/quality control review, side-by-side or split sampling of radiological surveys of
selected areas, or independent confirmatory surveys. When the NRC confirms that the criteria
in the License Termination Plan and all other NRC regulatory requirements have been met, the
NRC either terminates or amends the operating license, depending on the licensee’s decision
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-4
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
5
on use of the licensed area. The former nuclear plant area and any remaining structures on the
site can then be released for restricted or unrestricted use, as appropriate. The criteria for
restricted use conditions and alternate criteria that the NRC may approve under certain
conditions are listed in 10 CFR 20.1403 and 10 CFR 20.1404, respectively. The radiological
criteria for releasing sites for unrestricted use are given in 10 CFR 20.1402.
6
2.1.4
Impacts of the Proposed Action
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
When evaluating the impacts of the proposed action, 80 environmental issues were identified:
72 issues associated with continued operations and any refurbishment during the initial LR and
SLR terms; 2 with postulated accidents; 1 with the termination of nuclear power plant operations
and decommissioning; 4 with the uranium fuel cycle; and 1 with cumulative effects. For all
issues, the focus of the evaluation was on the incremental effects of license renewal (for the
initial LR or SLR term) relative to the no action alternative. Impact significance levels and
categories are defined in Section 1.5.
14
15
16
A summary of the environmental impacts of the proposed action is presented in Table 2.1-1.
The technical basis for the impact determinations presented in this table is found in Chapter 4.0
of this LR GEIS in Sections 4.2 through 4.14.
17
18
Table 2.1-1 Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues under the Proposed Action
(Initial and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal)
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Environmental Issue
Land Use
Onsite land use
SMALL (Category 1). Changes in onsite land use from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would be a
small fraction of the nuclear power plant site and would involve only land
that is controlled by the licensee.
Offsite land use
SMALL (Category 1). Offsite land use would not be affected by continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.
Offsite land use in
transmission line
right-of-ways
(ROWs)(c)
SMALL (Category 1). Use of transmission line ROWs from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would
continue with no change in land use restrictions.
Visual Resources
Aesthetic impacts
February 2023
SMALL (Category 1). No important changes to the visual appearance of
plant structures or transmission lines are expected from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.
2-5
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Environmental Issue
Air Quality
Air quality impacts
SMALL (Category 1). Air quality impacts from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small at
all plants. Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire pumps
and routine operations of boilers used for space heating are minor.
Impacts from cooling tower particulate emissions have been small.
Emissions resulting from refurbishment activities at locations in or near air
quality nonattainment or maintenance areas would be short-lived and would
cease after these activities are completed. Operating experience has
shown that the scale of refurbishment activities has not resulted in
exceedance of the de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants, and best
management practices, including fugitive dust controls and the imposition
of permit conditions in State and local air emissions permits, would ensure
conformance with applicable State or Tribal implementation plans.
Air quality effects of
transmission lines(c)
SMALL (Category 1). Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen from
transmission lines is insignificant and does not contribute measurably to
ambient levels of these gases.
Noise
Noise impacts
SMALL (Category 1). Noise levels would remain below regulatory
guidelines for offsite receptors during continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal.
Geologic Environment
Geology and soils
SMALL (Category 1). The impact of continued operations and
refurbishment activities on geology and soils would be small for all nuclear
power plants and would not change appreciably during the license renewal
term.
Surface Water
Resources
Surface water use
and quality (noncooling system
impacts)
SMALL (Category 1). Impacts are expected to be small if best
management practices are employed to control soil erosion and spills.
Surface water use associated with continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal would not increase significantly or would
be reduced if refurbishment occurs during a plant outage.
Altered current
patterns at intake and
discharge structures
SMALL (Category 1). Altered current patterns would be limited to the area
in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have
been small at operating nuclear power plants.
Altered salinity
gradients
SMALL (Category 1). Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to the
area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts
have been small at operating nuclear power plants.
Altered thermal
stratification of lakes
SMALL (Category 1). Effects on thermal stratification would be limited to
the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These
impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.
Scouring caused by
discharged cooling
water
SMALL (Category 1). Scouring effects would be limited to the area in the
vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been
small at operating nuclear power plants.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-6
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Environmental Issue
Discharge of metals in
cooling system
effluent
SMALL (Category 1). Discharges of metals have not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-tower-based heat
dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants.
Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process.
Discharge of biocides,
sanitary wastes, and
minor chemical spills
SMALL (Category 1). The effects of these discharges are regulated by
Federal and State environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored and
controlled as part of the NPDES permit process. These impacts have been
small at operating nuclear power plants.
Surface water use
conflicts (plants with
once-through cooling
systems)
SMALL (Category 1). These conflicts have not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-through heat
dissipation systems.
Surface water use
conflicts (plants with
cooling ponds or
cooling towers using
makeup water from a
river)
SMALL or MODERATE (Category 2). Impacts could be of small or
moderate significance, depending on makeup water requirements, water
availability, and competing water demands.
Effects of dredging on
surface water quality
SMALL (Category 1). Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the
vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge shipping
has not been found to be a problem for surface water quality. Dredging is
performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
possibly, from other State or local agencies.
Temperature effects
on sediment transport
capacity
SMALL (Category 1). These effects have not been found to be a problem
at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem
during the license renewal term.
Groundwater
Resources
Groundwater
contamination and
use (non-cooling
system impacts)
SMALL (Category 1). Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from
continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.
Industrial practices involving the use of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy
metals, or other chemicals, and/or the use of wastewater ponds or lagoons
have the potential to contaminate site groundwater, soil, and subsoil.
Contamination is subject to State or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulated cleanup and monitoring programs. The application of best
management practices for handling any materials produced or used during
these activities would reduce impacts.
Groundwater use
conflicts (plants that
withdraw less than
100 gallons per
minute [gpm])
SMALL (Category 1). Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not
expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts.
Groundwater use
conflicts (plants that
withdraw more than
100 gallons per
minute [gpm])
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE (Category 2). Plants that withdraw
more than 100 gpm could cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby
groundwater users.
February 2023
2-7
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Environmental Issue
Groundwater use
conflicts (plants with
closed-cycle cooling
systems that withdraw
makeup water from a
river)
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE (Category 2). Water use conflicts could
result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-flow conditions, which
may affect aquifer recharge. The significance of impacts would depend on
makeup water requirements, water availability, and competing water
demands.
Groundwater quality
degradation resulting
from water
withdrawals
SMALL (Category 1). Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear
power plants would not contribute significantly to groundwater quality
degradation.
Groundwater quality
degradation (plants
with cooling ponds)
SMALL or MODERATE (Category 2). Sites with cooling ponds could
degrade groundwater quality. The significance of the impact would depend
on site-specific conditions including cooling pond water quality, site
hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction of surface water and
groundwater), and the location, depth, and pump rate of water wells.
Radionuclides
released to
groundwater
SMALL or MODERATE (Category 2). Leaks of radioactive liquids from
plant components and pipes have occurred at numerous plants.
Groundwater protection programs have been established at all operating
nuclear power plants to minimize the potential impact from any inadvertent
releases. The magnitude of impacts would depend on site-specific
characteristics.
Terrestrial Resources
Non-cooling system
impacts on terrestrial
resources
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE (Category 2). The magnitude of effects
of continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment, unrelated to
operation of the cooling system, would depend on numerous site-specific
factors, including ecological setting, planned activities during the license
renewal term, and characteristics of the plants and animals present in the
area. Application of best management practices and other conservation
initiatives would reduce the potential for impacts.
Exposure of terrestrial
organisms to
radionuclides
SMALL (Category 1). Doses to terrestrial organisms from continued
nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment during the license renewal
term would be expected to remain well below U.S. Department of Energy
exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms.
Cooling system
impacts on terrestrial
resources (plants with
once-through cooling
systems or cooling
ponds)
SMALL (Category 1). Continued operation of nuclear power plant cooling
systems during license renewal could cause thermal effluent additions to
receiving water bodies, chemical effluent additions to surface water or
groundwater, impingement of waterfowl, disturbance of terrestrial plants
and wetlands from maintenance dredging, and erosion of shoreline habitat.
However, plants where these impacts have occurred successfully mitigated
the impact, and it is no longer of concern. These impacts are not expected
to be significant issues during the license renewal term.
Cooling tower impacts
on terrestrial plants
SMALL (Category 1). Continued operation of nuclear power plant cooling
towers could deposit particulates and water droplets or ice on vegetation
and lead to structural damage or changes in terrestrial plant communities.
However, nuclear power plants where these impacts occurred have
successfully mitigated the impact. These impacts are not expected to be
significant issues during the license renewal term.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-8
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Environmental Issue
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Bird collisions with
plant structures and
transmission lines(c)
SMALL (Category 1). Bird mortalities from collisions with nuclear power
plant structures and in-scope transmission lines would be negligible for any
species and are unlikely to threaten the stability of local or migratory bird
populations or result in noticeable impairment of the function of a species
within the ecosystem. These impacts are not expected to be significant
issues during the license renewal term.
Water use conflicts
with terrestrial
resources (plants with
cooling ponds or
cooling towers using
makeup water from a
river)
SMALL or MODERATE (Category 2). Nuclear power plants could
consume water at rates that cause occasional or intermittent water use
conflicts with nearby and downstream terrestrial and riparian communities.
Such impacts could noticeably affect riparian or wetland species or alter
characteristics of the ecological environment during the license renewal
term. The one plant where impacts have occurred successfully mitigated
the impact. Impacts are expected to be small at most nuclear power plants
but could be moderate at some.
Transmission line
right-of-way (ROW)
management impacts
on terrestrial
resources(c)
SMALL (Category 1). In-scope transmission lines tend to occupy only
industrial-use or other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites and,
therefore, effects of ROW maintenance on terrestrial plants and animals
during the license renewal term would be negligible. Application of best
management practices would reduce the potential for impacts.
Electromagnetic field
effects on terrestrial
plants and animals(c)
SMALL (Category 1). In-scope transmission lines tend to occupy only
industrial-use or other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites and,
therefore, the effects of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial plants and
animals during the license renewal term would be negligible.
Aquatic Resources
Impingement mortality
and entrainment of
aquatic organisms
(plants with oncethrough cooling
systems or cooling
ponds)
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE (Category 2). The impacts of
impingement mortality and entrainment would generally be small at nuclear
power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds that have
implemented best technology requirements for existing facilities under
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b). For all other plants, impacts could
be small, moderate, or large depending on characteristics of the cooling
water intake system, results of impingement and entrainment studies
performed at the plant, trends in local fish and shellfish populations, and
implementation of mitigation measures.
Impingement mortality
and entrainment of
aquatic organisms
(plants with cooling
towers)
SMALL (Category 1). No significant impacts on aquatic populations
associated with impingement mortality and entrainment at nuclear power
plants with cooling towers have been reported, including effects on fish and
shellfish from direct mortality, injury, or other sublethal effects. Impacts
during the license renewal term would be similar and small. Further, the
effects of these cooling water intake systems would be mitigated through
adherence to NPDES permit conditions established pursuant to CWA
Section 316(b).
Entrainment of
phytoplankton and
zooplankton
SMALL (Category 1). Entrainment has not resulted in noticeable impacts
on phytoplankton or zooplankton populations near operating nuclear power
plants. Impacts during the license renewal term would be similar and small.
Further, effects would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES permit
conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b).
Effects of thermal
effluents on aquatic
organisms (plants
with once-through
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE (Category 2). Acute, sublethal, and
community-level effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms would
generally be small at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds that adhere to State water quality criteria or that
February 2023
2-9
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Environmental Issue
cooling systems or
cooling ponds)
have and maintain a valid CWA Section 316(a) variance. For all other
plants, impacts could be small, moderate, or large depending on sitespecific factors, including ecological setting of the plant; characteristics of
the cooling system and effluent discharges; and characteristics of the fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organisms present in the area.
Effects of thermal
effluents on aquatic
organisms (plants
with cooling towers)
SMALL (Category 1). Acute, sublethal, and community-level effects of
thermal effluents have not resulted in noticeable impacts on aquatic
communities at nuclear power plants with cooling towers. Impacts during
the license renewal term would be similar and small. Further, effects would
be mitigated through adherence to State water quality criteria or CWA
Section 316(a) variances.
Infrequently reported
effects of thermal
effluents
SMALL (Category 1). Continued operation of nuclear power plant cooling
systems could result in certain infrequently reported thermal impacts,
including cold shock, thermal migration barriers, accelerated maturation of
aquatic insects, proliferation of aquatic nuisance organisms, depletion of
dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, eutrophication, and increased
susceptibility of exposed fish and shellfish to predation, parasitism, and
disease. Most of these effects have not been reported at operating nuclear
power plants. Plants that have experienced these impacts successfully
mitigated the impact, and it is no longer of concern. Infrequently reported
thermal impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the license
renewal term.
Effects of
nonradiological
contaminants on
aquatic organisms
SMALL (Category 1). Heavy metal leaching from condenser tubes was an
issue at several operating nuclear power plants. These plants successfully
mitigated the issue, and it is no longer of concern. Cooling system effluents
would be the primary source of nonradiological contaminants during the
license renewal term. Implementation of best management practices and
adherence to NPDES permit limitations would minimize the effects of these
contaminants on the aquatic environment.
Exposure of aquatic
organisms to
radionuclides
SMALL (Category 1). Doses to aquatic organisms from continued nuclear
power plant operation and refurbishment during the license renewal term
would be expected to remain well below U.S. Department of Energy
exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms.
Effects of dredging on
aquatic resources
SMALL (Category 1). Dredging at nuclear power plants is expected to
occur infrequently, would be of relatively short duration, and would affect
relatively small areas. Continued operation of many plants may not require
any dredging. Adherence to best management practices and CWA Section
404 permit conditions would mitigate potential impacts at plants where
dredging is necessary to maintain function or reliability of cooling systems.
Dredging is not expected to be a significant issue during the license
renewal term.
Water use conflicts
with aquatic
resources (plants with
cooling ponds or
cooling towers using
makeup water from a
river)
SMALL or MODERATE (Category 2). Nuclear power plants could
consume water at rates that cause occasional or intermittent water use
conflicts with nearby and downstream aquatic communities. Such impacts
could noticeably affect aquatic plants or animals or alter characteristics of
the ecological environment during the license renewal term. The one plant
where impacts have occurred successfully mitigated the impact. Impacts
are expected to be small at most nuclear power plants but could be
moderate at some.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-10
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Environmental Issue
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Non-cooling system
impacts on aquatic
resources
SMALL (Category 1). No significant impacts on aquatic resources
associated with landscape and grounds maintenance, stormwater
management, or ground-disturbing activities at operating nuclear power
plants have been reported. Impacts from continued operation and
refurbishment during the license renewal term would be similar and small.
Application of best management practices and other conservation initiatives
would reduce the potential for impacts.
Impacts of
transmission line
right-of-way (ROW)
management on
aquatic resources(c)
SMALL (Category 1). In-scope transmission lines tend to occupy only
industrial-use or other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites and,
therefore, the effects of ROW maintenance on aquatic plants and animals
during the license renewal term would be negligible. Application of best
management practices would reduce the potential for impacts.
Federally Protected Ecological Resources
Endangered Species
Act: federally listed
species and critical
habitats under U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
jurisdiction
(Category 2). The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant
operation and refurbishment on federally listed species and critical habitats
would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological
setting; listed species and critical habitats present in the action area; and
plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal,
effluent discharges, and other ground-disturbing activities. Consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) would be required if license renewal may affect listed
species or critical habitats under this agency's jurisdiction.
Endangered Species
Act: federally listed
species and critical
habitats under
National Marine
Fisheries Service
jurisdiction
(Category 2). The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant
operation and refurbishment on federally listed species and critical habitats
would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological
setting; listed species and critical habitats present in the action area; and
plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal,
effluent discharges, and other ground-disturbing activities. Consultation
with the National Marine Fisheries Service under Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) would be required if license renewal may affect listed
species or critical habitats under this agency's jurisdiction.
Magnuson-Stevens
Act: essential fish
habitat
(Category 2). The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant
operation and refurbishment on essential fish habitat would depend on
numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; essential
fish habitat present in the area, including habitats of particular concern; and
plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal,
effluent discharges, and other activities that may affect aquatic habitats.
Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service under MagnusonStevens Act Section 305(b) would be required if license renewal could
result in adverse effects to essential fish habitat.
National Marine
Sanctuaries Act:
sanctuary resources
(Category 2). The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant
operation and refurbishment on sanctuary resources would depend on
numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; national
marine sanctuaries present in the area; and plant-specific factors related to
operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other
activities that may affect aquatic habitats. Consultation with the Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries under National Marine Sanctuaries Act
Section 304(d) would be required if license renewal could destroy, cause
the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources.
February 2023
2-11
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Environmental Issue
Historic and Cultural
Resources
Historic and cultural
resources(c)
(Category 2). Impacts from continued operations and refurbishment on
historic and cultural resources located onsite and in the transmission line
ROW are analyzed on a plant-specific basis. The NRC will perform a
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 review, in
accordance with 36 CFR Part 800 which includes consultation with the
State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Indian Tribes, and other
interested parties.
Socioeconomics
Employment and
income, recreation
and tourism
SMALL (Category 1). Although most nuclear plants have large numbers
of employees with higher than average wages and salaries, employment,
income, recreation, and tourism impacts from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small.
Tax revenue
SMALL (Category 1). Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local
jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in lieu of tax
(PILOT), or tax payments on energy production. The amount of tax
revenue paid during the license renewal term as a result of continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal is not
expected to change.
Community services
and education
SMALL (Category 1). Changes resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal to local community and
educational services would be small. With little or no change in
employment at the licensee’s plant, value of the power plant, payments on
energy production, and PILOT payments expected during the license
renewal term, community and educational services would not be affected
by continued power plant operations.
Population and
housing
SMALL (Category 1). Changes resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal to regional population and
housing availability and value would be small. With little or no change in
employment at the licensee’s plant expected during the license renewal
term, population and housing availability and values would not be affected
by continued power plant operations.
Transportation
SMALL (Category 1). Changes resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal to traffic volumes would be
small.
Human Health
Radiation exposures
to plant workers
SMALL (Category 1). Occupational doses from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be within the
range of doses experienced during the current license term, and would
continue to be well below regulatory limits.
Radiation exposures
to the public
SMALL (Category 1). Radiation doses to the public from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected
to continue at current levels, and would be well below regulatory limits.
Chemical hazards
SMALL (Category 1). Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting from
continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal
are expected to be minimized by the licensee implementing good industrial
hygiene practices as required by permits and Federal and State
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-12
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Environmental Issue
regulations. Chemical releases to the environment and the potential for
impacts to the public are expected to be minimized by adherence to
discharge limitations of NPDES and other permits.
Microbiological
hazards to plant
workers
SMALL (Category 1). Occupational health impacts are expected to be
controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene practices
to minimize worker exposures as required by permits and Federal and
State regulations.
Microbiological
hazards to the public
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE (Category 2). These microorganisms
are not expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly
at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or that discharge to waters of
the United States accessible to the public. Impacts would depend on sitespecific characteristics.
Electromagnetic fields
(EMFs)(c)
Uncategorized (Uncertain impact). Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not
uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures.
EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals
and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced and
longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of the science is
currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is
possible.
Physical occupational
hazards
SMALL (Category 1). Occupational safety and health hazards are generic
to all types of electrical generating stations, including nuclear power plants,
and are of small significance if the workers adhere to safety standards and
use protective equipment as required by Federal and State regulations.
Electric shock
hazards(c)
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE (Category 2). Electrical shock potential
is of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in
adherence with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Without a
review of conformance with NESC criteria of each nuclear power plant’s inscope transmission lines, it is not possible to determine the significance of
the electrical shock potential.
Postulated Accidents
Design-basis
accidents
SMALL (Category 1). The NRC staff has concluded that the
environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance
for all plants.
Severe accidents(d)
SMALL (Category 1). The probability-weighted consequences of
atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to
groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are
small for all plants. Severe accident mitigation alternatives do not warrant
further plant-specific analysis because the demonstrated reductions in
population dose risk and continued severe accident regulatory
improvements substantially reduce the likelihood of finding cost-effective
significant plant improvements.
Environmental Justice
Impacts on minority
populations, lowincome populations,
and Indian Tribes
February 2023
(Category 2). Impacts on minority populations, low-income populations,
Indian Tribes, and subsistence consumption resulting from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal will be
addressed in nuclear plant-specific reviews.
2-13
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Environmental Issue
Waste Management
Low-level waste
storage and disposal
SMALL (Category 1). The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in
place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the
radiological impacts on the environment would remain small during the
license renewal term.
Onsite storage of
spent nuclear fuel
During the license renewal term, Small (Category 1). The expected
increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of
operation can be safely accommodated onsite during the license renewal
term with small environmental impacts through dry or pool storage at all
plants.
For the period after the licensed life for reactor operations, the impacts of
onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are
discussed in NUREG-2157 and as stated in § 51.23(b), shall be deemed
incorporated into this issue.
Offsite radiological
impacts of spent
nuclear fuel and highlevel waste disposal
(Category 1). For the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal component
of the fuel cycle, the EPA established a dose limit of 0.15 mSv (15 millirem)
per year for the first 10,000 years and 1.0 mSv (100 millirem) per year
between 10,000 years and 1 million years for offsite releases of
radionuclides at the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large
to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended
operation under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while
the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the
impacts of spent fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue is considered
Category 1.
Mixed-waste storage
and disposal
SMALL (Category 1). The comprehensive regulatory controls and the
facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling and
storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for the
public and the environment at all plants. License renewal would not
increase the small, continuing risk to human health and the environment
posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological
environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any
individual plant at licensed sites are small.
Nonradioactive waste
storage and disposal
SMALL (Category 1). No changes to systems that generate
nonradioactive waste are anticipated during the license renewal term.
Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling,
storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure to toxic materials for
the public and the environment at all plants.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Greenhouse gas
impacts on climate
change
SMALL (Category 1). Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change from
continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal
are expected to be small at all plants. Greenhouse gas emissions from
routine operations of nuclear power plants are typically very minor, because
such plants, by their very nature, do not normally combust fossil fuels to
generate electricity.
Greenhouse gas emissions from construction vehicles and other motorized
equipment for refurbishment activities would be intermittent and temporary,
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-14
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Environmental Issue
restricted to the refurbishment period. Worker vehicle greenhouse gas
emissions for refurbishment would be similar to worker vehicle emissions
from normal nuclear power plant operations.
Climate change
impacts on
environmental
resources
(Category 2). Climate change can have additive effects on environmental
resource conditions that may also be directly impacted by continued
operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term. The effects
of climate change can vary regionally and climate change information at the
regional and local scale is necessary to assess trends and the impacts on
the human environment for a specific location. The impacts of climate
change on environmental resources during the license renewal term are
location-specific and cannot be evaluated generically.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects
(Category 2). Cumulative effects or impacts of continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal must be considered on a
plant-specific basis. The effects depend on regional resource
characteristics, the incremental resource-specific effects of license renewal,
and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting the environmental
resource.
Uranium Fuel Cycle
Offsite radiological
impacts—individual
impacts from other
than the disposal of
spent fuel and highlevel waste
SMALL (Category 1). The impacts to the public from radiological
exposures have been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of this
part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts to individuals from
radioactive gaseous and liquid releases, including radon-222 and
technetium-99, would remain at or below the NRC’s regulatory limits.
Offsite radiological
impacts—collective
impacts from other
than the disposal of
spent fuel and highlevel waste
(Category 1). There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses
to the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of estimating
health effects on the basis of collective doses may not be meaningful. All
fuel-cycle facilities are designed and operated to meet the applicable
regulatory limits and standards. The Commission concludes that the
collective impacts are acceptable.
The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large
to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended
operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while
the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the
collective impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this issue is considered
Category 1.
Nonradiological
impacts of the
uranium fuel cycle
SMALL (Category 1). The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel
cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant would
be small.
Transportation
SMALL (Category 1). The impacts of transporting materials to and from
uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the environment are
expected to be small.
February 2023
2-15
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Impact Finding(a)(b)
Environmental Issue
Termination of Nuclear
Power Plant
Operations and
Decommissioning
Termination of plant
operations and
decommissioning
SMALL (Category 1). License renewal is expected to have a negligible
effect on the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning on all
resources.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(a) Supports the finding codified in Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. Where appropriate, a
single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the impacts.
(b) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the
impacts of initial LR and SLR.
(c) This issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric power transmission lines, which are defined as
transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation where electricity is fed into the regional
power distribution system and transmission lines that supply power to the nuclear plant from the grid.
(d) Although the NRC does not anticipate any license renewal applications for nuclear power plants for which a
previous severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) or severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA)
analysis has not been performed, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that
have not considered such alternatives and would be the functional equivalent of a Category 2 issue requiring
site-specific analysis.
13
2.2
14
15
16
17
The no action alternative represents a decision by the NRC not to renew the operating license
of a nuclear power plant beyond the current operating license term. At some point, all nuclear
plants will terminate operations and undergo decommissioning. Under the no action alternative,
plant operations would terminate at or before the end of the current license term.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Not renewing the license and ceasing operation under the no action alternative may lead to a
variety of potential outcomes, but these would be essentially the same regardless of whether
operations cease at the expiration of the original operating license or at the expiration of a
renewed license. Expiration of a license will require the reactor to ultimately undergo
decommissioning, whether it be more immediate (as under DECON), or deferred (as under
SAFSTOR). Termination of nuclear power plant operations would result in the total cessation of
electrical power production. The no action alternative, unlike the other alternatives, does not
expressly meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, because it does not provide a
means of delivering baseload power to meet future electric system needs. No action on its own
would likely create a need for replacement energy; that need could be met by installation of
additional generating capacity, adoption or expansion of energy conservation and energy
efficiency programs (including demand-side management), delayed retirements, purchased
power, or some combination of these options.
31
2.3
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The following sections describe alternative energy sources identified by the NRC as being
potentially capable of meeting the purpose and need of the proposed action (license renewal).
Accordingly, these alternative energy sources could provide additional options that allow for
baseload power-generation capability beyond the term of the current nuclear power plant
operating license to meet future system power-generating needs, as such needs may be
determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.
A reasonable alternative must be commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to
the expiration of the reactor’s operating license, or expected to become commercially viable on
No Action Alternative
Alternative Energy Sources
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-16
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s operating license. The NRC
has updated this LR GEIS to incorporate the latest information on alternative energy sources,
but it is inevitable that rapidly evolving technologies will outpace the information presented. As
technologies improve, the NRC expects that some alternative energy sources not currently
viable for replacing or offsetting the power generated by a nuclear power plant may become
viable at some time in the future. The NRC will make that determination during plant-specific
license renewal reviews, as documented in plant-specific SEISs to this LR GEIS. The amount
of replacement power generated or offset must equal the baseload capacity previously supplied
by the nuclear plant and reliably operate at or near the nuclear plant’s demonstrated capacity
factor.1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
If the need arises to replace or offset the generating capacity of a nuclear reactor, power could
be provided by a suite of individual alternative energy sources. Power could also be provided
using combinations of alternative energy sources, as well as by instituting demand-side
management measures, delaying the scheduled retirement of one or more existing power
plants, or purchasing an equivalent amount of power. The number of possible combinations of
alternative energy sources that could replace or offset the generating capacity of a nuclear
power plant is potentially unlimited. Based on this, the NRC has only evaluated individual
energy sources rather than combinations of energy sources in this LR GEIS. However,
combinations of energy sources may be considered during plant-specific license renewal
reviews.
21
22
23
24
25
The following sections describe alternative means of generating electricity or otherwise
addressing electrical loads that could serve to replace or offset the power produced by an
existing nuclear power plant. As discussed in Chapter 1.0, the NRC does not engage in energyplanning decisions and makes no judgment about which alternative energy source(s) evaluated
would be chosen in any given case.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The NRC relies on many sources of information to determine which alternatives are available
and commercially viable. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Information
Administration (EIA) maintains the official energy statistics of the Federal government. Along
with information from other sources, the NRC commonly uses information from EIA reports,
including the Electric Power Annual, Monthly Energy Review, Annual Energy Outlook, and
Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook to identify energy trends and inform the staff’s
analysis of alternatives to the proposed action (initial LR or SLR). The NRC often considers the
existing portfolio of electric generating technologies in the State or utility service area in which a
nuclear plant is located, along with State and Federal policies that may promote or oppose
certain alternatives. The NRC may also use the EIA’s State Energy Profiles as well as State,
regional, and, in some cases, utility- or system-level assessments of energy resources and
projections (such as integrated resource plans) to identify alternatives for consideration.
38
39
40
41
42
43
The United States relies on a variety of energy sources and technologies to provide electrical
power. Annual electric power generation has decreased from 4,125 million megawatt-hours
(MMWh) in 2010 to 4,007 MMWh in 2020. Coal and petroleum (oil) generation decreased
substantially between 2010 and 2020, while natural gas, wind, and solar increased. Table 2.3-1
includes the changes in values of net generation at utility-scale facilities between 2010 and
2020 (DOE/EIA 2022d).
1
The capacity factor is the ratio of the amount of electric energy produced by an electric generator over
a given period of time to the amount of electric energy the same generator would have produced had it
operated at its full, rated capacity over the same period of time.
February 2023
2-17
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
Table 2.3-1
Net Generation at Utility-Scale Facilities (million megawatt-hours [MMWh])
Utility-Scale Facility
Net Generation (in MMWh) Net Generation (in MMWh) in
in Year 2010
Year 2020
Nuclear
Coal
Natural Gas
Oil
Hydroelectric
Geothermal
Wind
Biomass
Solar
Other(a)
Total
2
3
4
5
807
1,847
988
37
260
15
95
56
1
19
4,125
790
773
1,624
17
285
16
338
55
89
19
4,007
MMWh = million megawatt-hours.
(a) Other includes blast furnace gas and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels, nonbiogenic municipal solid waste, batteries, hydrogen, purchased steam, sulfur, tire-derived fuel, and other
miscellaneous energy sources, offset by savings associated with hydroelectric pumped storage.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
In the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050 (DOE/EIA 2022b), the EIA
projects an increase in energy consumption and generating capacity throughout the 2050
forecast period because population and economic growth is expected to outweigh efficiency
gains. Electricity demand is expected to grow slowly over the projection period, with renewable
energy generation increasing more rapidly than overall electricity demand. Battery storage is
expected to reduce natural gas- and oil-fired generation during peak hours. As coal and nuclear
generating capacity retires, new capacity additions are likely to come largely from wind and
solar generation (DOE/EIA 2022a).
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
In Sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.3 of this LR GEIS, the NRC presents a variety of energy sources
(including fossil fuel, nuclear, and renewable energy technologies) that might be considered as
alternatives for replacing the power generated by nuclear power plants being considered for
initial LR or SLR. In Chapter 4.0, the NRC compares the environmental impacts of these
alternatives to the environmental impacts of license renewal. In addition, Section 2.3.4
discusses non-power generating approaches that could also be considered for offsetting a
nuclear power plant’s existing capacity.
21
2.3.1
22
23
24
25
26
Fossil fuel energy technologies burn fuel derived from ancient organic matter such as natural
gas, coal, or crude oil and as such are a source of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide
(CO2) (NRC 2013a). While the EIA indicates that renewable energy will be the fastest-growing
category of U.S. energy source through 2050, fossil fuels such as natural gas will maintain a
large market share, while coal and oil are likely to continue to decline.
27
2.3.1.1
28
29
30
The most common types of natural gas-fired plants are combustion turbine and combined-cycle
plants. A schematic of a representative gas-fired power plant is provided in Figure 2.3-1.
Combustion turbines use hot gases that drive a generator and are then used to run a
Fossil Fuel Energy Technologies
Natural Gas
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-18
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
compressor. In contrast, a combined-cycle power system typically uses a gas turbine to drive
an electrical generator, recovering waste heat from the turbine exhaust to generate steam that
drives a steam turbine generator. This two-cycle process has a high rate of efficiency because
the natural gas combined-cycle system captures the exhaust heat that otherwise would be lost
and reuses it. Baseload natural gas combined-cycle power plants have proven their reliability
and can have capacity factors as high as 87 percent (DOE/EIA 2015a). Since 2016, 31 percent
of new natural gas-powered plants constructed use advanced natural gas-fired combined-cycle
units, increasing efficiency and decreasing capital construction costs (DOE/EIA 2019a).
9
10
11
12
13
As of 2021, natural gas technologies represented 37 percent of electricity generation, outpacing
coal (23%), nuclear (19%), and renewables (21%). Based on reference case projections,
natural gas generation as a proportion of U.S. electricity generation is expected to remain
relatively constant (34% in 2050), with decreases in coal and nuclear generation being replaced
by increases in renewables (DOE/EIA 2022h).
14
15
Figure 2.3-1 Schematic of a Natural Gas-Fired Plant
16
2.3.1.2
Coal
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Although coal has historically been the largest source of electricity generation in the United
States, both natural gas and nuclear energy generation surpassed coal at the national level in
2020, before coal-fired generation rebounded after 2020. Overall, coal-fired electricity
generation in the United States has continued to decrease as coal-fired generating units have
been retired or converted to use other fuels and as the remaining coal-fired generating units
have been used less often (DOE/EIA 2021c). Projections for the amount of electricity produced
from coal in the future vary widely across planning scenarios, primarily due to cost uncertainties
associated with anticipated future environmental regulations such as cap-and-trade regulations
for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and the regulation of greenhouse gases emissions, primarily
carbon dioxide. The EIA projects that between 2021 and 2050, coal-fired generation will
decrease from 23 percent to 10 percent of total U.S. electricity generation (DOE/EIA 2022h).
28
29
30
31
32
Baseload coal units have proven their reliability and can routinely sustain capacity factors as
high as 85 percent. Among the technologies available, pulverized coal boilers producing
supercritical steam (supercritical pulverized coal boilers) have become increasingly common at
newer coal-fired plants given their generally high thermal efficiencies and overall reliability. A
schematic of a representative coal-fired power plant is provided in Figure 2.3-2.
February 2023
2-19
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Supercritical pulverized coal facilities are more expensive than subcritical coal-fired plants to
construct, but they consume less fuel per unit output, reducing environmental impacts.
Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is another technology that generates electricity
from coal. It combines modern coal gasification technology with both gas turbine and steam
turbine power generation. The technology is cleaner than conventional pulverized coal plants
because some of the major pollutants are removed from the gas stream before combustion.
Although several smaller, IGCC power plants have been in operation since the mid-1990s, more
recent large-scale projects using this technology have experienced setbacks and opposition that
have hindered the technology from being fully integrated into the energy market.
Figure 2.3-2
Schematic of a Coal-Fired Power Plant. Source: NETL Undated.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Advanced coal technologies will likely become increasingly important as regulations on power
plant emissions evolve, including under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.) and the
CWA (33 U.S. C. § 1251 et seq.). Technologies often referred to as “clean coal technologies,”
which include coal cleaning processes, coal gasification technologies, improved combustion
technologies, and enhanced devices for capturing pollutants, may reduce impacts associated
with a coal-fired plant (NRC 2013a). The EIA assumes that by 2025, coal plants are expected
to either invest in heat rate improvement technologies or be retired. Additionally, low natural
gas prices are expected to contribute to the retirement of existing coal-fired plants (DOE/EIA
2020a).
21
2.3.1.3
22
23
Oil-fired energy technologies are conceptually similar to gas-fired technologies but use crude oil
rather than natural gas fuel. According to the EIA, in 2016, only 3 percent of utility-scale
Oil
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-20
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
generators used petroleum as a primary fuel and produced less than 1 percent of total electricity
generation in the United States. In general, oil plants are located in coastal States where
marine modes of oil transportation are competitive with transportation of coal by rail. These
plants are on average nearly 40 years old, with roughly 70 percent of the capacity constructed
prior to 1980. Since that time, oil-fired generation has become more expensive than other fossil
fuel generation options. Accordingly, this high cost has contributed to the overall decline in the
use of oil for electricity generation (DOE/EIA 2017).
8
2.3.2
New Nuclear Energy Technologies
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Commercial nuclear power plants use fission to heat water and produce steam, which is then
used to spin turbines that generate electricity. The newest nuclear power plant to enter service
in the United States is Tennessee’s Watts Bar Unit 2, which began operation in June 2016.
Prior to then, the last new nuclear power reactor to come online was Watts Bar Unit 1 in 1996
(DOE/EIA 2022g). The EIA projects that nuclear power’s contribution to total U.S. electrical
generation will decrease from 19 percent in 2021 to 12 percent by 2050 (DOE/EIA 2022h).
Currently, six light water nuclear reactor designs have been certified by the NRC. Certified
designs include the 1,300 megawatt-electric (MWe) U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
(10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A), the 1,300 MWe System 80+ Design (10 CFR Part 52,
Appendix B), the 600 MWe AP600 Design (10 CFR Part 52 Appendix C), the 1,100 MWe
AP1000 Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D), the 1,500 MWe GE-Hitachi Economic Simplified
Boiling Water Reactor (10 CFR Part 52 Appendix E), and the 1,400 MWe Korean Electric Power
Corporation APR 1400 (10 CFR Part 52 Appendix F) (NRC 2020c).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Several companies are considering other advanced, non-light water reactor designs and
technologies and are conducting preapplication activities with the NRC. These reactors may be
cooled by liquid metals, molten salt mixtures, or inert gases. Advanced reactors can also
consider fuel materials and designs that differ radically from standard uranium dioxide fuel types
currently in use (NRC 2021c). Given the uncertainties associated with their technical viability
and deployment timeframes, these emerging technologies are not evaluated further in this LR
GEIS. Furthermore, the NRC is currently in the process of developing a Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for Advanced Nuclear Reactors (ANR GEIS) to analyze the environmental
impacts associated with the licensing of these reactors (85 FR 24040). In this LR GEIS, the
NRC staff has evaluated the construction and operation of two types of new nuclear
technologies as reasonable alternatives to license renewal: (1) large, advanced light water
reactor (ALWR) plants and (2) small modular reactor (SMR) plants.
34
2.3.2.1
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
ALWR designs feature advanced safety systems and evolutionary operating improvements over
existing power reactors. The first large ALWR units to be built in the United States are expected
to go into operation in 2023. When completed, Vogtle Units 3 and 4, in Waynesboro, Georgia,
will become the first U.S. deployment of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor, which was
designed as a next-generation nuclear reactor that could provide a standardized design for the
U.S. utilities market. In addition, the AP1000 has a smaller footprint, simpler design, and uses
less piping, fewer valves, and fewer pumps than older designs (DOE/EIA 2022i, DOE Undatedd). A schematic of a large ALWR is depicted in Figure 2.3-3.
Advanced Light Water Reactors
February 2023
2-21
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
Figure 2.3-3 Schematic of an Advanced Light Water Reactor. Adapted from: NRC
2004a.
4
2.3.2.2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Small Modular Reactors
SMRs, in general, are light-water reactors that use water for cooling and enriched uranium for
fuel in the same manner as the conventional, large light-water reactors currently operating in the
United States. SMR modules typically generate 300 MWe or less, compared to today’s larger
nuclear reactor designs, which can generate 1,000 MWe or more per reactor. However, their
smaller size means that several SMRs can be bundled together in a single containment.
Smaller size also means greater siting flexibility because they can fit in locations not large
enough to accommodate a conventional nuclear reactor (NRC 2018b, NRC 2020a, DOE
2022a). SMR design features can include below grade containment and inherent safe
shutdown features, longer station blackout coping time without external intervention, and core
and spent fuel pool cooling without the need for active heat removal. A representative SMR is
illustrated in Figure 2.3-4. SMR power-generating facilities are also designed to be deployed in
an incremental fashion to meet the power-generation needs of a service area, in which
generating capacity can be added in increments to match load growth projections (NRC 2018b).
Overall, the NRC staff assumes that the resource requirements, key characteristics, and
impacts associated with constructing and operating SMRs would be bounded by the impacts of
constructing and operating the large light-water reactor units that have been evaluated in NRC
EISs since the 1970s. The NRC received the first design certification application for an SMR in
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-22
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
December 2016 (NRC 2022a). Following NRC certification, this design could potentially
achieve operation on a commercial scale by 2027 (NuScale Power LLC 2022). Therefore,
SMRs could be constructed and operational by the time many existing nuclear power plant
licenses expire.
5
6
7
Figure 2.3-4 Schematic of a Light Water Small Modular Nuclear Reactor. Source: GAO
2015.
8
2.3.3
Renewable Energy Technologies
9
10
11
12
The NRC considers the following renewable energy technology alternatives for possible
replacement power: solar (both photovoltaic and thermal), wind (both land-based and offshore),
hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, ocean wave and current, and fuel cells. Combinations of
renewable energy alternatives may be considered during plant-specific license reviews.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Renewable energy sources accounted for approximately 20 percent of total U.S. electricity
generation in 2020, and are projected to account for nearly 60 percent of cumulative generating
capacity additions through 2050 (DOE/EIA 2021b, DOE/EIA 2022a). The past two decades
have seen a dramatic increase in the commercial use of renewable energy alternatives, allowing
for the increased likelihood that some of these technologies could individually or in combination
provide total replacement power for a nuclear power plant. One of the major reasons for this is
that energy storage technologies are rapidly gaining in importance. As the amounts of power
from variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar increase, energy storage
capability has become an essential tool for temporally decoupling generation and demand
(DOE/EIA 2021e).
February 2023
2-23
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Energy storage can enhance the overall efficiency and value of intermittent renewable energy
technologies as sources of reliable baseload power. Some energy storage options can also
help maintain grid stability through improved frequency management, and some may improve
the use and integration of smart grid technologies. Energy storage technologies are not
generation sources but rather complementary technologies that can take many forms, among
them, electrochemical energy of batteries and capacitors, pumped storage hydropower, and
compressed air.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Battery energy storage systems are increasingly being used to provide electric powergeneration and backup capacity for times when nondispatchable renewable energy sources,
such as wind and solar, are unavailable. These batteries can be used in a standalone manner
or as components of a hybrid system coupled with intermittent generation sources. U.S. battery
power capacity grew by 35 percent in 2020 and tripled over the last 5 years, and EIA expects
this rapid growth to continue (DOE/EIA 2021e).
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Pumped storage hydropower generates energy during peak load periods by using water
previously pumped into an elevated storage reservoir and then released to turn a turbinegenerator during off-peak periods, and in 2020 accounted for 93 percent of grid storage in the
United States. In contrast, compressed air energy storage (CAES) systems use motor-driven
air compressors to compress air into a suitable geological repository such as an underground
salt cavern, a mine, or a porous rock formation. CAES systems have been limited, with only
one such system developed in the United States in the 1990s (NPCC 2010).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The environmental impacts of the construction and operation of renewable energy alternatives
are quite different from those of nonrenewable alternatives. The NRC presents these impacts in
Chapter 4.0. In general, however, resource areas that have the greatest range of impacts
include air quality, hydrology, and land use. Air quality impacts from hydroelectric, wind, solar,
and ocean wave and ocean current generation methods would be negligible; however, biomassfueled energy, for example, would emit air pollutants, some of them hazardous. Some
geothermal technologies may also be sources of hazardous air pollutants. All renewable energy
alternatives would rely on modest amounts of water, but those that would rely on conventional
steam cycles to power turbine generators (biomass, geothermal, solar thermal) would have
higher water demands, some of which are comparable to those of nonrenewable alternatives.
All renewable energy alternatives would require land, although land requirements would be
negligible for offshore wind and ocean wave and ocean current alternatives. Solar and
conventional hydroelectric generators, for example, would require significant amounts of land.
34
35
36
37
The NRC has elected not to evaluate energy storage technologies as discrete alternatives to a
nuclear reactor because they do not directly generate electricity. The NRC intends to consider
the influence that energy storage technologies can have on its evaluations of the environmental
impacts of alternative generating technologies in future license renewal reviews.
38
Brief overviews of renewable energy alternatives are provided in the following sections.
39
2.3.3.1
40
41
42
43
Solar energy technologies generate power from sunlight. Solar technologies that are
commercially viable for the production of electricity include solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar
thermal, also referred to as concentrating solar power (CSP) (see Figure 2.3-5 and
Figure 2.3-6).
Solar Energy
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-24
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Solar PV components convert sunlight directly into electricity using solar cells. Solar cells have
been developed using silicon (single crystal, polycrystalline, and amorphous silicon) and a
variety of compounds such as cadmium telluride, copper-indium-gallium-selenide, and gallium
arsenide. Among the silicon-based solar cells, single crystals exhibit the highest efficiency, but
polycrystalline cells now represent the majority of the PV market. Although more expensive to
produce, high-performance, multi-junction cells offer greater energy-conversion efficiencies and
are currently the subject of most research into utility-scale applications. Many solar cell
materials are now being manufactured as thin films, which have lower efficiencies than other
types of PV technologies but typically can be made at a lower cost. Unlike CSP technologies,
PV systems do not require cooling water, although they may have substantial land
requirements.
12
13
Figure 2.3-5 Schematic of Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant. Adapted from: NRC 2013a.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
CSP systems use heat from the sun to boil water and produce steam. The steam then drives a
turbine connected to a generator to ultimately produce electricity (NREL Undated). CSP
facilities can use molten salt to store heat for steam production at night and during cloudy
periods, but to do so and still maintain their nameplate capacities, such CSP facilities must
increase the size of the solar field. CSP facilities use conventional steam cycles and thus have
cooling demands similar to fossil fuel power plants of equivalent capacities and overall thermal
efficiencies.
21
22
23
24
25
Solar generators are considered an intermittent resource because their availability depends on
ambient exposure to the sun, also known as solar insolation. The highest-value solar resources
in the United States exist in the desert regions of the Southwest. However, solar resources of
adequate quality to support utility-scale solar energy facilities, particularly PV, are located—to
varying extents—throughout the country.
February 2023
2-25
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
Figure 2.3-6 Schematic of Concentrated Solar Power Plant. Adapted from: NRC 2013a.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Solar energy technologies produced approximately 2.8 percent of total U.S. electricity
generation in 2021, representing approximately 13.5 percent of total renewable generation
(DOE/EIA 2022e). Nationwide, growth in utility-scale solar PV facilities (greater than 1 MW) has
resulted in an increase from 145 MW in 2009 to over 35,000 MW of installed capacity in 2019
(DOE/EIA Undated-a). EIA projects that solar energy’s contribution to total U.S. electrical
generation will continue to increase and account for 20 percent by 2050 (DOE/EIA 2021d). EIA
further projects that solar energy’s share of total U.S. capacity will increase from 7 percent in
2020 to 29 percent in 2050. About 70 percent of these solar additions are anticipated to be from
utility-scale PV power plants, and 30 percent from end-use PV such as residential and
commercial rooftop solar installations (DOE/EIA 2022b).
13
2.3.3.2
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Onshore and offshore wind resources exist throughout the United States. The dominant
technology for utility-scale applications is the horizontal-axis wind turbine. A typical wind turbine
consists of rotor blades attached to a nacelle, which is mounted on a tower. Within the nacelle,
a drive train connects to an electrical generator to produce electricity, which is then conveyed by
cables to electronic conversion equipment situated at ground level within the tower (see
Figure 2.3-7). As is the case with other renewable energy sources, the feasibility of wind energy
serving as an alternative baseload power depends on the location (relative to expected
electricity users), value, accessibility, and constancy of the resource. Wind energy must be
converted to electricity at or near the point where it is extracted, and backup power sources or
energy storage capabilities often need to be paired to overcome the intermittency and variability
of wind resources.
Wind Energy
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-26
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
The American Clean Power Association reports a total of more than 122,000 MW of installed
wind energy capacity nationwide as of December 31, 2020 (DOE Undated-e). The average
rated (nameplate) capacity of newly installed land-based wind turbines in the United States in
2018 was 2.4 MW (Wiser and Bolinger 2019).
5
6
7
8
9
10
Increasing attention has recently been focused on developing U.S. offshore wind resources,
particularly along the Atlantic coast. In 2016, a 30 MWe project off the coast of Rhode Island
became the first operating offshore wind farm in the United States (Orsted Undated). This was
followed in 2020 with the construction and operation of the Mid-Atlantic’s first offshore wind
demonstration project in Federal waters, a 12 MWe demonstration project supporting the
planned operation of a 2,600 MWe utility-scale wind farm off the coast of Virginia (BOEM 2021).
11
12
13
Figure 2.3-7 Components of a Modern Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine. Source: NREL
2012.
14
15
16
17
18
19
Modern offshore wind turbines are substantially larger than those constructed and operated on
land. From 2000 to 2020, offshore wind turbine sizes have grown from an installed average of
2 MW per turbine to recent designs capable of generating 14 MW per turbine (BOEM 2020a).
Offshore wind energy development activities have the potential to also affect onshore land use
and coastal infrastructure, particularly due to onshore construction activities, port modifications,
and cable landing facilities needed to connect the wind turbines to onshore electricity
February 2023
2-27
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
transmission infrastructure (BOEM 2019). A schematic of a representative offshore wind
generating facility is illustrated in Figure 2.3-8.
3
4
5
Figure 2.3-8 Major Offshore Wind Power Plant and Transmission Elements. Source:
DOE 2022b.
6
7
8
9
10
The amount of wind electricity generation has grown significantly in the past 30 years. Wind
energy was the source of approximately 9.2 percent of total U.S. electricity generation and
about 46 percent of all renewable energy produced in 2021 (DOE/EIA 2022e). EIA forecasts
that wind energy will account for approximately 10 percent of new U.S. generating capacity
additions through 2050, exceeded only by solar and natural gas (DOE/EIA 2022b).
11
2.3.3.3
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Hydropower, which uses the flow of moving water to generate electricity, is one of the oldest
and largest sources of renewable energy. As of 2020, there were approximately 2,300
operating hydroelectric facilities in the United States (DOE Undated-c). Hydroelectric
technology operates by capturing the energy of flowing water and directing it to a turbine and
generator to produce electricity. There are two fundamental hydropower facility designs: “runof-the-river” facilities that simply redirect the natural flow of a river, stream, or canal through a
hydroelectric facility and “store-and-release” facilities that block the flow of the river by using
dams that cause the water to accumulate in an upstream reservoir (see Figure 2.3-9) (NRC
2013a).
21
22
23
Hydropower facilities generally have between a 40–50 percent capacity factor, higher than
those of solar or wind, but lower than power plants operated for baseload power generation
(DOE/EIA 2021a).
Hydroelectric Energy
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-28
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
Figure 2.3-9 Cross Section of a Large Hydroelectric Plant. Source: NREL 2012.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Large hydroelectric facilities constructed on major rivers can have peak power capacities as
high as 10,000 MW(e). However, river flow conditions and other circumstances and factors
(e.g., spawning periods of anadromous fish) often require dam operators to divert river flow
around power-generating turbines over various periods of time, thereby reducing the amount of
power generated (NRC 2013a). In addition, hydroelectricity generation ultimately depends on
precipitation levels that can vary seasonally and annually. As recently as 2019, hydroelectric
energy was the leading source of U.S. renewable energy generation. In 2021, hydroelectricity
accounted for approximately 6.3 percent of total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation and more
than 31 percent of the total utility-scale renewable electricity generation (DOE/EIA 2022e). EIA
projects that this level of generation will remain relatively steady through 2050 (DOE/EIA
2022b). However, the potential for future construction of large dams has diminished due to
increased public concerns about flooding, habitat alteration and loss, and destruction of natural
river courses. Additional demands for river water have also reduced water flow.
16
2.3.3.4
17
18
19
20
Biomass energy can be generated from a wide variety of fuels, including municipal solid waste
(MSW), refuse-derived fuel, landfill gas, urban wood wastes, forest residues, agricultural crop
residues and wastes, and energy crops. Definitions of materials that qualify as biomass may
vary by State or region depending on regulatory schemes or renewable portfolio standards.
21
22
23
24
25
26
Biomass energy conversion is accomplished using a wide variety of technologies, some of
which are similar in appearance and operation to fossil fuel plants, and include directly
combusting biomass in a boiler or incinerator to produce steam, co-firing biomass along with
fossil fuels (primarily coal) in boilers to produce steam, producing synthetic liquid fuels that are
subsequently combusted, gasifying biomass to produce gaseous fuels that are subsequently
combusted, and anaerobically digesting biomass to produce biogas. Accordingly, biomass
Biomass Energy
February 2023
2-29
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
generation is generally considered a carbon-emitting technology. Historically, wood has been
the most widely used biomass fuel for electricity generation, while coal-biomass co-firing and
MSW combustion are also commercially feasible. An example of a biomass-fired power plant is
illustrated in Figure 2.3-10 (NRC 2013a).
5
6
Figure 2.3-10 Schematic of a Biomass/Waste-to-Energy Plant
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
MSW combustors use one of three types of technologies: mass burn, modular, or refusederived fuel. Mass burning is currently the method used most frequently in the United States
and involves no (or little) sorting, shredding, or separation. Consequently, toxic or hazardous
components present in the waste stream are combusted, and toxic constituents are exhausted
to the air or become part of the resulting solid wastes. As of 2019, the United States had 75
operational waste-to-energy plants in 21 States, processing approximately 29 million tons of
waste per year. These waste-to-energy plants have an aggregate capacity of 2,725 MWe
(Michaels and Krishnan 2019). Although some plants have expanded to handle additional
waste and to produce more energy, only one new plant has been built in the United States since
1995 (Maize 2019).
17
18
19
Landfill gas is another potential source of biomass energy for electric power production.
Landfills in which organic materials are disposed represent the largest source of methane in the
United States. Landfill gas composition varies depending on the type of waste.
20
21
22
23
In 2021, biomass energy was the source of approximately 1.3 percent of total U.S. electrical
generation and approximately 6.7 percent of the total generation derived from renewable energy
sources (DOE/EIA 2022e). This contribution from biomass energy sources is projected to
remain largely unchanged through 2050 (DOE/EIA 2022h).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-30
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2.3.3.5
Geothermal Energy
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Geothermal energy is energy in the form of heat contained below the Earth’s surface in
hydrothermal zones (hot water or steam trapped in an aquifer), hot and dry geologic formations
(referred to as hot dry rock or engineered geothermal systems [EGSs]), or in geopressurized
resources (hot brine aquifers existing under pressure). The technical approaches to extracting
geothermal energy resources involve drilling wells down into the heated resources to raise hot
water or steam to the surface where the heat energy can be used to generate electricity. EGSs
differ in that crews must first fracture a hot, dry rock formation and then inject a heat transfer
fluid (typically water). They then recover the heated fluid from the formation through the well
and then use the heated fluid to produce steam—and subsequently electricity—in a
conventional steam turbine generator (NRC 2013a). A schematic of a representative
geothermal generating facility is provided in Figure 2.3-11.
13
14
Figure 2.3-11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Utility-scale geothermal energy generation requires geothermal reservoirs with a temperature
above 200 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (93 degrees Celsius [°C]). Known utility-scale geothermal
resources are concentrated in the western United States, specifically Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming. In general, most assessments of geothermal resources have
concentrated on these Western States (DOE Undated-b, USGS 2008). In 2021, geothermal
power plants produced approximately 1.3 percent of total U.S. electrical generation, equivalent
to approximately 2.0 percent of total U.S. renewable electricity generation (DOE/EIA 2022e).
This contribution from geothermal energy sources is projected to remain largely unchanged
through 2050 (DOE/EIA 2022h).
February 2023
Schematic of a Hydrothermal Binary Power Plant. Source: NREL 2012.
2-31
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2.3.3.6
Ocean Wave and Current Energy
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Waves, currents, and tides are often predictable and reliable, making them attractive candidates
for potential renewable energy generation. Four major technologies may be suitable to harness
wave energy: (1) point absorbers, (2) attenuators, (3) water column terminator devices, and
(4) overtopping devices (see Figure 2.3-12) (BOEM Undated). Point absorbers and attenuators
use floating buoys to convert wave motion into mechanical energy, driving a generator to
produce electricity. Overtopping devices trap some portion of an incident wave at a higher
elevation than the average height of the surrounding sea surface, while terminators allow waves
to enter a tube, compressing air that is then used to drive a generator that produces electricity
(2013 LR GEIS). Some of these technologies are undergoing demonstration testing at
commercial scales, but none is currently used to provide baseload power (BOEM Undated).
12
13
14
Figure 2.3-12 Primary Types of Wave Energy Devices. Source: NREL 2012. Illustrations
not to scale.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
In general, technologies that harness the energy of ocean waves are in their infancy and have
not been used at utility scale. Feasibility studies and prototype tests for wave energy capture
devices have been conducted for locations off the coasts of Hawaii, Oregon, California,
Massachusetts, and Maine. Similarly, ocean current energy technology is also in its infancy.
Existing prototypes capture ocean current energy with submerged turbines that are similar to
wind turbines. Although the functions of ocean turbines and wind turbines are similar (both
derive power from moving fluids), ocean turbines have substantially greater power-generating
capacity because the energy contained in moving water is approximately 800 times greater than
that contained in air (MMS 2007).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-32
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2.3.3.7
Fuel Cells
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Fuel cells work without combustion and its associated environmental side effects. Power is
produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode, air over a cathode,
and then separating the two by an electrolyte. The only byproducts are heat, water, and CO2
(see Figure 2.3-13). Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by
subjecting them to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of
hydrogen (DOE Undated-a). As of October 2020, the United States had a total of 250 MW of
fuel cell generation capacity (DOE/EIA Undated-a).
9
10
Figure 2.3-13 Components of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell. Adapted from: DOE/EIA 2022f.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Currently, fuel cells are not economically or technologically competitive with other alternatives
for electricity generation. The EIA estimates that fuel cells may cost $6,866 per installed
kilowatt (total overnight capital costs in 2020 dollars), which is high compared to other
alternative technologies analyzed in this section (DOE/EIA 2022c). In 2021, the DOE launched
an initiative to reduce the cost of hydrogen production to spur fuel cell and energy storage
development over the next decade (DOE 2021b). However, it is unclear to what degree this
initiative will lead to increased future development and deployment of fuel cell technologies.
18
2.3.4
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
As discussed in Section 2.3, various electric power-generating technologies can be employed to
replace the power provided by a nuclear power plant in a particular region of the country. The
preceding sections have identified the technologies that the NRC considers to be viable
candidates as alternatives. However, in addition to these power-generating options, alternatives
that offset power needs and do not include the introduction of new electricity-generating
capacity also exist. Three such alternatives are energy efficiency and demand response
measures (collectively, part of a range of demand-side management measures), delayed
retirement of existing non-nuclear plants, and purchased power from other electricity generators
within or outside of a region.
28
2.3.4.1
29
30
31
The need for alternative or replacement power can precipitate or invigorate conservation and
energy efficiency efforts designed to either reduce electricity demand at the retail level or alter
the shape of the electricity load. All such efforts are broadly categorized as demand-side
Non-Power Generating Alternatives
Demand-Side Management Programs
February 2023
2-33
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
management (DSM), although DSM can also include other measures to influence energy
consumer practices. Utility companies use DSM to reduce consumer energy usage, either
through conservation and energy efficiency measures or through demand response (DOE/EIA
2019b). Energy efficiency measures consist of installations of more efficient devices or
implementing more efficient processes that exceed current standards. Examples are replacing
light bulbs with more efficient technology or replacing older heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems with high-efficiency systems that exceed current codes and standards.
Demand response programs are procedures that encourage a temporary reduction in demand
for electricity at certain times in response to a signal from the grid operator or market conditions
(DOE/EIA Undated-b). DSM measures may be championed by the same company that
operates a nuclear power plant when that company also serves retail customers. In other
cases, the measures may be offered by other load-serving entities, State-based programs, thirdparty service providers and aggregators, or even transmission operators. Programs include, but
are not limited to, incentives for equipment upgrades, improved codes and standards, rebates or
rate reductions in exchange for allowing a utility to control or curtail the use of high-consumption
appliances (like air conditioners) or equipment, training in efficient operation of building heating
and lighting systems, direct payments in consideration for avoided consumption, or use of price
signals to shift consumption away from peak times.
19
20
21
Data contained in the latest EIA Electric Power Annual report showed that peak demand
savings from energy efficiency and demand response activities totaled 16,674 MW in 2020
(DOE/EIA 2022d).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
EIA data show that historically, residential electricity consumers have been responsible for the
majority of peak load reductions achieved by conservation and energy efficiency programs.
However, participation in most conservation programs is voluntary, and the existence of a
program does not guarantee that reductions in electricity demand would occur. Nevertheless,
energy conservation programs in general can result in significant reductions in demand. Recent
legislative actions in some States requiring the establishment of programs such as “net
metering” and technological advances in the electric transmission network (the “smart grid”)
have facilitated greater degrees of participation in energy conservation programs, especially
among residential customers.
31
32
Conservation and energy efficiency programs may reduce overall environmental impacts
associated with energy production.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
However, while the energy conservation or energy efficiency potential in the United States is
substantial, the NRC staff is not aware of any cases where a DSM program has been
implemented expressly to replace or offset a large, baseload generation station. While the
potential to replace a large baseload generator may exist in some locations, it is more likely that
DSM programs will not be evaluated in plant-specific license renewal environmental reviews as
standalone alternatives but may play an important role in the evaluation of a combination of
alternatives.
40
2.3.4.2
41
42
43
44
45
Delayed retirement of other power-generating plants is another potential alternative to license
renewal. Delaying the retirement of one or more power-generating facilities in a region could
enable them to continue supplying sufficient electricity to offset that which a nuclear plant
currently provides to its service area. Repowering existing facilities using new or different
technologies could also provide a means for delaying their retirement.
Delayed Retirement of Other Generating Facilities
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-34
February 2023
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Power plants retire for several reasons. Because generators are required to adhere to
additional regulations that will require significant reductions in plant emissions, some power
plant owners may opt for early retirement of older units (which often generate more pollutants
and are less efficient) rather than incur the cost for compliance. Additional retirements may be
driven by low competing commodity prices (such as low natural gas prices), slow growth in
electricity demand, and the requirements of the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(DOE/EIA 2015b). Impacts would occur in areas where delayed retirements of existing nonnuclear power plants occur, and the magnitude of these impacts would be reflective of the type
of generating technology employed and the amount of power required.
10
2.3.4.3
Purchased Power
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Bulk electricity purchases currently take place within geographic regions established by the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the authorized Electric Reliability
Organization for the United States. NERC is a regulatory organization that develops and
enforces reliability standards; monitors the bulk power system; assesses future adequacy;
audits owners, operators, and users for preparedness; and educates and trains industry
personnel. NERC is composed of eight Regional Reliability Councils, each responsible for a
specific geographic area. These entities account for virtually all bulk electricity (i.e., electricity
provided at 100 kV or higher) supplied in the United States, Canada, and a portion of Baja
California Norte, Mexico. Interconnections exist between NERC regions that allow for power
exchanges between the regions when necessary to satisfy short-term demand. The NRC
recognizes the possibility that replacement power may be imported from outside a nuclear
power plant’s service area, which may or may not require importing power from another region.
In most instances, importing power from distant generating sources would have little or no
measurable environmental impact in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant, but it could cause
environmental impacts where the power is generated or anywhere along the transmission route.
Similar to other approaches, the magnitude of these impacts would be reflective of the type of
generating technology employed and the amount of power required.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Many factors influence power purchasing decisions, with respect to both technical feasibility and
cost. The existing transmission grid may not support every possible power transfer agreement.
Incremental power transfer capacities have been established between grid segments both
within and across NERC regions, and modest amounts of power routinely transfer across those
points. Such capabilities were established to make sure that overall grid stability and reliability
under both routine and nonroutine conditions are maintained. In contrast, long-term transfers of
utility-scale power from outside of a given power plant’s region may require modification of one
or more existing transmission grid segments (as well as modifications of substations and power
synchronization equipment) and could require construction of new transmission line segments.
New transmission lines may be required for long-term purchased power from within the same
NERC region, but the need for new transmission lines is highly situation-dependent. Further,
efforts by transmission operators to provide a price signal for transmission congestion through
locational-marginal pricing would, over the long run, provide an incentive for power purchases
closer to the existing power plant or construction of new capacity nearer the existing power
plant. In general, the more geographically distant the exporting source, the greater the
likelihood that new or modified interconnecting transmission line segments would be necessary.
February 2023
2-35
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2.4
Comparison of Alternatives
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
This section provides a summary comparison of the environmental impacts of the proposed
action and alternatives. Table 2.4-1 through Table 2.4-5 provide an overview of the general
findings of the impact analyses (presented in Chapter 4) for the proposed action and
alternatives, including the no action alternative, and replacement energy alternatives (fossil fuel
energy, nuclear energy, and renewable energy). Impacts related to construction (Table 2.4-1),
operations (Table 2.4-2), postulated accidents (Table 2.4-3), termination of nuclear power plant
operations and decommissioning (Table 2.4-4), and the fuel cycle (Table 2.4-5) are provided.
In each of these tables, important aspects of each alternative that serve as the basis of the
assessment are identified as well as the magnitude of the anticipated impact in each resource
area. These tables also provide a summary of anticipated impacts from potential non-power
generating approaches for offsetting a nuclear power plant’s generating capacity (DSM, delayed
retirement, and purchased power). Such non-power generating approaches are most likely to
be considered only as components of plant-specific combination alternatives in plant-specific
SEISs prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of renewing a nuclear power plant’s
operating license. The non-power generating approaches would generally have impacts that
will depend on the source used to compensate for the lost energy generation. Accordingly,
these nongenerating approaches are not evaluated further in Chapter 4.0 of this LR GEIS.
More detailed analyses incorporating relevant site-specific factors (as well as the future state of
technology and, possibly, other reasonable alternatives) will be provided in each plant-specific
SEIS.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Further, each plant-specific SEIS must analyze the impacts of the proposed action (license
renewal) as well as a range of reasonable alternatives to provide replacement energy.
According to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, reasonable alternatives
comprise “those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and
using common sense” (46 FR 18026). Replacement energy alternatives may require the
construction of a new power plant and possibly the modification of the electric transmission grid.
New power plants would also have operational impacts that may or may not be equivalent in
nature and/or extent to the operational impacts of the nuclear plant. License renewal would not
require major construction and operational impacts would not change beyond what is currently
being experienced at the nuclear plant. Other alternatives that would not have construction or
operational impacts include conservation and energy efficiency, delayed retirement, and
purchased power.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
The operational impacts of license renewal are comparable to replacement power alternatives
and some renewable energy alternatives in some resource areas (e.g., socioeconomics), but
quite different in other resource areas (e.g., air emissions, fuel cycle, land use, and water
consumption). Some renewable energy alternatives (wind, ocean wave, and ocean current
alternatives) have very few operational impacts, while others (biomass combustion and
conventional hydropower) can have considerable operational impacts. Some renewable energy
alternatives (wind and solar) have relatively low but regionally variable capacity factors while
others (e.g., conventional hydropower and geothermal) can exhibit capacity factors at or near
those of a nuclear power plant.
43
44
45
46
47
The proposed action and alternatives differ in other respects, including the consequences of
accidents. The proposed action and new nuclear energy alternatives all may have low
probability but potentially high-consequence accidents in comparison to non-nuclear
alternatives.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2-36
February 2023
February 2023
1
Table 2.4-1
Construction under the Proposed Action and Alternatives – Assessment Basis and Nature of Impacts
Proposed Action(a)
No Action Alternative
Minor construction
No construction at
projects (refurbishment) nuclear plant sites if
associated with the
license renewal is denied.
proposed action. Original
nuclear plant construction
is not part of the
proposed action.
2-37
Demand-Side
Management
Purchased Power
and Delayed Retirement
Major construction projects would be
required to build replacement fossil
fuel, nuclear, or renewable energy
generation capacity. Impacts would
vary according to the specific
alternative technology selected and
site-specific resource conditions that
would be reviewed under separate
environmental review processes,
depending on the activity’s location
and proponent. Impacts at
brownfield sites would be smaller
than at greenfield sites. Power may
also be replaced by a portfolio of
alternative technologies; in such
cases, impacts would be additive
among portfolio components,
occurring at each facility
commensurate with the technology
and the amount of replacement
power it provides.
Little or no construction
would be associated with
DSM programs
implemented to offset lost
generation capacity.
No construction would
occur from purchased
power or delayed
retirements of existing
non-nuclear plants if
available excess capacity
is sufficient to offset
losses. Construction
could occur in instances
where expansions of the
capacity of the alternative
generation source to
meet power purchase
agreements or
modifications to the
transmission grid were
required to bring the
imported power to the
load centers affected by
reactor retirement.
DSM = demand-side management.
(a) Refer to Table 2.1-1 for a more detailed presentation of the impacts of construction (likely refurbishments) under the proposed action. These impacts are
discussed in detail in Chapter 4.0.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2
3
4
5
Fossil, New Nuclear, and
Renewable Energy Alternatives
Table 2.4-2
Operations under the Proposed Action and Alternatives – Assessment Basis and Nature of Impacts
Proposed Action(a)
No Action Alternative
Continued operations
under the proposed
action would be
comparable to what is
already occurring at the
nuclear plant.
Termination of reactor
operations would occur
sooner than under the
proposed action. After
reactor shutdown,
some systems would
continue operating but
at reduced levels.
Fossil, New Nuclear, and Renewable
Energy Alternatives
Demand-Side
Management
Operation of a new fossil fuel energy,
nuclear, or renewable energy facility would
introduce new impacts to the facility site and
vicinity. Impacts would vary according to
site-specific resource conditions that would
be reviewed under separate NEPA
assessments. If lost power capacity is
replaced with a portfolio of alternatives,
impacts would be additive, occurring at each
of the facilities within the portfolio based on
the nature of the technology employed and
commensurate with the amount of power
produced. Impacts at brownfield sites may
be less than at greenfield sites.
No new operational
impacts are likely to
result from DSM
programs implemented
to offset lost generation
capacity. Existing
operational impacts from
current generation
sources may be
lessened if greater load
reductions result.
Purchased Power
and Delayed
Retirement
2-38
Impacts would occur
in areas where
purchased power is
produced or where
delayed retirements
of existing nonnuclear plants
occur. Impact
magnitude would be
reflective of the type
of generating
technology
employed and the
amount of power
required.
Fossil fuel energy alternatives would have
similar operational impacts as the proposed
action, nuclear, and some renewable
alternatives (e.g., biomass), but would
produce more air emissions. New nuclear
energy alternatives would have operational
impacts similar to those of fossil fuel and
some renewable technologies but would
produce fewer air emissions than fossil fuel
and biomass technologies. Renewable
technologies differ greatly in terms of
operational impacts.
February 2023
2
3
4
5
DSM = demand-side management.
(a) Refer to Table 2.1-1 for a more detailed presentation of the impacts of operations under the proposed action. These impacts are discussed in detail in
Chapter 4.0.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1
February 2023
1
Table 2.4-3
Postulated Accidents under the Proposed Action and Alternatives – Assessment Basis and Impact Magnitude
Proposed Action(a)
2-39
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2
3
4
5
Fossil, New Nuclear, and Renewable
Energy Alternatives
Demand-Side
Management
Purchased Power and
Delayed Retirement
Plant shutdown
would occur
sooner than under
the proposed
action. A reduction
in accident risk
would occur
sooner.
Accidents associated with fossil fuel
energy facilities would have short-term,
localized effects. Accidents associated
with nuclear energy would be similar to
those of the proposed action. Accidents
associated with biomass facilities would
be comparable to those of fossil fuel
energy facilities. Accidents associated
with hydropower (e.g., dam collapse)
could have large, far-reaching effects.
Accidents associated with coal
combustion residue handling and storage
could also have large, far-reaching effects.
Impacts from accidents associated with
other renewable energy technologies
would be localized and generally
inconsequential.
No accidents are
associated with
DSM measures
aside from
occupational
hazards for
those who install
or implement
them.
Impacts would occur in areas
where purchased power is
produced or where delayed
retirements of existing nonnuclear plants occur. The
nature and magnitude of the
impact would depend on the
technology used to produce
the power and characteristics
of the plant site. If power is
purchased from existing
generating facilities with
excess capacity, little change
in impact would be expected.
Additional impacts may result
from required expansions or
modifications of transmission
infrastructures.
DSM = demand-side management.
(a) Refer to Table 2.1-1 for a more detailed presentation of the impacts of accidents under the proposed action. These impacts are discussed in detail in
Section 4.9.1.2.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Postulated accidents
associated with continued
operations under the license
renewal term include designbasis accidents and severe
accidents. The impacts take
into consideration the low
probability of an accident
occurring. Design-basis
accidents would have a small
impact. Severe accidents
would likely have larger
consequences than designbasis accidents, but the
probability-weighted
consequences (i.e., the
probability of occurrence of the
accident multiplied by the
consequence if the accident
occurred) would be SMALL for
all plants.
No Action
Alternative
Table 2.4-4 Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning under the Proposed Action and
Alternatives – Assessment Basis and Nature of Impacts
Proposed Action(a)
2-40
Termination of
reactor operations
and
decommissioning
would occur
regardless of the
proposed action.
The proposed action
would not contribute
substantially to the
impacts from the
termination of
reactor operations
and
decommissioning.
3
4
5
No Action
Alternative
Fossil, New Nuclear, and Renewable
Energy Alternatives
The no action
alternative would
not contribute to
the impacts of
terminating reactor
operations and
decommissioning.
Termination of power plant operations and
decommissioning of a fossil fuel, nuclear, or
renewable energy facility would result in
short-term impacts during facility
dismantlement and longer-term waste
management impacts. Impacts would vary
according to site-specific resource
conditions. The NRC staff’s analysis
assumes that dams would remain in place
for flood control after hydroelectric power
generation ceases. Impacts at brownfield
sites may be less than at greenfield sites.
Demand-Side Management
No termination of operations
and decommissioning impacts
are anticipated to result from
energy conservation programs
implemented to offset lost
generation capacity. Delaying
retirements of existing nonnuclear plants would similarly
delay impacts associated with
termination of operations and
decommissioning.
Purchased Power
and Delayed
Retirement
Because existing
facilities would be
used to produce
purchased power, no
termination of
operations and
decommissioning
impacts would be
associated with this
alternative.
(a) Refer to Table 2.1-1 for a more detailed presentation of the impacts of decommissioning under the proposed action. These impacts are discussed in detail in
Section 4.14.3.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1
2
February 2023
February 2023
1
Table 2.4-5
Fuel Cycle under the Proposed Action and Alternatives – Assessment Basis and Nature of Impacts
Proposed Action(a)
During the license
renewal term, the
proposed action would
result in the need for
continued mining and
milling of uranium; fuel
fabrication; and
storage, transport, and
disposal of radioactive
and other wastes.
2-41
Fossil, Nuclear, and Renewable Energy
Alternatives
Demand-Side
Management
The no action
alternative would
reduce the need for
nuclear fuel and
reduce the
environmental
impacts associated
with the uranium fuel
cycle.
The fuel cycle of fossil fuel energy alternatives includes
the extraction of coal (mining) or natural gas (drilling
and fracking); fuel cleanup; transport of extracted fuel;
and storage, transport, and disposal of combustion
waste. Impacts would depend on characteristics of
extraction sites and fuels. The new nuclear energy
alternatives would have impacts similar to those of the
proposed action. Of renewables, only certain biomass
technologies (e.g., crop residues, forest products) have
a well-defined fuel cycle. Biomass projects that involve
growing, harvesting, and processing of plant materials
would have impacts associated with producing and
transporting biomass fuel and storage and disposal of
combustion waste. Impacts would depend on the
nature of the biomass being produced, the
characteristics of areas used to produce fuel, and the
technology used to convert the biomass to energy.
There is no fuel cycle
associated with
energy conservation.
The fuel-cycle impacts
associated with
delayed retirement
would depend on the
specific fuel type
associated with the
existing non-nuclear
plant.
The fuel-cycle
impacts
associated with
power purchases
would depend on
the mix of
generating
sources that are
used to produce
purchased power.
(a) Refer to Table 2.1-1 for a more detailed presentation of the impacts of operations under the proposed action. These impacts are discussed in detail in
Section 4.14.1.
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2
3
4
5
No Action
Alternative
Purchased
Power and
Delayed
Retirement
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
1
2
3
4
5
6
The termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning impacts at nuclear
plant sites would eventually occur regardless of a decision to renew their licenses. Thus, in this
analysis, those impacts are not attributed to the proposed action, and the effects of the
proposed action on the impacts from the termination of nuclear power plant operations and
decommissioning would be SMALL in all resource areas. Impacts from the decommissioning of
a new nuclear power reactor would be similar to that of the existing reactor.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Fuel-cycle impacts have been evaluated for license renewal and were found to be SMALL for all
resource areas, except for offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts from other than the
disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste, which are acceptable (see Section 4.14.1.1,
“Uranium Fuel Cycle” for information about this issue). Fossil-fueled alternatives may have
larger fuel-cycle impacts (mostly associated with land disturbance at fuel extraction sites), while
other alternatives have no fuel-cycle impacts (renewable alternatives such as wind, wave,
current, or solar alternatives do not require fuel).
February 2023
2-42
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
For purposes of the evaluation in this revision of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS), the “affected environment” is the
environment that currently exists at and around operating U.S. commercial nuclear power
plants. Because existing conditions are at least partially the result of past construction and
operations at the nuclear plants, the impacts of these past and ongoing activities and how they
have shaped the environment are summarized here. Thus, it is this existing environment that
composes the environmental baseline against which potential environmental impacts of license
renewal are evaluated. The impacts of continued operations and any refurbishment during the
license renewal (initial license renewal [initial LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]) term
that are presented in Chapter 4.0 are incremental to these baseline conditions, which include
the effects of past and present actions at the plants.
Contents of Chapter 3.0
•
Description of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities and Operations (Section 3.1)
•
Land Use and Visual Resources (Section 3.2)
•
Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise (Section 3.3)
•
Geologic Environment (Section 3.4)
•
Water Resources (Section 3.5)
•
Ecological Resources (Section 3.6)
•
Historic and Cultural Resources (Section 3.7)
•
Socioeconomics (Section 3.8)
•
Human Health (Section 3.9)
•
Environmental Justice (Section 3.10)
•
Waste Management and Pollution Prevention (Section 3.11)
•
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (Section 3.12)
13
3.1
Description of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities and Operations
14
3.1.1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Nuclear power plants contain a number of buildings or structures. Among them are containment
or reactor buildings, turbine buildings, auxiliary buildings, vent stacks, meteorological towers,
and cooling systems, particularly cooling towers. A plant site layout also includes large parking
areas, security fencing, switchyards, water intake and discharge facilities, and transmission
lines (see Section 3.1.6.5). While reactor, turbine, and auxiliary buildings are often clad or
painted in colors that are intended to reduce or mitigate their visual presence, the heights of
many of the structures, coupled with red and/or white safety lights, make nuclear plants visible
from many directions. Typical heights of nuclear plant facilities are as follows: reactor buildings
are 300 ft (90 m), turbine buildings are 100 ft (30 m), stacks are 300 ft (90 m), meteorological
External Appearance and Settings
February 2023
3-1
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
towers are 200 ft (60 m), natural draft cooling towers are higher than 500 ft (150 m), and
mechanical draft cooling towers are 100 ft (30 m) tall. In addition, condensation from cooling
towers is generally visible for many miles. Transmission line towers are between 70 ft (20 m)
and 170 ft (50 m) in height, depending on the voltage being carried.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
There are two types of power reactors currently operating in the United States—boiling water
reactors (BWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs). All nuclear power plant sites are
generally similar in terms of the types of facilities they contain. All plant sites contain a nuclear
steam supply system. In addition, there are a number of common structures necessary for plant
operation. However, the layout of buildings and structures varies considerably among the sites.
For example, control rooms may be located in the auxiliary building, in a separate control
building, or in a radwaste and control building. The following list describes typical structures
located on most sites.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
•
21
22
23
24
25
Containment or reactor building. The containment or reactor building in a PWR is a
massive concrete or steel structure that houses the reactor vessel, reactor coolant piping
and pumps, steam generators, pressurizer, pumps, and associated piping. The reactor
building structure of a BWR generally includes a containment structure and a shield building.
The reactor containment building is a very large concrete or steel structure that houses the
reactor vessel, the reactor coolant piping and pumps, and the suppression pool. It is located
inside another structure called the shield building. The shield building for a BWR also
generally contains the spent fuel pool and the new fuel pool.
The reactor containment building for both PWRs and BWRs is designed to withstand natural
disasters, such as tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes. The containment building’s
ability to withstand such events and to contain the effects of accidents initiated by system
failures constitutes a principal protection against releasing radioactive material to the
environment.
26
27
28
29
•
Fuel building. For PWRs, the fuel building has a fuel pool that is used to store and service
spent fuel and prepare new fuel for insertion into the reactor. This building is connected to
the reactor containment building by a transfer tube or channel that is used to move new fuel
into the reactor and move spent fuel out of the reactor for storage.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
•
Turbine building. The turbine building houses the turbines, generators, condenser,
feedwater heaters, condensate and feedwater pumps, waste-heat rejection system, pumps,
and equipment that support those systems. In BWRs, primary coolant circulates through
these systems, thereby causing them to become slightly contaminated. In PWRs, primary
coolant is not circulated through the turbine building systems. However, it is not unusual for
portions of the turbine building to become mildly contaminated because of leaks from the
primary system into the secondary side during power generation at PWRs.
37
38
39
40
41
•
Auxiliary buildings. Auxiliary buildings house support systems, such as the ventilation
systems, emergency core cooling systems, laundry facilities, water treatment systems, and
waste treatment systems. An auxiliary building may also contain the emergency diesel
generators and, in some PWRs, the diesel fuel storage facility. The facility’s control room is
often located in the auxiliary building.
42
43
44
•
Diesel generator building. Often a separate building houses the emergency diesel
generators if they are not located in the auxiliary building. The emergency diesel generators
do not become contaminated or activated.
45
46
•
Pump houses. Various pump houses for circulating water, standby service water, diesel
fuel, or makeup water may be onsite.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-2
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
•
Cooling towers. Cooling towers are structures designed to remove excess heat from the
condenser without dumping the heat directly into water bodies, such as lakes or rivers.
There are two principal types of cooling towers: mechanical draft towers and natural draft
towers. Most nuclear power plants that have once-through cooling do not have cooling
towers associated with them. However, several operating nuclear power plants with oncethrough cooling also have cooling towers that are used to reduce the temperature of the
water before it is released to the environment.
8
9
10
•
Radioactive waste (radwaste) facilities. Radioactive waste facilities may be contained in
an auxiliary building or located in a separate solid radwaste building. For example, the
radioactive waste storage facility may be a separate building.
11
12
13
14
15
•
Ventilation stack. Many older nuclear power plants, particularly BWRs, have ventilation
stacks to discharge gaseous waste effluents and ventilation air directly to the outside.
These stacks can be 300 ft (90 m) tall or higher and contain monitoring systems to ensure
that radioactive gaseous discharges are below fixed release limits. Radioactive gaseous
effluents are treated and processed before being discharged out the stack.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
•
Switchyard and transmission lines. Plant sites also typically contain a large switchyard,
where the electric voltage is stepped up and fed into the regional power distribution system.
Electricity generated at the plant is carried offsite by transmission lines. Only those
transmission lines that connect the plant to the switchyard where electricity is fed into the
regional power distribution system (encompassing those lines that connect the plant to the
first substation of the regional electric power grid) and power lines that feed the plant from
the grid during outages are considered within the regulatory scope of license renewal
environmental review and this LR GEIS. The transmission lines that comprise the regional
power distribution system, and beyond the scope of the environmental review, would be
expected to remain energized regardless of nuclear power plant license renewal.
26
27
28
•
Administrative, training, and security buildings. Normally, the administrative, training,
and security buildings are located outside the radiation protection zones; no radiological
contamination is present; and radiation exposures are at general background levels.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
•
Independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs). An ISFSI is designed and
constructed for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials
associated with spent fuel storage. ISFSIs may be located at the site of a nuclear power
plant or at another location. The most common design for an ISFSI, at this time, is a
concrete pad with dry casks containing spent fuel bundles. ISFSIs are used by operating
plants that require increased spent fuel storage capability because their spent fuel pools
have reached capacity (see Section 3.11.1).
36
37
38
39
Nuclear power plant site areas range from 391 acres (ac) (158 hectares [ha]) to 14,000 ac
(5,700 ha), with most sites encompassing 700 to 2,500 ac (283 to 1,000 ha). Larger land use
areas are associated with plant cooling systems that include reservoirs, artificial lakes, and
buffer areas.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Nuclear power plant sites are located in a range of political jurisdictions, including towns,
townships, service districts, counties, parishes, and States. At 50 percent of the sites, the
population density within a 50 mi (80 km) radius is fewer than 150 persons/mi2
(58 persons/km2), and for 75 percent of the sites, the density within 50 mi (80 km) is fewer than
325 persons/mi2 (127 persons/km2). Within the 50 mi (80 km) radius, Federal, State, and Tribal
lands are present to various extents. Typically, inland nuclear power plant sites and their
surrounding areas consist of flat to rolling countryside in wooded or agricultural areas. Coastal
February 2023
3-3
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
and Great Lakes nuclear power plant sites include riparian, wetland, beach, and other shoreline
habitats. See Appendix C for summary descriptions of the characteristics of nuclear power
plant sites and their surroundings.
4
3.1.2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Nuclear Reactor Systems
In the United States, all of the currently operating reactors used for commercial power
generation are conventional (thermal) light water reactors (LWRs) that use water as a
moderator and coolant. The two types of LWRs are PWRs and BWRs. Of the 92 operating
LWRs, 61 are PWRs and 31 are BWRs (Figure 3.1-1 and Table 3.1-1). They are located at
54 sites in 28 States. Some of the reactors have sought and received power uprates, which
allow these plants to operate at a higher licensed power level. Power uprates are a separate
licensing action from license renewal and require separate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) review and approval. For the reactors that have been authorized to
increase their power level, power uprate information is incorporated into Table 3.1-1. Additional
reactors may seek power uprates in the future.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-4
February 2023
February 2023
3-5
Figure 3.1-1 Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1
2
3-6
February 2023
Year License
Expires
Net
Capacity
(MWe)
Reactor
Type
Design
Condenser
Flow Rate
(103 gpm)
1974
2034
833
PWR
762
1978
2038
985
PWR
422
-
1
1976
2036
892
PWR
480
453
2
1987
2047
901
PWR
480
Braidwood Station
1
1987
2046
1,183
PWR
730
Braidwood Station
2
1988
2047
1,154
PWR
730
-
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
1
1973
2033
1,256
BWR
734
840
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
2
1974
2034
1,259
BWR
734
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
3
1976
2036
1,260
BWR
734
-
Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant
1
1976
2036
938
BWR
675
Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant
2
1974
2034
932
BWR
675
Byron Station
1
1985
2044
1,182
PWR
632
Byron Station
2
1987
2046
1,154
PWR
632
Callaway Plant
1
1984
2044
1,190
PWR
530
5,228
Columbia, MO
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
Plant
1
1974
2034
866
PWR
1,200
2,108
Washington, D.C.
3,962,475
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
Plant
2
1976
2036
842
PWR
1,200
-
-
Catawba Nuclear Station
1
1985
2043
1,160
PWR
660
Catawba Nuclear Station
2
1986
2043
1,150
PWR
660
Clinton Power Station
1
1987
2027
1,065
BWR
569
14,000
Columbia Generating Station
1
1984
2043
1,163
BWR
550
1,089
Spokane, WA
Comanche Peak Steam
Electric Station
1
1989
2030
1,205
PWR
1,030
7,669
Fort Worth, TX
Comanche Peak Steam
Electric Station
2
1993
2033
1,195
PWR
1,030
Unit
Year Operating
License
Granted
Arkansas Nuclear One
1
Arkansas Nuclear One
2
Beaver Valley Power Station
Beaver Valley Power Station
Nuclear Power Plant
Total Site
Area
(acres)
1,164
Nearest City
Little Rock, AR
Pittsburgh, PA
4,457
1,200
1,398
-
391
-
-
Joliet, IL
2020
Population
within 50 mi
312,591
3,146,489
5,033,013
Huntsville, AL
Wilmington, NC
Rockford, IL
-
Charlotte, NC
Decatur, IL
-
1,081,319
548,758
1,284,960
585,372
3,034,933
815,617
517,245
2,077,599
-
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table 3.1-1 Characteristics of Operating U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants(a)
1
February 2023
Year License
Expires
Net
Capacity
(MWe)
Reactor
Type
Design
Condenser
Flow Rate
(103 gpm)
3-7
Cooper Nuclear Station
1
1974
2034
770
BWR
631
1,251
Donald C. Cook Nuclear
Plant
1
1974
2034
1,009
PWR
800
650
Donald C. Cook Nuclear
Plant
2
1977
2037
1,060
PWR
800
-
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station
1
1977
2037
894
PWR
480
733
Toledo, OH
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
1
1984
2024
1,122
PWR
863
750
Santa Barbara,
CA
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
2
1985
2025
1,118
PWR
863
-
Dresden Nuclear Power
Station
2
1969
2029
902
BWR
940
2,500
Dresden Nuclear Power
Station
3
1971
2031
895
BWR
940
-
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear
Plant
1
1977
2037
874
PWR
635
1,850
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear
Plant
2
1981
2041
877
PWR
635
-
-
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power
Plant
2
1985
2045
1,141
BWR
836
1,120
Detroit, MI
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear
Power Plant
1
1974
2034
848
BWR
353
702
Syracuse, NY
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power
Plant
1
1969
2029
581
PWR
340
488
Rochester, NY
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station
1
1984
2044
1,401
BWR
572
2,100
Jackson, MS
Shearon Harris Nuclear
Power Plant
1
1987
2046
964
PWR
483
10,744
Raleigh, NC
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant
1
1974
2034
876
BWR
556
2,240
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant
2
1978
2038
883
BWR
556
-
Hope Creek Generating
Station
1
1986
2046
1,172
BWR
552
740
LaSalle County Station
1
1982
2042
1,131
BWR
645
3,060
Nuclear Power Plant
Total Site
Area
(acres)
Nearest City
Lincoln, NE
South Bend, IN
-
Joliet, IL
2020
Population
within 50 mi
153,581
1,265,894
1,812,385
499,952
7,525,651
Columbus, GA
Savannah, GA
-
425,394
4,908,826
932,913
1,299,149
323,744
3,041,733
464,024
-
Wilmington, DE
5,946,917
Joliet, IL
1,948,438
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Unit
Year Operating
License
Granted
Reactor
Type
Design
Condenser
Flow Rate
(103 gpm)
3-8
February 2023
Unit
LaSalle County Station
2
1984
2043
1,134
BWR
645
-
Limerick Generating Station
1
1985
2049
1,120
BWR
450
595
Limerick Generating Station
2
1990
2049
1,122
BWR
450
-
McGuire Nuclear Station
1
1981
2041
1,159
PWR
675
577
McGuire Nuclear Station
2
1983
2043
1,158
PWR
675
-
Millstone Power Station
2
1975
2035
853
PWR
523
500
Millstone Power Station
3
1986
2045
1,220
PWR
907
-
Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant
1
1970
2030
617
BWR
292
1,250
Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station
1
1968
2029
621
BWR
290
900
Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station
2
1987
2046
1,292
BWR
580
-
North Anna Power Station
1
1978
2038
948
PWR
950
1,043
North Anna Power Station
2
1980
2040
944
PWR
950
-
Oconee Nuclear Station
1
1973
2033
847
PWR
680
510
Oconee Nuclear Station
2
1973
2033
848
PWR
680
-
Oconee Nuclear Station
3
1974
2034
859
PWR
680
-
Palisades Nuclear Plant(b)
1
1972
2031
769
PWR
98
432
Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station
1
1985
2045
1,211
PWR
560
4,050
Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station
2
1986
2046
1,314
PWR
560
-
-
-
Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station
3
1987
2047
1,312
PWR
560
-
-
-
Peach Bottom Atomic Power
Station
2
1973
2053
1,265
BWR
750
620
Peach Bottom Atomic Power
Station
3
1974
2054
1,285
BWR
750
-
Perry Nuclear Power Plant
1
1986
2026
1,261
BWR
545
1,100
Euclid, OH
Point Beach Nuclear Plant
1
1970
2030
598
PWR
350
1,260
Green Bay, WI
Nuclear Power Plant
Total Site
Area
(acres)
Nearest City
2020
Population
within 50 mi
-
-
Reading, PA
Charlotte, NC
New Haven, CT
Minneapolis, MN
Syracuse, NY
Richmond, VA
Greenville, SC
-
8,594,665
3,351,808
3,071,351
3,347,158
927,862
2,237,934
1,577,801
-
Kalamazoo, MI
1,441,106
Phoenix, AZ
2,350,442
Lancaster, PA
-
6,005,101
2,299,476
826,680
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Year License
Expires
Net
Capacity
(MWe)
Year Operating
License
Granted
February 2023
Year License
Expires
Net
Capacity
(MWe)
Reactor
Type
Design
Condenser
Flow Rate
(103 gpm)
3-9
Point Beach Nuclear Plant
2
1972
2033
603
PWR
350
-
Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant
1
1973
2033
521
PWR
294
560
Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant
2
1974
2034
519
PWR
294
-
Quad Cities Nuclear Power
Station
1
1972
2032
908
BWR
485
817
Quad Cities Nuclear Power
Station
2
1972
2032
911
BWR
485
-
River Bend Station
1
1985
2045
968
BWR
508
3,300
Baton Rouge, LA
H.B. Robinson Steam Electric
Plant
2
1970
2030
759
PWR
454
6,020
Columbia, SC
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant
1
1976
2036
981
PWR
484
1,130
West Palm Beach,
FL
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant
2
1983
2043
987
PWR
484
-
Salem Nuclear Generating
Station
1
1976
2036
1,174
PWR
1,100
700
Salem Nuclear Generating
Station
2
1981
2040
1,130
PWR
1,100
-
Seabrook Station
1
1990
2050
1,295
PWR
399
889
Lawrence, MA
4,693,723
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
1
1980
2040
1,152
PWR
522
525
Chattanooga, TN
1,172,704
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
2
1981
2041
1,126
PWR
522
-
South Texas Project Electric
Generating Station
1
1988
2047
1,280
PWR
907
12,350
South Texas Project Electric
Generating Station
2
1989
2048
1,280
PWR
907
-
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station
1
1982
2042
971
PWR
507
2,245
Surry Power Station
1
1972
2052
838
PWR
840
840
Surry Power Station
2
1973
2053
838
PWR
840
840
Nuclear Power Plant
Total Site
Area
(acres)
Nearest City
2020
Population
within 50 mi
-
-
Minneapolis, MN
Davenport, IA
-
Wilmington, DE
-
Galveston, TX
-
3,309,059
655,699
1,037,151
922,132
1,456,749
5,873,042
-
268,364
-
Columbia, SC
1,289,146
Newport News,
VA
2,462,820
-
-
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Unit
Year Operating
License
Granted
Reactor
Type
Design
Condenser
Flow Rate
(103 gpm)
Total Site
Area
(acres)
3-10
Nuclear Power Plant
Unit
Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station
1
1982
2042
1,247
BWR
484
1,173
Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station
2
1984
2044
1,247
BWR
484
-
-
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
3
1972
2052
837
PWR
650
2,400
Miami, FL
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
4
1973
2053
861
PWR
650
-
-
Vogtle Electric Generating
Plant
1
1987
2047
1,150
PWR
510
3,169
Vogtle Electric Generating
Plant
2
1989
2049
1,152p
PWR
510
-
Waterford Steam Electric
Station
3
1985
2044
1,250
PWR
975
3,000
New Orleans, LA
2,171,180
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
1
1996
2035
1,123
PWR
410
1,170
Chattanooga, TN
1,312,700
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
2
2015
2055
1,122
PWR
410
-
Nearest City
Wilkes-Barre, PA
Augusta, GA
-
-
2020
Population
within 50 mi
1,829,035
3,813,589
789,654
-
-
February 2023
Wolf Creek Generating
1
1985
2045
1,166
PWR
500
9,818
Topeka, KS
173,018
Station
BWR = boiling water reactor, gpm = gallon(s) per minute; MWe = megawatts-electric; PWR = pressurized water reactor.
(a) The 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013a) included a number of nuclear power plants that are not being considered for license renewal and are not included in this
table. They include the following plants:
•
Bellefonte: Construction permits issued in 1974. Units 1 & 2 were never finished and mothballed in 1988. Currently under the NRC’s Deferred Policy.
•
Big Rock: Shutdown in 1997; decommissioning completed in August 2006. Stored spent fuel is still onsite.
•
Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant (Crystal River) Unit 3: Shutdown in 2013. Decommissioning completion scheduled for 2026-2030.
•
Duane Arnold Energy Center (Duane Arnold): Shutdown in 2020. Decommissioning completion scheduled for 2080.
•
Fort Calhoun Station (Fort Calhoun): Shutdown in 2016. Decommissioning completion scheduled for 2026.
•
Haddam (Connecticut Yankee): Shutdown in 1996; decommissioned in 2004. Stored spent fuel is still onsite.
•
Indian Point Energy Center (Indian Point) Unit 2: Shutdown in 2020; Unit 3: Shutdown in 2021. Decommissioning completion scheduled for 2026 to
2033.
•
Kewanee: Shutdown in 2013. Decommissioning completion scheduled for 2073.
•
Maine Yankee: Closed in 1997; decommissioned completed in 2005. Stored spent fuel is still onsite.
•
Millstone Power Station (Millstone), Unit 1: Shutdown in 1995; Decommissioning completion scheduled for 2056.
•
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek): Shutdown in 2018. Decommissioning completion scheduled for 2025.
•
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim): Shutdown in 2019. Decommissioning completion scheduled for 2027.
•
Rancho Seco: Shutdown in 1989; decommissioning completed and licensed terminated in 2018. Stored spent fuel is still onsite.
•
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (San Onofre): Unit 1: Shutdown in 1992; Units 2 & 3: Shutdown in 2013. Decommissioning completion
scheduled for 2030-2031.
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Year License
Expires
Net
Capacity
(MWe)
Year Operating
License
Granted
February 2023
•
•
Shoreham: Fully decommissioned in 1994; it never produced power.
Three Mile Island Unit 1: Shutdown in 2019. Decommissioning completion scheduled for 2079. Unit 2: Shutdown in 1979. Decommissioning
completion scheduled for 2037.
•
Trojan: Closed in 1992; decommissioning completed in 2006. Stored spent fuel is still onsite.
•
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee): Shutdown in 2014. Decommissioning completion scheduled for 2026-2030.
•
Yankee Rowe: Shutdown in 1992; decommissioning completed in 2006. Stored spent fuel is still onsite.
•
Zion: Shutdown in 1998, decontamination and dismantlement began in 2011 and is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2022.
(b) Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades): Shutdown in May 2022. Status to be determined. The plant has been retained in this table for the purposes of this LR
GEIS update.
No entry has been denoted by “-”.
Sources: Appendix C; NRC 2018f; NRC 2021r; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory calculations based on 2020 decennial census data.
3-11
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The nuclear fuel used in all LWRs is uranium enriched to 2 to 5 percent in the uranium-235
isotope. The fuel is in the form of cylindrical uranium dioxide (UO2) pellets, which are
approximately 0.4 in. (1 centimeter [cm]) in diameter and 0.4 to 0.6 in. (1 to 1.5 cm) in height.
The fuel pellets are stacked and sealed inside a hollow cylindrical zirconium alloy fuel rod. The
fuel rods, also called fuel pins or fuel elements, are approximately 12 ft (3.6 m) long. They are
bundled into fuel assemblies that generally consist of 15 × 15 or 17 × 17 rods for PWRs and
8 × 8 or 10 × 10 rods for BWRs. When new fuel is loaded into the reactors or spent fuel is
removed from reactors, the fuel is handled as intact assemblies. Similarly, when spent fuel is
stored onsite awaiting shipment offsite, the fuel assemblies remain intact.
10
11
12
13
Fission reactions that occur inside the fuel, primarily by the uranium-235 isotope, are the source
of thermal energy in a nuclear reactor. This energy is transferred to the coolant, which is
ordinary water, circulating in the primary coolant system in LWRs. The vessel, which encloses
the reactor, is part of the primary coolant system.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
In PWRs, water is heated to a high temperature under pressure inside the reactor vessel
(Figure 3.1-2). The water flows in the primary circulation loop to the steam generator. Within
the steam generator, water in the secondary circulation loop is converted to steam that drives
the turbines. The turbines turn the generator to produce electricity. The steam leaving the
turbines is condensed by water in the tertiary loop and returned to the steam generator. The
tertiary loop water flows to cooling towers where it is cooled by evaporation, or it is discharged
directly to a body of water, such as a river, lake, or other heat sink (see Section 3.1.3). The
tertiary loop is open to the atmosphere, but the primary and secondary cooling loops are not.
22
23
Figure 3.1-2 Pressurized Water Reactor. Adapted from NRC 2002c.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
BWRs generate steam directly within the reactor vessel (Figure 3.1-3). The steam passes
through moisture separators and steam dryers and then flows to the turbines. Because it
generates steam directly in the reactor vessel, the power generation system contains only two
heat transfer loops. The primary loop transports the steam from the reactor vessel directly to
the turbines, which generate electricity. The secondary coolant loop removes excess heat from
the primary loop in the condenser. From the condenser, the primary condensate proceeds into
the feedwater stage, and the secondary coolant loop removes the excess heat and discharges it
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-12
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
to the receiving water body. As is the case for PWRs, the coolant water from the condenser is
pumped to cooling towers or it is discharged directly to a water body.
3
4
5
Figure 3.1-3 Boiling Water Reactor. Adapted from NRC 2002c.
3.1.3
Cooling Water Systems
6
7
8
9
10
In LWR designs, water is used to remove excess heat generated in reactor systems. The
volume of water required and rate of flow is a function of several factors, including the licensed
thermal power level of the reactor and the increase in cooling water temperature from the intake
to the discharge. In general, larger nuclear power plants (i.e., more reactor units and/or higher
licensed power levels) generate more waste heat and require more water for cooling.
11
12
13
14
15
Table 3.1-2 through Table 3.1-4 describe the configurations of the cooling systems used at
existing nuclear power plant sites. There are two major types of cooling systems: once-through
and closed-cycle. Once-through cooling systems withdraw water for condenser cooling from a
nearby water body, such as a lake or river, circulate it through the condenser tubes, and return
that water as heated effluent to the same water body (Figure 3.1-4a).
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Average water withdrawal for nuclear power plants using once-through cooling is about
39,000 gal/MWh (148 m3/MWh) of electricity generated (USGS 2019b). For comparison, using
the dataset described by Marston et al. (2018) for operating nuclear power plants, most plants
using once-through cooling withdraw between 28,000 and 52,000 gal/MWh (106 to
197 m3/MWh) of water. In a once-through cooling system, waste heat is dissipated to the
atmosphere mainly through evaporation, mixing with ambient water from the source water body,
and, to a much smaller extent, by conduction, convection, and thermal radiation loss. Average
consumptive water use for nuclear power plants using once-through cooling is about
400 gal/MWh (1.51 m3/MWh) (USGS 2019b), with most plants estimated to consume between
290 and 570 gal/MWh (1.1 to 2.2 m3/MWh) of water during electricity generation (based on the
dataset described by Marston et al. [2018]).
February 2023
3-13
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
Table 3.1-2 Cooling Water System Source – Coastal or Estuarine Environment
1
Nuclear Power Plant
State
Cooling Water
Source
Diablo Canyon
California
Once-through
Pacific Ocean
Millstone
Connecticut
Once-through
Long Island Sound
St. Lucie
Florida
Once-through
Atlantic Ocean
Turkey Point
Florida
Cooling canal
Biscayne Bay; Upper
Floridan Aquifer
(supplemental source)
Calvert Cliffs
Maryland
Once-through
Chesapeake Bay
Seabrook
New Hampshire
Once-through
Gulf of Maine
Hope Creek
New Jersey
Natural draft cooling towers
Delaware River
Salem
New Jersey
Once-through
Delaware River
Brunswick
North Carolina
Once-through
Cape Fear River
South Texas
Texas
Cooling pond
Colorado River
Surry
Virginia
Once-through
James River
Table 3.1-3 Cooling Water System Source – Great Lakes Environment
2
Nuclear Power Plant
3
Cooling System
State
Cooling System
Cooling Water
Source
D.C. Cook
Michigan
Once-through
Lake Michigan
Fermi
Michigan
Natural draft cooling towers
Lake Erie
Palisades(a)
Michigan
Mechanical draft cooling towers
Lake Michigan
FitzPatrick
New York
Once-through
Lake Ontario
Ginna
New York
Once-through
Lake Ontario
Nine Mile Point
New York
Unit 1: Once-through
Unit 2: Natural draft cooling
towers
Lake Ontario
Davis-Besse
Ohio
Natural draft cooling towers
Lake Erie
Perry
Ohio
Natural draft cooling towers
Lake Erie
Point Beach
Wisconsin
Once-through
Lake Michigan
(a)
Palisades shutdown in May 2022 but has been retained in this LR GEIS update.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-14
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
Table 3.1-4 Cooling Water System Source – Freshwater Riverine or Impoundment
Environment
Nuclear Power Plant
State
Cooling System
Cooling Water
Source
Browns Ferry
Alabama
Once-through (helper towers)
Wheeler Reservoir
Farley
Alabama
Mechanical draft cooling towers
Chattahoochee River
Palo Verde
Arizona
Mechanical draft cooling towers
Phoenix Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Effluent
Arkansas
Arkansas
Unit 1: once-through
Unit 2: natural draft cooling
towers
Lake Dardanelle
Hatch
Georgia
Mechanical draft cooling towers
Altamaha River
Vogtle
Georgia
Natural draft cooling towers
Savannah River
Braidwood
Illinois
Cooling pond
Kankakee River
Byron
Illinois
Natural draft cooling towers
Rock River
Clinton
Illinois
Once-through (cooling pond)
Salt Creek
Dresden
Illinois
Cooling pond and optional
mechanical draft cooling tower
or once-through including
residence time in pond and
optional cooling towers
Kankakee River
LaSalle
Illinois
Cooling pond
Illinois River
Quad Cities
Illinois
Once-through
Mississippi River
Wolf Creek
Kansas
Cooling pond
Coffey County Lake
River Bend
Louisiana
Mechanical draft cooling towers
Mississippi River
Waterford
Louisiana
Once-through
Mississippi River
Monticello
Minnesota
Once-through and mechanical
draft cooling towers
Mississippi River
Prairie Island
Minnesota
Once-through and mechanical
draft cooling towers
Mississippi River
Grand Gulf
Mississippi
Natural draft cooling towers
Mississippi River
Callaway
Missouri
Natural draft cooling towers
Missouri River
Cooper
Nebraska
Once-through
Missouri River
Harris
North Carolina
Natural draft cooling towers
Harris Reservoir
McGuire
North Carolina
Once-through
Lake Norman
Beaver Valley
Pennsylvania
Natural draft cooling towers
Ohio River
Limerick
Pennsylvania
Natural draft cooling towers
Schuylkill River
Peach Bottom
Pennsylvania
Unit 2: Once-through
Unit 3: Once-through
(mechanical draft cooling
towers)
Conowingo Pond
Susquehanna
Pennsylvania
Natural draft cooling towers
Susquehanna River
February 2023
3-15
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
Nuclear Power Plant
Cooling Water
Source
State
Cooling System
Catawba
South Carolina
Mechanical draft cooling towers
Lake Wylie
Oconee
South Carolina
Once-through
Lake Keowee
H.B. Robinson
South Carolina
Once-through (Cooling pond)
Lake Robinson
Summer
South Carolina
Cooling pond
Monticello Reservoir
Sequoyah
Tennessee
Once-through and natural draft
cooling towers
Chickamauga Lake
Watts Bar
Tennessee
Natural draft cooling towers
Chickamauga Lake
Comanche Peak
Texas
Once-through
Squaw Creek
Reservoir
North Anna
Virginia
Once-through
Lake Anna
Columbia
Washington
Mechanical draft cooling towers
Columbia River
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Closed-cycle cooling systems typically use recirculated water from cooling towers to cool the
condenser. Some nuclear power plants use cooling ponds, lakes, reservoirs, or canals
(Figure 3.1-4b) that often function as closed-cycle systems. The average water withdrawal for
nuclear power plants using closed-cycle cooling is 480 gal/MWh (1.82 m3/MWh) for cooling
ponds or lakes and 700 gal/MWh (2.65 m3/MWh) for cooling towers (USGS 2019b). Because
the predominant cooling mechanism associated with closed-cycle systems is evaporation, much
of the water used for cooling is consumed and is not returned to the water source. The average
consumptive water use for nuclear power plants using cooling towers is 500 gal/MWh (1.9
m3/MWh) (USGS 2019b). Based on the dataset described by Marston et al. (2018),
consumptive water use for most nuclear power plants using closed-cycle cooling ranges
between 450 and 750 gal/MWh (1.7 to 2.8 m3/MWh). Makeup water to account for these
losses, as well as blowdown (water that is periodically rinsed from the cooling system to remove
impurities and sediment that may degrade performance) is typically withdrawn from and
released to a surface water body near the site.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Several nuclear plants use hybrid cooling systems that may be used in different configurations
at different times of the year (Figure 3.1-4c). For instance, some once-through cooling system
plants also operate cooling towers (sometimes referred to as “helper towers”) seasonally to
reduce thermal load to the receiving water body, reduce entrainment during peak spawning
periods, or reduce consumptive water use during periods of low river flow. The Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station (Peach Bottom) (NRC 2003b, NRC 2020g) has helper mechanical draft
cooling towers that can process up to 60 percent of the plant’s heated effluent, while the
remaining effluent is discharged as part of the once-through system. The Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant (Monticello) (NRC 2006c) uses once-through cooling in the winter but has
mechanical draft cooling towers for closed-cycle cooling in the summer. The Dresden Nuclear
Power Station (Dresden) (NRC 2004c) is similar in that it relies on a cooling pond system in the
fall, winter, and spring, but in the summer, the plant operates as a once-through system that
uses the cooling pond and helper mechanical draft cooling towers to reduce effluent
temperatures before releasing the water to the Kankakee River (see Table 3.1-4). The Browns
Ferry Nuclear Plant (Browns Ferry) (NRC 2005b) uses mechanical draft cooling towers in helper
mode in accordance with conditions in its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit to limit thermal impacts on Wheeler Reservoir.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-16
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
All existing sites with two or three reactor units use the same cooling system for all units, except
for two sites: the Arkansas Nuclear One (Arkansas) plant in Arkansas and Nine Mile Point
Nuclear Station (Nine Mile Point) in New York. These two sites use once-through cooling for
one unit and closed-cycle cooling for the other. The configuration of each nuclear power plant
intake and discharge structure varies to accommodate the source water body and to minimize
impacts on the hydrologic environment and aquatic ecosystem. Intake structures generally are
located along the shoreline of the source water body. Most are equipped with devices that
reduce impingement and entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms. Some include fish
return systems that return impinged organisms to the source water body. Discharge structures
usually consist of pipes or canals that terminate in discharge jets or diffusers that promote rapid
mixing of the effluent with the receiving body of water. Discharge of condenser cooling water
(once-through systems) and blowdown water (closed-cycle systems) containing biocides and
other chemicals used for corrosion control and other water treatment purposes are authorized
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or authorized States and Tribes, under NPDES
permits, which establish limits, as necessary, based on flow rates, chemical concentrations, and
thermal criteria.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In addition to heat removal, nuclear power plants require cooling water for service water and
auxiliary cooling water systems. Service water is special-purpose water that may not be treated
for use. The auxiliary cooling water system typically includes the emergency core cooling
system, the containment spray and cooling system, the emergency feedwater system, the
component cooling water system, and the spent fuel pool water system. The volume of water
required for these systems is usually less than 15 percent of the volume required for condenser
cooling in once-through cooling systems. In closed-cycle cooling systems, the additional water
needed for service water and auxiliary purposes is usually less than 5 percent of that needed for
condenser cooling (NRC 1996).
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
In addition to surface water sources, some nuclear power plants use groundwater as a source
for service, makeup, or potable water. The Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (Grand Gulf) uses
groundwater as a source of makeup water to the condenser cooling system. This plant employs
a radial collector well system (i.e., also known as Ranney® wells) to draw groundwater from the
Mississippi River Alluvial aquifer (NRC 2014e). The Turkey Point Nuclear Plant (Turkey Point)
also draws groundwater from the Upper Floridan Aquifer as a supplemental source of makeup
water to the cooling canal system (CCS). These withdrawals primarily address salinity levels in
the system and are part of a State-mandated mitigation program to restore salinity to a level
similar to that of nearby surface waters (i.e., Biscayne Bay) (NRC 2019c).
35
3.1.4
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
During the fission process, a large inventory of radioactive fission products builds up within the
fuel. Virtually all of the fission products are contained within the fuel pellets. The fuel pellets are
enclosed in hollow metal rods (cladding), which are hermetically sealed to further prevent the
release of fission products. However, a small fraction of the fission products escape from the
fuel rods and contaminate the reactor coolant. The primary system coolant also has radioactive
contaminants as a result of neutron activation. The radioactivity in the reactor coolant is the
source of liquid, gaseous, and most of the solid radioactive wastes at LWRs. The following
sections describe the basic design and operation of PWR and BWR radioactive waste treatment
systems.
Radioactive Waste Management Systems
February 2023
3-17
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
3.1.4.1
Liquid Radioactive Waste
2
3
4
5
6
Radionuclide contaminants in the primary coolant are the source of liquid radioactive waste in
LWRs. The specific sources of these wastes, their associated modes of collection and
treatment, and the types and quantities of liquid radioactive wastes released to the environment
are similar in many respects in BWRs and PWRs. Accordingly, the following discussion applies
to both BWRs and PWRs; distinctions are made only when important differences exist.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Figure 3.1-4 Schematic Diagrams of Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Systems. Source:
NRC 2013a.
Liquid wastes resulting from LWR operation may be placed into the following categories: clean
wastes, dirty wastes, detergent wastes, turbine building floor-drain water, and steam generator
blowdown (PWRs only). Clean wastes include all liquid wastes with normally low conductivity
and variable radioactivity. They consist of reactor-grade water, which is amenable to
processing for reuse as reactor coolant makeup water. Clean wastes are collected from
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-18
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
equipment leaks and drains, certain valve and pump seal leaks, and other aerated leakage
sources. Dirty wastes include all liquid wastes with moderate chemical (ionic) conductivity and
variable radioactivity that, after processing, may be used as reactor coolant makeup water.
Dirty wastes consist of liquid wastes collected in the containment building sump, auxiliary
building sumps and drains, laboratory drains, sample station drains, and other floor drains.
Detergent wastes consist principally of laundry wastes and personnel and equipment
decontamination wastes and normally have low radioactivity. Turbine building floor-drain
wastes usually have high conductivity and a low radionuclide content. In PWRs, steam
generator blowdown can have relatively high concentrations of radionuclides, depending on the
amount of primary-to-secondary leakage. After processing, the water may be reused or
discharged.
12
13
14
15
16
Each of these sources of liquid wastes receives varying degrees and types of treatment before
being stored for reuse or discharged to the environment in accordance with applicable
regulatory requirements and permit provisions (e.g., NPDES permit). The extent and types of
treatment depend on the chemical content of the waste; to increase the efficiency of waste
processing, wastes with similar characteristics are batched before treatment.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Controls for limiting the release of radiological liquid effluents at each nuclear power plant are
described in the facility’s Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). Controls are based on
(1) concentrations of radioactive materials in liquid effluents and (2) dose to a member of the
public. Concentrations of radioactive material that are allowed to be released in liquid effluents
to unrestricted areas are limited to the concentration specified in 10 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The degree and effectiveness of processing, storing, and recycling of liquid radioactive waste
has steadily increased among operating plants. For example, extensive recycling of steam
generator blowdown in PWRs is now the typical mode of operation, and secondary side
wastewater is routinely treated. In addition, the plant systems that process wastes are often
augmented by commercial mobile processing systems. As a result, radionuclide releases in
liquid effluent from LWRs have generally declined for most plants or remained the same over
time.
30
3.1.4.2
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The gaseous waste management system collects fission products, mainly noble gases, which
accumulate in the primary coolant. A small portion of the primary coolant flow is continually
diverted to the primary coolant purification, volume, and chemical control system to remove
contaminants and adjust the coolant chemistry and volume. During this process,
noncondensable gases are stripped and routed to the gaseous waste management system,
which consists of a series of gas storage tanks. The storage tanks allow the short-half-life
radioactive gases to decay, leaving only relatively small quantities of long-half-life radionuclides
to be released to the atmosphere. Some LWRs may use charcoal delay systems rather than
gas storage tanks.
40
41
42
43
For BWRs, the sources of routine radioactive gaseous emissions to the atmosphere are the air
ejector, which removes noncondensable gases from the coolant to improve power conversion
efficiency, and gaseous and vapor leakages, which, after monitoring and filtering, are
discharged to the atmosphere via the building ventilation systems.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste
February 2023
3-19
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
PWRs have three primary sources of gaseous radioactive emissions: (1) discharges from the
gaseous waste management system; (2) discharges associated with the exhaust of
noncondensable gases at the main condenser if a primary-to-secondary system leak exists; and
(3) radioactive gaseous discharges from the building ventilation exhaust, including the reactor
building, reactor auxiliary building, and fuel-handling building.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The quantities of gaseous effluents released from operating plants are controlled by the
administrative limits that are defined in the ODCM, which is specific for each nuclear power
plant. Controls are based on (1) the rate at which the gaseous effluent is released and (2) dose
to a member of the public. The limits in the ODCM are designed to provide reasonable
assurance that radioactive materials discharged in gaseous effluents are not in excess of the
limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, thereby limiting the exposure of a member of the
public in an unrestricted area.
13
3.1.4.3
14
15
16
17
18
Solid low-level radioactive waste (LLW) from nuclear power plants is generated from the
removal of radionuclides from liquid waste streams, filtration of airborne gaseous emissions,
and removal of contaminated material from various reactor areas. Liquid contaminated with
radionuclides comes from primary and secondary coolant systems, spent fuel pools,
decontaminated wastewater, and laboratory operations.
19
20
21
Solid waste is packaged in containers to meet the applicable requirements of 49 CFR Parts 171
through 177. Disposal and transportation are performed in accordance with the applicable
requirements of 10 CFR Part 61 and 10 CFR Part 71, respectively.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Solid radioactive waste generated during operations is shipped to a LLW processor or directly to
a LLW disposal site. Volume reduction may occur both onsite and offsite. The most common
onsite volume reduction techniques are high-pressure compacting in waste drums, dewatering
and evaporating wet wastes, monitoring waste streams to segregate wastes, and sorting.
Offsite waste management vendors compact wastes at ultra-high pressures, incinerate dry
active waste, separate and incinerate oily and organic wastes, and concrete-solidify resins and
sludges before the waste is sent to a LLW disposal site.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Spent fuel contains fission products and actinides produced when nuclear fuel is irradiated in
reactors, as well as any unburned, unfissioned nuclear fuel remaining after the fuel rods have
been removed from the reactor core. In the United States, the spent fuel is considered waste
and is being stored at the reactor sites, either in spent fuel pools or dry storage facilities, called
ISFSIs (see Section 3.11.1.2). While all spent fuel is currently stored at nuclear power plant
sites, the NRC has licensed a consolidated interim storage facility ISFSI in Andrews, Texas
(NRC 2021h), and has another application under review. Consolidated interim storage facilities
are licensed under 10 CFR Part 72 and provide an option for away-from-reactor spent fuel
storage.
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mixed wastes, which contain both radioactive and hazardous components, are generally
accumulated in designated areas onsite and then shipped offsite for treatment and disposal.
Mixed wastes are regulated both by the EPA or the State under authority granted by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; 42 U.S.C. § 6901) and by the NRC or the
State under authority granted by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA; 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.) (see
Section 3.11.3).
Solid Radioactive Waste
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-20
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
3.1.5
Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Nonradioactive wastes from nuclear power plants include both hazardous and nonhazardous
wastes. Hazardous wastes, as defined by RCRA Subtitle C, may include organic materials,
heavy metals, solvents, paints, cutting fluids, and lubricating oils that have been used at a
nuclear power plant and, after use, have been declared to be waste. These wastes are
generally accumulated in designated areas onsite and then shipped offsite for treatment and
disposal. Certain hazardous waste streams may receive treatment at some sites. For example,
waste oil is incinerated at some sites. Common treatment methods for these nonradioactive
wastes include incineration, neutralization, biological treatment, and removal and recovery. All
activities related to hazardous wastes—including storage, treatment, shipment, and disposal—
are conducted pursuant to the regulations issued by the EPA or the State, if authorized, under
RCRA (see Section 3.11.2).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
There are also some routine or nonroutine releases from nuclear power plants that may have
hazardous components, including boiler blowdown (continual or periodic purging of impurities
from plant boilers), water treatment wastes (sludges and high-saline streams whose residues
are disposed of as solid waste and biocides), boiler metal cleaning wastes, floor and yard
drains, and stormwater runoff. With the exception of solid water treatment wastes, these
releases would be regulated in accordance with each plant’s NPDES permit. Principal chemical
and biocide waste sources include the following:
20
21
22
•
Boric acid used to control reactor power and lithium hydroxide used to control pH in the
coolant. These chemicals could be inadvertently released because of pipe or steam
generator leakage.
23
•
Sulfuric acid, which is added to the circulating water system to control scale.
24
•
Hydrazine, which is used for corrosion control. It is released in steam generator blowdown.
25
26
•
Sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, which are used to regenerate resins. These are
discharged after neutralization.
27
•
Phosphate in cleaning solutions.
28
•
Biocides (e.g., chlorine and bromine compounds) used for condenser defouling.
29
30
31
32
33
Other small volumes of wastewater are released from other plant systems depending on the
design of each plant. These volumes are discharged from sources such as the service water
and auxiliary cooling systems, laboratory and sampling wastes, and metal treatment wastes.
These waste streams are regulated and discharged in accordance with each plant’s NPDES
permit as separate point sources or are combined with the cooling water discharges.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Nonradioactive and nonhazardous wastes such as office trash are picked up by a local waste
hauler and sent to a local landfill without any treatment. Sanitary wastes are treated at a
sewage treatment plant that is located either onsite or offsite. If the treatment plant is offsite,
the sanitary waste is either collected in septic tanks, tested for radioactivity as necessary, and
sent offsite periodically, or the sanitary waste may be tested for radioactivity and discharged
directly to a publicly owned treatment works. Any effluent releases to surface water from onsite
sewage plants are subject to NPDES permit limits.
February 2023
3-21
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
3.1.6
Utility and Transportation Infrastructure
2
3
4
5
The utility and transportation infrastructure at nuclear power plants typically interfaces with
public infrastructure systems available in the region. This infrastructure includes utilities, such
as suppliers of electricity, fuel, and water, as well as roads and railroads used to gain access to
the sites.
6
3.1.6.1
Electricity
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Nuclear power plants generate electricity for other users and they also use electricity to operate.
The amount of electrical power needed to run a 1,000 MWe nuclear power plant is relatively
small compared to the amount it generates. Nuclear power plants must have at least two
connections to the electrical distribution system to receive power from offsite sources. One
serves as a primary source for power and a separate one serves as a backup to run the
engineered safety features and emergency equipment in case of a loss of the first source. Each
power plant has backup sources (e.g., diesel generators) to supply power if the power plant
loses both offsite sources. The backup generators are tested periodically and power the
emergency systems automatically in case external sources of electrical power are interrupted.
16
3.1.6.2
17
18
19
20
21
22
An operating 1,000 MWe PWR contains approximately 220,000 lb (100 metric tons [MT]) of
nuclear fuel in the form of uranium dioxide (UO2) at any one time. Only about one-third of that
fuel is replaced during every refueling. Assuming that the reactor is refueled once every
18 months, the amount of nuclear fuel needed (and spent fuel generated) would be roughly
44,000 lb (20 MT) per year. Fresh fuel is brought to the site and stored at the site until it is
needed.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
In addition to nuclear fuel, a nuclear power plant needs a certain amount of diesel fuel to
operate the emergency diesel power generators. To meet emergency demands, a certain
quantity of diesel fuel is stored onsite in fuel storage tanks. Fuel is also needed for space
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (i.e., HVAC) purposes. Plants use a variety of energy
sources for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, including electricity, natural gas, or fuel oil.
Some plants have waste oil incinerators onsite to burn their used oil. The heat generated by
such an incinerator is used to heat buildings during winter.
30
3.1.6.3
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Systems designed to provide cooling water at nuclear power plants are described in
Section 3.1.3. In addition to needing water for cooling, plants need water for sanitary reasons
and for everyday use by the personnel (e.g., drinking, showering, cleaning, laundry, toilets, and
eye washes). Because most nuclear power plants are located in more rural areas away from
population centers, they are typically not connected to community (public) water systems and
need to be self-sufficient in meeting their water needs. Many plants continue to rely on onsite
groundwater (e.g., the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station [Palo Verde], Limerick
Generating Station [Limerick], South Texas Project Electric Generating Station [South Texas],
Byron Station [Byron], Braidwood Station [Braidwood], LaSalle County Station [LaSalle], Surry
Power Station [Surry], North Anna Power Station [North Anna], and Point Beach Nuclear Plant
[Point Beach]) and some on surface water bodies (e.g., nearby rivers and lakes) (e.g., the
Columbia Generating Station [Columbia] and Peach Bottom plant) to obtain potable water. An
increasing number of plants obtain potable water from public water systems (e.g., the Seabrook
Fuel
Water
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-22
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
Station [Seabrook], Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant [Fermi], Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
[Sequoyah], Waterford Steam Electric Station [Waterford], River Bend Station [River Bend], and
Turkey Point plants).
4
5
6
7
8
9
The quantity of water needed for cooling purposes was discussed in Section 3.1.3. The amount
of water needed for sanitary reasons is generally much smaller than the amount needed for
cooling. After use, the potable water is processed as part of the sanitary wastewater treatment
system. As described in Section 3.11.4, sanitary waste is either treated onsite, collected in
septic tanks and then shipped offsite to be treated at a local sewage treatment plant, or
discharged directly to a publicly owned treatment system.
10
3.1.6.4
Transportation Systems
11
12
13
14
All nuclear power plants are served by controlled access roads. In addition to the roads, many
of the plants also have railroad connections for moving heavy equipment and other materials.
Some of the plants that are located on navigable waters, such as rivers, the Great Lakes, or
oceans, have facilities to receive and ship loads on barges.
15
16
17
18
19
20
Trucks are the most common mode of transportation for delivering materials to and from the
sites. Deliveries are accepted at and shipments are made from designated areas on the sites
under controlled conditions and by following established procedures. Workers generally use
their personal vehicles to commute to work. Visitors use passenger cars or light pickup trucks
to get to and from the sites. Parking areas are available on every site for workers and visitors.
There is also a network of roads and sidewalks for vehicles and pedestrians on each site.
21
3.1.6.5
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Each nuclear power plant is connected to an independent regional electrical power distribution
grid. Power transmission systems consist of switching stations (or substations) and the
transmission lines that transfer electricity from the nuclear power plant to the regional grid (see
Section 3.1.1). Switching stations transfer electrical power from generating sources to
transmission lines and regulate the operation of the power system. Transformers in switching
stations convert the generated voltage to levels appropriate for the transmission lines based on
the rating of the lines. Equipment for regulating system operation includes switches, power
circuit breakers, meters, relays, microwave communication equipment, capacitors, and a variety
of other electrical equipment. This equipment meters and controls power flow; improves the
performance characteristics of the generated power; and protects generating equipment from
short circuits, lightning strikes, and switching surges that may occur along the transmission
lines. At nuclear power plant sites, switching stations generally occupy areas two to four times
as large as areas occupied by the reactor and generator buildings, but they are typically not as
visible as other plant structures.
36
37
38
Only those transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the first substation where
electricity is fed into the regional electric distribution system and power lines that provide power
to the plant from the grid are considered within the regulatory scope of initial LR or SLR.
39
40
41
42
43
The original final environmental statements for the construction and operation of nuclear power
plants also evaluated the impacts of constructing and operating transmission lines needed to
connect nuclear power plants to the regional electric grid. Since construction, many of these
transmission lines have been incorporated into the regional grid. In many cases, these
transmission lines are no longer owned or managed by NRC licensees and would remain
Power Transmission Systems
February 2023
3-23
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
energized regardless of nuclear power plant license renewal. These transmission lines are
outside of the scope of this LR GEIS.
3
3.1.7
4
5
6
7
Nuclear power reactors are capable of generating electricity continuously for long periods of
time. However, they do not operate at maximum capacity or continuously for the entire term of
their license. Plants can typically operate continuously for periods of time ranging from 1 year to
2 years on a single fuel load.
Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Maintenance
8
9
10
11
12
Maintenance activities are routinely performed on systems and components to help ensure the
safe and reliable operation of the plant. In addition, inspection, testing, and surveillance
activities are conducted throughout the operational life of a nuclear power plant to maintain the
current licensing basis of the plant and ensure compliance with Federal, State, and local
requirements regarding the environment and public safety.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Nuclear power plants must periodically discontinue the production of electricity for refueling,
periodic in-service inspection (ISI), and scheduled maintenance. Refueling cycles occur
approximately every 12 to 24 months. The duration of a refueling outage is typically about 1 to
2 months. These enhanced inspections are performed to comply with NRC and/or industry
standards or requirements, such as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code. ISIs are generally scheduled and performed during 10-year intervals as
follows: the initial period of operation (the first 40 years) includes the 1st through 4th intervals,
an initial period of extended operation (years 40 through 60) would include the 5th and 6th
intervals, and a subsequent period of extended operation (years 60 through 80) would include
the 7th and 8th intervals, and are subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55(a), “Codes and
Standards.” For economic reasons and component accessibility, many of these activities are
conducted simultaneously (e.g., refueling activities typically coincide with the ISI and
maintenance activities).
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Many plants also undertake various major refurbishment activities during their operational lives.
These activities are performed to ensure both that the plant can be operated safely and that the
capacity and reliability of the plant remain at acceptable levels. Typical major refurbishments
that have occurred in the past include replacing PWR steam generators, reactor vessel heads,
BWR recirculation piping, and rebuilding main steam turbine stages. The need to perform major
refurbishments is plant-specific and depends on factors such as design features, operational
history, and construction and fabrication details. The plants may remain out of service for
extended periods of time (e.g., several months) while these major refurbishments are made.
Outage durations vary considerably, depending on factors such as the scope of the repairs or
modifications undertaken, the effectiveness of the outage planning, and the availability of
replacement parts and components.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Each nuclear power plant may be part of a regulated utility system that may own several nuclear
power plants, fossil fuel-fired plants, or other means of generating electricity for sale in a
regulated market. Other nuclear power plants may be non-utility or independent power
generators operating to produce and sell electricity at competitive wholesale power rates.
An onsite staff is responsible for the actual operation of each plant, and an offsite staff may be
headquartered at the plant site or some other location. Typically, 800 to 2,300 people are
employed at nuclear power plant sites during periods of normal operation, depending on the
number of operating reactors located at a particular site. The permanent onsite workforce is
usually in the range of 600 to 800 people per reactor unit. However, during outage periods, the
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-24
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
onsite workforce typically increases by 200 to 900 additional workers. The additional workers
include engineering support staff, technicians, specialty crafts persons, and laborers called in
both to perform specialized repairs, maintenance, tests, and inspections, and to assist the
permanent staff with the more routine activities carried out during plant outages.
5
3.2
6
3.2.1
Land Use and Visual Resources
Land Use
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Nuclear power plants are located on land zoned for industrial use in large complexes and land
area requirements generally are 100 to 125 ac (40 to 50 ha) for the reactor containment
building, auxiliary buildings, cooling system structures, administration and training offices, and
other facilities (e.g., switchyards, security facilities, and parking lots). Land areas disturbed
during construction of the power plant generally have been returned to prior uses or were
ecologically restored when construction ended. Land area ranges from 391 ac (158 ha) for the
Catawba Nuclear Station (Catawba) in North Carolina to 14,000 ac (5,700 ha) for the Clinton
Power Station (Clinton) in Illinois (Table 3.1-1). Almost 58 percent of nuclear power plants
encompass 500 to 2,000 ac (200 to 800 ha); 18 nuclear plants range from 500 to 1,000 ac
(200 to 400 ha); and an additional 14 encompass 1,000 to 2,000 ac (400 to 800 ha). Larger
land areas are often associated with human-made closed-cycle cooling systems that include
cooling lagoons, spray canals, reservoirs, artificial lakes, and buffer areas.
19
20
21
22
In addition to generating electricity, other land uses can be found. Some nuclear plant licensees
lease land for agricultural and forestry production, nature centers and conservation areas,
recreational use, and cemetery and historic site access. Nuclear plants also have land set
aside for onsite spent fuel storage facilities.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Land cover and land use percentages at each nuclear power plant depend on the total area and
amount of land required for electric power generation. Land cover is generally designated
within the land use “resource-oriented” classification system, which includes urban or built-up
land, agricultural land (e.g., cropland, pasture, orchards, nurseries, fields, and fallow lands),
rangeland, forest land, water, wetland (e.g., marshes and swamps), and barren land
(e.g., beaches and gravel pits). Land cover designations can also use visually descriptive
categories that include open areas (e.g., fields, cemeteries), forested areas, scrub forest,
deciduous forest, hardwood forest, beach, wetlands, open water (e.g., ponds, streams, lakes,
and canals), natural lands, recreational lands, and parking areas.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Land use within transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs) is restricted under easement rights
acquired from private landowners or from Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments. Land
use within ROWs may differ from adjacent land use. Land within the ROW is managed through
a variety of oversight and maintenance procedures so that vegetation growth and building
construction do not interfere with power line operation, maintenance, and access. Land use
within ROWs is limited to activities that do not endanger line operation and may include
recreation, off-road vehicle use, grazing, agricultural cultivation, irrigation, recreation, roads,
environmental conservation, and wildlife areas.
40
41
42
Land cover within a 5 mi (8 km) radius of operating U.S. nuclear power plants, using the
National Land Cover Database (USGS 2019a) classifications, is presented in Table 3.2-1. Land
cover types near each nuclear plant site are also presented in Appendix C.
February 2023
3-25
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. § 1456 et seq.)
requires that license renewal applicants certify that the proposed Federal license renewal in a
coastal zone or coastal watershed boundary, as defined by each State participating in the
National Coastal Zone Management Program, is consistent with the enforceable policies of that
State’s Coastal Zone Management Program. States define their coastal zone boundaries by
using a variety of parameters, such as the entire State, county or county-equivalent boundaries,
political features (e.g., town boundaries), and geographic features (adjacency to tidal waters).
Applicants must coordinate with the State agency that manages the State Coastal Zone
Management Program to obtain a determination that the proposed nuclear plant license renewal
is consistent with their program.
11
12
Table 3.2-1
Percent of Land Cover Types within a 5-Mile Radius of Nuclear Power
Plants
Land Cover Classes
Overall (%)
Open water (total)
23.5
Undeveloped land (total)
Barren land
Forest (deciduous, evergreen, and mixed)
Wetlands
Herbaceous
Shrub/scrub
43.1
0.3
23.5
10.9
4.2
4.2
Developed land (total)
Agriculture (cultivated crops and hay/pasture)
Developed open space
Low to high intensity developed land
33.4
22.2
4.5
6.7
Total
100
13
Sources: USGS 2019a; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory calculations.
14
3.2.2
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Nuclear power plants—particularly those with tall natural draft cooling towers—stand out from
the natural background. Power plant structures can be seen from a distance and across a wide
area. Cooling towers can also draw attention because of their vapor plumes. These plumes,
seen under certain meteorological and seasonal conditions, can extend the viewshed
considerably beyond that of the cooling tower and power plant alone. After cooling towers and
the containment building, transmission line towers are probably the most frequently observed
power plant structure. However, nuclear plant transmission lines are generally indistinguishable
from those from other power plants. In addition, nuclear power plant structures are often
obscured by topography, other buildings, and vegetation.
24
25
26
27
28
29
Most nuclear plants have employed a variety of mitigation measures to decrease the visual
intrusion, including cladding and paint colors used to blend in with the surroundings,
nonreflective surfaces, and the placement of trees and other landscaping. Federal regulations
require that tall structures, including the reactor containment building, cooling towers, stacks,
and meteorological towers, be fitted with lights to alert aircraft of their presence. Often these
structures can be visible at night from miles away.
30
31
Because nuclear power plants are frequently located near water bodies, views of the industrial
facility and transmission lines intrude into recreational, historic, or scenic areas. Most of the
Visual Resources
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-26
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
visual impacts from transmission lines are associated with river crossings, wetlands, wildlife
sanctuaries, open parks and athletic fields, roads, lakes, cemeteries, and historic battlefields.
3
3.3
4
3.3.1
Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise
Meteorology and Climatology
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The NRC requires that basic meteorological information be available for use in assessing (1) the
environmental effects of radiological and nonradiological emissions and effluents resulting from
the construction or operation of a nuclear power plant and (2) the benefits of design alternatives.
All nuclear power plants in the United States have a required onsite meteorological monitoring
program to provide the data needed to determine dispersion conditions in the vicinity of the
plant for assessment of safety and environmental factors. These data are used with air
dispersion models to assess and protect public health, safety, and property during plant
operations (NRC 2007e).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The most recent update to NRC Regulatory Guide 1.23, Meteorological Monitoring Programs for
Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1 (NRC 2007e), which covers meteorological monitoring
programs for nuclear power plants, provides guidance for onsite meteorological measurements
at licensed power reactors. The guidance covers the siting of instruments to provide
representative measures at plant sites, the accuracy and range of specified measured
parameters, and special considerations for plants located near influences of complex terrain
(e.g., coastal areas, hills of significant grade or valleys), among other criteria and specifications.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Onsite meteorological conditions at commercial nuclear power plants are monitored at primary
fixed meteorological towers with instrumentation at two levels (e.g., 10 and 60 m) and, if
necessary, one additional higher level on the tower to better represent dispersion of elevated
releases from stacks. A secondary onsite tower is typical at many installations as a backup if
primary tower measures fail. Basic meteorological measurements from tower instruments
typically include the following: (1) wind speed and direction from at least two levels;
(2) temperature for an ambient reading at 33 ft (10 m) and to determine deltas or changes with
height; and (3) precipitation, which is typically measured near ground level by the tower base.
Supplemental measurements can include moisture at 33 ft (10 m) and, if applicable, incoming
solar and net radiation, barometric pressure, soil temperature, and moisture at the top of the
cooling tower. Atmospheric stability is determined from temperature differences at the two
lowest levels on the tower. If a backup tower is present, measurements include wind speed and
direction and horizontal wind direction variation, usually taken at one level.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Weather conditions at each of the plants can be quite variable depending on the year, season,
time of day, and site-specific conditions, such as whether the site is near coastal zones or
located in or near terrain with complex features (e.g., steep slopes, ravines, valleys). These
conditions can be generally described by climate zones according to average temperatures.
On the basis of temperature alone, there are three major climate zones: polar, temperate, and
tropical. Within each of the three major climate zones, there are marine and continental
climates. Areas near an ocean or other large body of water have a marine climate. Areas
located within a large landmass have a continental climate. Typically, areas with a marine
climate receive more precipitation and have a more moderate climate. A continental climate
has less precipitation and a greater range in climate. Regional or localized refinements in
climate descriptions and assessments can be made by considering other important climate
variables and climate-influencing geographic variables, such as precipitation, humidity, surface
roughness, proximity to oceans or large lakes, soil moisture, albedo, snow cover, and
February 2023
3-27
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
associated linkages and feedback mechanisms. Localized microclimates can be defined by
considering factors such as urban latent and sensible heat flux and building-generated
turbulence. Both national and regional maximum and minimum average annual temperature
and precipitation climatologies over the 30 years from 1991 through 2020 are summarized in
Section D.2 in Appendix D.
The National Climatic Data Center records and archives the occurrence of storms and weather
phenomena. The National Climatic Data Center documents this information in a database that
dates back to January 1950 (NOAA 2022b). Severe weather events recorded include floods,
thunderstorms, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Table 3.3-1 provides the current enhanced Fujita
(EF) scale next to the original Fujita (F) scale, adjusted to represent peak winds averaged over
3 seconds, which are used to identify a tornado event’s intensity. The EF scale (WSEC 2006) is
based on the highest wind speed estimated in the tornado path with maximum 3-second
average wind gusts within the range specified for each EF intensity level. The range in damage
to structures in the EF2 through EF5 range is described as considerable to incredible, and the
damage depends highly on the building’s structural design.
16
Table 3.3-1
Description
of Damage
Intensity
F0/EF0
Light
F1/EF1
Moderate
F2/EF2
Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale
Original Fujita Scale
(3-s gust) (mph)
Operational Enhanced
Fujita Scale
(3-s gust) (mph)
45 to 78
65 to 85
79 to 117
86 to 110
Considerable
118 to 161
111 to 135
F3/EF3
Severe
162 to 209
136 to 165
F4/EF4
Devastating
210 to 261
166 to 200
F5/EF5
Incredible
262 to 317
>200
17
18
F = Fujita scale; EF = enhanced Fujita scale; mph = miles per hour; s = second.
Source: WSEC 2006.
19
3.3.2
20
21
22
23
24
25
Air emissions related to criteria air pollutants and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (a
precursor of ozone) are released to the atmosphere from ancillary non-nuclear facilities at
nuclear power plants. These emissions include criteria air pollutants such as particulate matter
(PM) with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less (PM10), PM with a mean aerodynamic
diameter of 2.5 μm or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx),1 carbon
monoxide (CO), and lead, and VOCs.
26
27
28
29
30
31
The EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants,
including SO2, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, ozone, PM10, PM2.5, and lead, as shown in
Table 3.3-2. Primary NAAQS specify maximum ambient (outdoor air) concentration levels of
the criteria pollutants with the aim of protecting public health. Secondary NAAQS specify
maximum concentration levels with the aim of protecting public welfare. The NAAQS specify
different averaging times as well as maximum concentrations. Some of the NAAQS for
Air Quality
1
NOx is not a criteria pollutant, but emissions are typically reported in terms of NOx. Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) is the component of NOx that is a criteria pollutant, but emissions of NO2 are not typically reported.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-28
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
averaging times of 24 hours or less allow the standard values to be exceeded a limited number
of times per year, and others specify other procedures for determining compliance. States can
have their own State Ambient Air Quality Standards. State Ambient Air Quality Standards must
be at least as stringent as the NAAQS and can include standards for additional pollutants. If a
State has no standard corresponding to one of the NAAQS, the NAAQS apply.
6
7
8
An area where criteria air pollutants exceed NAAQS levels is called a nonattainment area.
Previous nonattainment areas where air quality has improved to meet the NAAQS are
redesignated maintenance areas and are subject to an air quality maintenance plan.
9
10
11
12
13
The currently designated nonattainment areas (as of February 2020)2 for each criteria air
pollutant (8-hour ozone, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2, CO, and lead) and their relative locations with
respect to operating nuclear power plants are shown on the map in Figure 3.3-1. There are
currently more than 30 operating plants located within or adjacent to counties with designated
nonattainment areas. There are no nonattainment areas designated for CO or NO2.
Table 3.3-2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Six Criteria Pollutants(a)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Pollutant
Averaging Time
NAAQS Value(b)
NAAQS Type(c)
SO2
1-hour
75 ppb
P
SO2
3-hour
0.5 ppm
S
NO2
1-hour
100 ppb
P
NO2
Annual
0.053 ppm (53 ppb)
P, S
CO
1-hour
35 ppm
P
CO
8-hour
9 ppm
P
O3
8-hour
0.070 ppm
P, S
PM10
24-hour
150 μg/m3
P, S
PM2.5
24-hour
35 μg/m3
P, S
PM2.5
Annual
3
15 μg/m
S
PM2.5
Annual
12 μg/m3
P
Pb
Rolling 3-month
0.15 μg/m3
P, S
(a) CO = carbon monoxide; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone;
Pb =lead; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 μm; PM10 = particulate matter 10 μm; and SO2 = sulfur dioxide.
(b) Refer to 40 CFR Part 50 or EPA 2022f for detailed information about attainment determination and reference
method for monitoring.
(c) P = Primary standard whose limits were set to protect public health; S = secondary standard whose limits were
set to protect public welfare.
Source: EPA 2022f.
22
Nonattainment area designations are ever-changing and redesignations may occur due to EPA’s
revisions for PM10 and PM2.5 (effective March 18, 2013), 8-hour ozone (effective October 26, 2015), Pb
(effective January 12, 2009),1-hour SO2 (effective August 23, 2010), and 1-hour NO2 (effective April 12,
2010). Please refer to the latest EPA Green Book for the most updated nonattainment and maintenance
area designations (Available URL: http://www.epa.gov//green-book/).
2
February 2023
3-29
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-30
February 2023
1
2
3
4
Figure 3.3-1
Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Nonattainment Areas, as of August 30, 2011. Adapted
from EPA 2022e. Revoked 1-hour (1979) and 8-hour (1997) ozone are excluded.
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Sources at nuclear power plants that contribute to criteria air pollutants include backup diesel
generators, boilers, fire pump engines, and cooling towers. The emissions from these sources
(and, if applicable, emissions from the incineration of any waste products) must comply with
State and local regulatory air quality permitting requirements. Because nuclear power plant
ancillary facilities are generally low emitters of criteria air pollutants and VOCs, the impact on
potential ambient air quality is minimal. However, special permit conditions may be applicable
under various regulatory jurisdictions for facilities located in EPA designated nonattainment
areas.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The operation of wet cooling towers results in the emission of salt and other inorganic and/or
organic particles to the air. These releases are called drift emissions. Salt is the dominant drift
component—being typically greater than 70 percent of the total suspended PM released—for
coastal nuclear plants with wet towers that use seawater as the coolant. Drift emissions from
cooling towers are also associated with deposits on downwind surfaces (e.g., vegetation,
automobiles, and structures), known as drift deposition, and a resulting increase in downwind
PM concentrations. The magnitude and pattern of these impacts could include both near-field
and far-field receptors. The degree of impacts would depend on a number of factors, such as
the size of the particles, the steam condenser flow rate or throughput, and the type and height of
the cooling tower.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Cooling tower particulate emissions are formed entirely as secondary particles from evaporation
of wet tower drift droplet releases to the atmosphere. Because the drift droplets generally
contain the same chemical impurities (primarily dissolved solids) as those in the cooling water
circulating through the tower, these impurities wind up in the drift that escapes the tower. Large
drift droplets settle out of the tower’s exhaust air stream and are deposited on surfaces near the
tower. This process can lead to wetting, icing, and salt deposition and can cause related
problems, such as damage to equipment or vegetation. Other drift droplets may evaporate and
form mixed chemical particles from water-soluble materials (total dissolved solids or TDS), such
as sea salt, and water-insoluble (total suspended solids) droplet-encapsulated particles
(Pruppacher and Klett 1980) that are transported in the air as suspended PM before being
deposited on surfaces downwind. Both PM10 and PM2.5 are generated when the drift droplets
evaporate and leave fine PM formed by the crystallization of dissolved solids. Dissolved solids
found in cooling tower drift can consist of salt compounds (e.g., sodium chloride, sodium nitrate,
ammonium sulfate [(NH4)2SO4] and other mineral matter, corrosion inhibitors, and biocides.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The magnitude of drift-related PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from wet towers depends on several
conditions and parameters, such as the makeup water composition, concentrations of TDS
(organic matter, biocides, corrosion inhibitors, sodium chloride), steam condenser flow rate, drift
eliminator efficiency, number of cooling towers/cells, and annual hours of operation. In
comparison, drift emissions from cooling tower systems using seawater are over 7 times greater
than those from systems supplied with freshwater makeup feeds, if everything else is held
constant. The Palo Verde plant in Arizona uses makeup water derived from the Phoenix City
Sewage Treatment Plant. The associated drift emissions from the six mechanical draft cooling
towers at the Palo Verde plant in 2017 were less than 32 and 20 tons for PM10 and PM2.5,
respectively (MCAQD 2019). These emissions are relatively small and typical for a wellcontrolled cooling tower using a water supply with low TDS concentration levels. Palo Verde’s
air permit issued by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department requires that TDS
concentration for each cooling tower be limited to 30,000 ppm (MCAQD 2010).
46
47
There is only one plant, Hope Creek Generating Station (Hope Creek) in New Jersey, that uses
high-salinity water (from the Delaware River Estuary) as the reactor coolant in a natural draft
February 2023
3-31
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cooling tower. An analysis of drift emissions and air impacts from Hope Creek’s natural draft
cooling tower was assessed with air quality modeling conducted in support of an extended
power uprate from about 3,300 to about 3,800 megawatts-thermal (MWt) (NRC 2008b). The
analysis showed that the uprate would increase the particulate cooling tower drift emissions
from the current rate of 29.4 lb/hr (13.3 kg/hr) to an average rate of 35.6 lb/hr (16.1 kg/hr, with a
maximum of 42.0 lb/hr [19.1 kg/hr]). Particulates (primarily salts) from the cooling tower are
primarily PM10. Although smaller suspended drift particles would also likely be generated from
evaporation of cooling tower plume droplets, estimates of the size distribution of generated drift
particles to determine the PM2.5 fraction were not made. The NRC staff determined that the
estimated increase in particulate emissions would exceed the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP’s) regulatory maximum hourly emission limit of 30 lb/hr
(13.6 kg/hr) for particulates (NJ Admin. Code 7:27-6). However, the NJDEP’s Bureau of
Technical Services reviewed the air quality modeling conducted in support of the proposed
power uprate and determined that the cooling tower emissions would not exceed the NAAQS for
PM10 or New Jersey’s Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM10. On the basis of this
determination, the NRC staff concluded that there would be no significant particulate emission
impacts associated with the Hope Creek plant’s cooling tower at the associated higher makeup
water throughput necessary to sustain the higher requested plant operating loads (NRC 2008b).
On June 13, 2007, NJDEP issued its final Title V air permit for the Hope Creek cooling tower,
authorizing a variance to the plant’s air operating permit with an hourly emission rate of 42 lb/hr
(19.1 kg/hr) (State of New Jersey 2021). In addition, a prevention of significant deterioration
(i.e., PSD) applicability determination by the EPA concluded that the requested power uprate
would not result in a significant increase in emissions and would not be subject to prevention of
significant deterioration review (State of New Jersey 2021). Further regulatory review was not
required since the Hope Creek plant is located in an attainment area for PM10.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Transmission lines have been associated with the production of minute amounts of ozone and
NOx. These pollutants are associated with corona—the breakdown of air that is very near highvoltage conductors. Corona is a phenomenon associated with all energized transmission lines.
Under certain conditions, the localized electric field near an energized conductor can be
sufficiently concentrated to produce a tiny electric discharge that can ionize air close to the
conductors (EPRI 1982). This partial discharge of electrical energy is called corona discharge,
or corona. Corona is most noticeable for higher-voltage lines during rain or fog conditions. In
addition to the small quantities of ozone and NOx that form, other manifestations of corona
events include energy loss, interference with radio or television transmission, and ambient noise
(see Section 3.3.3). Typically, corona interference with radio and television reception is not a
design problem. Interference levels in both fair and rainy weather are extremely low at the
ROW edge for 230-kV and lower transmission lines, and they usually meet or exceed the
reception guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission. As discussed in the 2013 LR
GEIS, through the years, line designs that greatly reduce corona effects have been developed.
Because transmission line emissions associated with corona discharge are so small when
compared with emissions from other sources of air pollution (e.g., ozone precursors from
automobiles, power plants, and large industrial boilers), these emissions are not a regulated
source of air pollution in the United States.
44
45
Airborne radiological releases during normal plant operation and associated doses to downwind
populations are discussed in Section 3.9.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-32
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
3.3.3
Noise
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Noise is unwanted sound that can be generated by many sources. Sound intensity is measured
in logarithmic units called decibels (dB). A dB is the ratio of the measured sound pressure level
to a reference level equal to a normal person’s threshold of hearing. Another characteristic of
sound is frequency or pitch. Noise may be comprised of many frequencies, but the human ear
does not hear very low or very high frequencies. To represent noise as closely as possible to
the noise levels people experience, sounds are measured using a frequency-weighting scheme
known as the A-scale. Sound levels measured on this A-scale are given in units of A-weighted
decibels (dBA). Levels can become very annoying at 85 dBA. To the human ear, an increase
of 3 dBA is barely noticeable and an increase of 10 dBA sounds twice as loud (EPA 1981).
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Several different terms are commonly used to describe sounds that vary in intensity over time.
The equivalent sound intensity level represents the average sound intensity level over a
specified interval, often 1 hour. The day-night sound intensity level is a single value calculated
from hourly equivalent sound intensity level over a 24-hour period, with the addition of 10 dBA to
sound levels from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. This addition accounts for the greater sensitivity of most
people to nighttime noise. Statistical sound level (Ln) is the sound level that is exceeded ‘n’
percent of the time during a given period. For example, L90, is the sound level exceeded
90 percent of the time and is considered the background level.
19
20
21
22
23
24
The principal sources of noise from nuclear power plant operations are natural draft and
mechanical draft cooling towers, transmission lines, and transformers. Other occasional and
intermittent noise sources may include auxiliary equipment (such as pumps to supply cooling
water), mainsteam safety valves, corona discharge, firing range, and loudspeakers. In most
cases, the sources of noise are far enough away from sensitive receptors outside plant
boundaries that the noise is attenuated to nearly ambient levels and is scarcely noticeable.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
There are no Federal regulations for public exposures to noise. When noise levels are below
the levels that result in hearing loss, impacts have been judged primarily in terms of adverse
public reactions to noise. The Department of Housing and Urban Development
(24 CFR 51.101(a)(8)) uses day-night average sound levels of 55 dBA, recommended by EPA
as guidelines or goals for outdoors in residential areas (EPA 1974). However, noise levels are
considered acceptable if the day-night average sound level outside a residence is less
than 65 dBA.
32
33
34
35
36
Natural draft and mechanical draft cooling towers emit noise of a broadband nature. Cooling
tower noise is generated by fan equipment or falling water. At 164 ft (50 m) distance, noise
level for a mechanical draft cooling tower can reach 60 dBA and at 230 ft (70 m) distance the
noise level for a natural draft cooling tower can reach 66 dBA (Tetra Tech 2010; Neller and
Snow 2003).
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Transformers emit a humming noise of a specific tonal nature at twice the normal voltage or
current cycle (core expansion and contraction twice its 60 hertz [Hz] cycle) with a vibration or
noise harmonic of 120 Hz. This is called the fundamental noise frequency. Transformer noise
originates almost entirely in the core as a result of the restrictive effects of steel on the
generated magnetic field, a phenomenon called magnetostriction, which causes the core and its
clamps to vibrate (Ellingson 1979). Since the core is not symmetrical and the magnetic effects
do not behave in a simple way, the resultant noise is not pure in tone. This is the noise or
vibration produced. The noise radiated by transformers is primarily composed of discrete tones
at even harmonics of line frequency (e.g., 120, 240, 360 Hz) when the line frequency is 60 Hz
February 2023
3-33
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
(Vér and Beranek 2005). Transformer noise is distinct because of its specific low frequencies.
The low frequencies are not attenuated with distance and intervening materials as much as
higher frequencies are; thus, low frequencies are more noticeable and obtrusive. However, at
most sites employing cooling towers, transformer noise is masked by the broadband cooling
tower noise. Sound levels from transformers varies depending on the capacity rating.
6
7
8
9
10
11
Transmission lines can generate a small amount of sound energy during corona activity. During
corona events (see Section 3.3.2), the ionization of the air that surrounds conductors of the
high-voltage transmission lines, which is caused by electrostatic fields in these lines, generates
impulse corona currents. When the voltage on a particular phase is high enough, a corona
burst occurs, and a noise is generated. This noise occurs primarily on the positive power line
voltage wave and is referred to as positive corona noise (Maruvada 2000).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Although conductors are designed to minimize corona discharges, surface irregularities caused
by damage, insects, raindrops, or contamination may locally enhance the electric field strength
enough for corona discharges to occur (Cristina et al. 1985). This audible noise from the line
can barely be heard in fair weather on higher-voltage lines. During wet weather, water drops
collect on the conductor and increase corona activity so that a crackling or humming sound may
be heard near the line. This noise is caused by small electrical discharges from the water
drops. Measurements from a 765 kV transmission line during rain events found that the
average sound levels at 50 ft (15 m) from the transmission line were 54.6 dBA, with sound
levels as high as 64 dBA measured (Popeck and Knapp 1981).
21
22
23
24
25
Cooling tower and transformer noise from existing equipment does not change appreciably
during the time when the plant is operating, nor does the crackling sound of transmission lines
during storms. Increases or decreases in site noise levels can occur when equipment is
upgraded or modified to meet life-cycle maintenance requirements or when the power level is
uprated.
26
3.4
27
28
29
30
31
The geologic environment of a nuclear power plant site encompasses the physiographic or
physical setting in which the plant has been constructed and the associated geologic strata and
soils that comprise the site. Large-scale geologic hazards are a condition of the geologic
environment and include geologic faulting and earthquakes that comprise a site’s seismic
setting.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Nuclear power plants are located in a variety of physiographic provinces, though most nuclear
plants are located in the Atlantic Coastal Plain and Central Lowlands provinces. Each
physiographic province consists of a regional geologic terrain with a broadly similar structure
and character. However, within each province, the local geology may differ significantly from
the regional conditions. The geologic setting of each nuclear plant is therefore more a reflection
of the local geology rather than the physiographic province in which it is located. Nuclear power
plants are located in a wide variety of settings, including uplands along rivers, glaciated till
plains, Great Lakes shorelines, and coastal sites. As a result, the geologic strata on which
plants have been sited and constructed range from variably textured, interbedded,
unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sediments of relatively recent age (i.e., less than
11,700 years before present), to thick sequences of sedimentary rock (e.g., sandstone, shale,
siltstone) of varying age, to massive crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks (e.g., granitic
and gneissic rocks) as old as Precambrian (i.e., greater than 540 million years before present).
All safety-related structures (e.g., seismic Category 1 structures) at nuclear power plants are
Geologic Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-34
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
founded either on competent bedrock, engineered compacted strata, concrete fill, and/or
structural backfill in order to make sure that no safety-related facilities are constructed in
potentially unstable materials.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Soils across a plant site come from the disintegration of parent materials (i.e., bedrock or
sediments) and interaction with the atmosphere and biological action, and can develop distinct
horizons or layers with varying properties and uses. Soils and subsoils at nuclear plant sites
vary in terms of the geotechnical properties relevant to site construction (e.g., shear-strength,
shrink-swell potential, cut-slope stability, and erodibility) and the hydraulic properties related to
the infiltration of water at the soil surface, the occurrence of groundwater, and the movement of
contaminants. Depending on the nuclear plant’s location and design, riverbanks or coastlines
may need to be protected to prevent erosion, especially at water intake or discharge structures.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The soil resources available at each nuclear power plant are site-specific in terms of their
potential erodibility and their potential use for agricultural activities and vary spatially on the
basis of the distribution of different soil types on the site. Many of the nuclear plants in the
Midwest, Great Plains, East, and Southeast (with the exception of plants in Florida) are located
in areas with soils that are designated as prime farmland (see Figure 3.4-1). Prime farmland
soil has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for growing crops and is
potentially subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (FPPA; 7 U.S.C. § 4201
et seq.) and its implementing regulations (7 CFR Part 657, 7 CFR Part 658). Other important
farmland soils potentially subject to the FPPA include unique farmlands as well as farmlands
designated as having statewide or local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA regulation does
not have to be currently used for cropland. It can be forest land, pastureland, cropland, or other
land, but not water or urban built-up land. Nuclear plants in Florida and in Western States are
generally not located near prime or other important farmland. At some nuclear plant sites
(e.g., Cooper Nuclear Station [Cooper] and Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant [Harris]),
undeveloped or restored portions of the nuclear plant site have been leased for agricultural use
including timber production. However, some land areas on plant sites may not be available for
leasing if they are within a nuclear plant’s security zone. Soil survey maps and data are
available for most locations in the United States from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
Resources Conservation Service (USDA 2019).
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The geologic resources in the vicinity of each nuclear plant, including rock, mineral, or energy
rights and assets, vary with the location and may support extraction industries. These industries
may include sand and gravel pit operations or quarrying for crushed stone. In general, there is
little if any interaction between plant operations and local extraction industries, although some
nuclear plants may purchase materials for landscaping and site construction from local sources.
Commercial mining, quarrying, or drilling operations are not allowed within nuclear power plant
site boundaries.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Another aspect of the geologic environment is the seismic setting. The NRC has well
established design criteria and standards that are used as the basis for the construction of all
commercial nuclear power plants in the United States. These include ensuring the ability to
withstand environmental hazards, such as earthquakes and flooding, without loss of capacity to
perform their safety functions. Specifically, the NRC requires that safety-related structures,
systems, and components be designed to take into account the most severe natural
phenomena historically reported for the site and surrounding area. With regard to earthquakes
in particular, existing U.S. nuclear power plants were designed and built to withstand the
ground-shaking level considered appropriate for the location, given the possible earthquake
sources that may affect the site.
February 2023
3-35
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
Figure 3.4-1 Occurrence of Prime Farmland and Other Farmland of Importance, with
Nuclear Power Plant Locations Shown. Source: USDA 2021.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
U.S. nuclear power plants were originally sited using geologic and seismic criteria set forth in
10 CFR 100.10(c)(1) and 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A and, where applicable, designed and
constructed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. The regulations require that plant
structures, systems, and components important to safety be designed to withstand the effects of
natural phenomena, including earthquakes and other natural phenomena, without loss of
capability to perform safety functions. Plant-specific design bases for seismic protection are
prescribed by a nuclear power plant’s final safety analysis report/updated final safety analysis
report and by applicable technical specifications. Detailed investigations of the proposed site
and regional geologic environment are required to include an analysis of all historic earthquakes
with the potential to affect the nuclear power plant site and power plant operations. Locations
for nuclear power plants are also evaluated and characterized for the presence of geologic
faults including those considered to be capable of generating earthquakes, predicted
earthquake ground motions in order to establish the plant’s safe shutdown earthquake, the
potential for the nuclear plant to be exposed to seismically induced floods and water waves, and
for the nature and behavior of the surficial geologic materials and subsurface materials and their
engineering properties. In addition, spent fuel pools are designed with reinforced concrete so
that they may remain operable through the largest historic earthquake that has or is expected to
occur in the area.
22
23
24
The U.S. Geological Survey regularly updates its seismic hazard mapping products for the
United States (see, for example, Rukstales and Petersen 2019; Petersen et al. 2020). Based
on the 2018 seismic hazard maps, and as measured in terms of predicted earthquake-produced
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-36
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
peak horizontal ground accelerations with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years
(i.e., corresponding to a return time of about 2,500 years), most nuclear power plants are
located in areas with peak horizontal acceleration less than 30 percent of gravity (0.3 g) (see
Figure 3.4-2). Peak horizontal accelerations are related to earthquake intensity and the
magnitude of shaking (Worden et al. 2020). Plants subject to a peak horizontal acceleration of
0.3 g could experience very strong shaking equivalent to Modified Mercalli Intensity VI, which
indicates damage to buildings of good design would be expected to be negligible (Petersen et
al. 2020; USGS 2021). In California, one operating nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon Power
Plant (Diablo Canyon), and one plant undergoing decommissioning (San Onofre, shut down in
2012) are in locations with predicted peak ground accelerations greater than 40 percent of
gravity based on the 2018 seismic hazard map. Nuclear power plants, including Diablo Canyon,
were designed to safely withstand the seismic hazards associated with earthquakes with
epicenters at various locations and at various depths, magnitudes, and ground accelerations
(AEC 1973; NRC 2020d).
15
16
17
18
19
Figure 3.4-2 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model Peak Horizontal Acceleration with a
2 Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years (Site Class B/C) with
Nuclear Power Plant Locations Shown. Seismic map source: Rukstales
and Petersen 2019.
February 2023
3-37
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The state of knowledge regarding geologic conditions and seismology and seismic hazards at a
specific nuclear power plant site may have changed since construction. Although such
discoveries are expected to be rare, new seismological conditions include the identification of
previously unknown geologic faults. For example, a strike-slip fault was discovered
approximately 1 km (0.6 mi) offshore of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in 2009 (NRC 2009f).
Moreover, the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and the resulting accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi
Nuclear Power Plant in Japan prompted a reevaluation of seismic hazards at U.S. nuclear
power plants using present-day NRC requirements and guidance (NRC 2021q).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Changes in potential seismic hazards are not within the scope of the NRC’s license renewal
environmental review, except, where appropriate, during the analysis of severe accident
mitigation alternatives, because any such changes would not be the result of continued
operation of the nuclear power plant. Seismic design issues are considered during plantspecific safety reviews and, more specifically, are addressed on an ongoing basis through the
reactor oversight process and other NRC safety programs, such as the Generic Issues
Program, which are separate from the license renewal process. When new seismic hazard
information becomes available, the NRC evaluates the new information, through the appropriate
program, to determine if any changes are needed at one or more existing nuclear plants.
18
3.5
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Water resources comprise all forms of surface water and groundwater occurring in the vicinity of
nuclear power plants. Surface water encompasses all water bodies that occur above the
ground surface, including rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and other features, such as humanmade reservoirs or other impoundments. Groundwater is water that is below the ground surface
within a zone of saturation, with the uppermost groundwater surface comprising the water table.
Groundwater comprises water that originated naturally as recharge from precipitation (e.g., rain
or the melting of snow, sleet, or hail) or artificially as recharge from activities such as irrigation,
industrial processing, and wastewater disposal. Groundwater returns to the surface through
discharge to springs and baseflow into rivers and streams, evaporation from shallow water table
areas, or human activity involving wells or excavations. Aquifers are subsurface formations
capable of yielding a significant amount of groundwater to wells or springs. Lesser amounts of
groundwater may also occur in areas above the saturated zone in the form of relatively small
and isolated lenses of groundwater known as “perched” groundwater.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Potential water uses, from either surface water or groundwater sources, include uses for
drinking and sanitary purposes, irrigation, maintenance of terrestrial and aquatic resources,
recreation, and, of critical importance to all nuclear plants, industrial cooling and other
applications. Demands for water are not restricted to freshwater (i.e., generally water with a
TDS level of less than 1,000 mg/L), but can also be met, for certain uses, by brackish (i.e., TDS
level of about 1,000 to 35,000 mg/L) and saltwater (saline) sources, including for industrial
cooling applications. As such, nuclear power plants are located in a range of settings with
respect to water resources availability. Specifically, 11 of the 55 currently licensed nuclear
power plants are located in estuarine or coastal areas, 9 plants are located on or near the Great
Lakes, and 35 plants are located on rivers and/or with associated impoundments
(e.g., reservoirs) (see also Table 3.1-2 through Table 3.1-4 and Section 3.5.1.1).
43
44
45
46
Earth’s water is always in movement, and the natural water cycle, also known as the hydrologic
cycle, describes the continuous movement of water on, above, and below the surface of the
Earth. It is the movement of water from surface water, groundwater, and vegetation to the
atmosphere and back to the Earth in the form of precipitation. Natural waters are normally
Water Resources
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-38
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
replenished by precipitation. However, the availability of water resources is being reduced and
their distribution is changing due to human activity and natural forces. This is further
aggravated by global climate change and variations in natural conditions. Impacts within the
hydrologic cycle can be observed in precipitation patterns, infiltration to groundwater, surface
runoff, stream flow, and other natural features.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The water quality of surface water bodies and groundwater in the vicinity of and within the
watersheds where nuclear power plant sites are located is influenced by a wide range of
activities that are often unrelated to and far removed from plant operations. Urbanization and
development increase the amount of impervious surface coverage, such as roads and
sidewalks, and reduce the natural terrain and pervious surfaces, including woodlands, meadow,
and prairie lands. These alterations result in higher runoff velocities while reducing or
eliminating the ability for infiltration, which also reduces groundwater recharge. Pervious areas
associated with urbanization and development, such as landscape and recreational areas,
contribute to increased surface runoff because they are typically uniformly graded and sparsely
vegetated. Increased runoff is also thermally warmer than precipitation falling on natural terrain,
and can carry pollutants entrained from sources of contamination on the land surface and that
may have otherwise been filtered through natural processes. As a result, changes in surface
runoff velocities and volumes have the potential to result in surface water quality impacts,
including changes in the chemical and thermal characteristics of the receiving waters.
Additionally, increases in runoff lead to streamside erosion, loss of topsoil, and other hydrologic
changes leading to increased flooding potential of downstream areas. These changes can
occur in some watersheds despite design guidelines and regulations implemented by local,
State, and Federal agencies to manage runoff rates associated with development.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Typical pollutants carried in stormwater runoff include sediment, nutrients, debris, bacteria, and
common hazardous substances (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, and petroleum products). Nutrient
additions, whether from fertilizer additions to landscaped lawns in urban and suburban areas or
from croplands in agricultural areas, add to the pollutant loading and can have negative effects
on water quality, terrestrial communities, and aquatic life (see Section 3.6). Atmospheric
deposition of pollutants is also a substantial contributor to water quality degradation in
“downwind” regions and particularly in urbanized areas. Nuclear power plant operations can
contribute to water quality and hydrologic changes by increasing stormwater runoff, adding to
nutrient discharges from sewage treatment, and through effluent discharges from industrial
cooling systems. The additional runoff volume results in a total increase in deposited pollutants
from impervious surfaces and industrial yards. Cooling system discharges typically contain
cooling water treatment chemicals (e.g., corrosion inhibitors and biocides) (see also
Section 3.5.1.2). Such chemical constituents, when released to receiving water bodies, have
the potential to affect aquatic organisms. Thermal pollution is an additional pollutant that warms
a receiving water body through both stormwater runoff and industrial cooling discharges. Within
a watershed, these conditions are exacerbated by basinwide deforestation and stripping of
streamside vegetation in urban, suburban, and even in agricultural areas.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
The collection of these pollutants from all sources in receiving waters can result in waters that
are unable to meet the water quality standards and desired uses set by States, territories, or
authorized Indian Tribes. The water bodies that do not meet the standard are included in the
Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d) list as impaired water bodies and require additional monitoring
and more stringent effluent limits being imposed on industrial and other dischargers under
Section 303(d). Each State is required to submit their impaired and threatened waters list (i.e.,
303(d) list) for EPA approval every 2 years (EPA 2021c). For each water on the list, the State
identifies the pollutant causing the impairment, when known. Based on the NRC’s license
February 2023
3-39
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
renewal environmental reviews performed since 2013, the range of pollutants identified as
contributing to impairment of adjoining surface waters have included pathogens (e.g., coliform
bacteria), sediment, various nutrients (e.g., phosphorus), polychlorinated biphenyls, and
mercury contamination, none of which were attributable to nuclear power plant operations.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Finally, groundwater quality, whether in shallow, unconfined aquifers comprised of
unconsolidated sediments or bedrock aquifers, may be affected by many of the sources
previously described. Fertilizers, chemicals, and petroleum products can degrade groundwater
quality by infiltration into soil, subsoils, and the water table. Subsurface sources of pollution
may be from broken sewage pipelines, stormwater and/or combined sanitary sewers, as well as
cracks in or failures of underground storage tanks. At nuclear power plant sites, groundwater
quality has been affected by inadvertent releases of radionuclides, predominately tritium, from
plant systems. Spills and leaks of petroleum products from industrial facilities (including nuclear
facilities) also affect groundwater.
14
15
16
Within the context of the information discussed above, the following sections discuss the effects
of past and current nuclear power plant operations on water resources, including relevant
regulatory considerations.
17
3.5.1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The dominant water requirement at most nuclear power plants is cooling water, which, in most
cases, is obtained from surface water bodies. For this reason, most plants are located near
suitable supplies of surface water, such as rivers, reservoirs, lakes, the Great Lakes, oceans,
bays, or human-made impoundments, as described above. An exception is the Palo Verde
plant in Arizona, which relies on treated municipal wastewater for cooling. Because of the
interaction between power plants and surface water, issues arise in terms of both usage and
quality. These are discussed in separate sections below.
25
3.5.1.1
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Nuclear power plants withdraw large amounts of surface water to meet a variety of plant needs,
especially for condenser cooling (see Section 3.1.3 for detailed analysis). The operating
commercial nuclear power plants considered in this LR GEIS are compared in Table 3.5-1 in
terms of their condenser flow rates, when normalized to energy production. Although nuclear
plants in warmer geographical locations might be expected to have higher water requirements
for cooling, a comparison of the locations of the plants and the normalized water use by their
cooling systems suggests there is no correlation between high water use and warmer climate.
Design factors are likely responsible for the overlapping ranges in condenser flow rates.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
For closed-cycle cooling systems featuring cooling towers, the amount of water consumed
equates approximately to the amount of water lost through evaporation and drift. In this type of
cooling system, the condenser flow rate is much larger than the withdrawal rate from a surface
water body, and this withdrawal rate is essentially the water consumption rate of the system.
For once-through cooling systems, the condenser flow rate is nearly equal to the surface water
withdrawal rate, and the consumption rate is much less because water is returned directly to the
surface water body and undergoes less evaporative loss than in a cooling tower.
41
42
43
Cooling towers used at operating nuclear power plants consume water at a rate of about 9,400
to 10,000 gpm (0.59 to 0.63 m3/s), normalized to 1,000 MWe, as a result of evaporation and drift
(Table 3.5-1) (Marston et al. 2018). According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Surface Water Resources
Surface Water Use
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-40
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(NREL 2011), the operational water consumption of nuclear plant cooling towers ranges from
9,700 to 14,000 gpm (0.61 to 0.88 m3/s), normalized to 1,000 MWe. Additional water
requirements offset the blowdown returned to the surface water body. Water withdrawal for
plants with closed-cycle cooling systems is 5 to 10 percent of the withdrawal for plants with
once-through cooling systems, with much of this water being used for makeup of water lost to
evaporation (NRC 1996). An estimate of typical makeup water needs for nuclear plants having
closed-cycle cooling, normalized to a 1,000 MWe reactor, is about 14,000 to 18,000 gpm (0.9 to
1.1 m3/s) for all makeup needs (NRC 1996). This range of required makeup water includes not
only the consumed water but also the offset of blowdown, which is returned to the surface water
body. Variation in water use among plants results from the design of the cooling tower,
concentration factor of recirculated water, climate at the site, plant operating conditions, and
other plant-specific factors.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Once-through cooling systems are somewhat more common than closed-cycle systems
(Table 3.5-1). For once-through systems used at operating nuclear plants, the water withdrawn
is returned to the surface water body with less consumptive loss (about 6,600-6,700 gpm or
0.42 m3/s) per 1,000 MWe because there is less evaporation than that associated with cooling
towers (Marston et al. 2018). As indicated by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL
2011), the operational water consumption of nuclear plant once-through cooling systems ranges
between 2,000 to 7,000 gpm (0.13 to 0.44 m3/s), normalized to 1,000 MWe. Marston et al. 2018
reports water consumption of once-through cooling systems at operating nuclear plants as
ranging from 5,200 to 8,700 gpm (0.33 to 0.55 m3/s) per 1,000 MWe. In all, the withdrawal rate
from the surface water body, however, is much higher in a once-through cooling system than in
a closed-cycle system. For example, in Table 3.5-1, compare the condenser flow rates needed
for once-through systems, which correspond to their surface water withdrawals, with the
consumptive losses of closed-cycle systems (e.g., cooling tower systems), which correspond to
their surface water withdrawal or makeup water requirements. The thermal discharge from
once-through cooling systems is generally higher than that from cooling towers, as discussed in
Section 3.5.1.2 below.
29
30
Table 3.5-1
Comparison of Cooling Water System Attributes for Operating Commercial
Nuclear Power Plants
Number
of
Sites(a)
Condenser Cooling
Water Flow per Unit in
gpm(b)
Average Reported
Consumptive Water Loss
per 1,000 MWe in gpm
Pond and/or canal
9
454,000 to 907,000
10,200(c)
Mechanical draft cooling tower
7
98,000 to 660,000
10,000(d)
Natural draft cooling tower
13
410,000 to 836,000
9,400(d)
Once-through cooling (only)
24
340,000 to 1,200,000
6,700(d)
Once-through cooling with tower
4
292,000 to 750,000
6,600(d)
Cooling System(a)
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
gpm = gallons per minute.
(a) There are 54 operating commercial power reactor sites (2022) encompassing 92 nuclear generating units. For
cases of multiple reactors per site, reactors using the same type of cooling system were counted only once. If
multiple reactors at a site used different cooling systems (i.e., Nine Mile Point plant and Arkansas plant), they
were tallied separately.
(b) Source: Appendix C of this LR GEIS.
(c) Source: National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2011 (NREL 2011).
(d) Source: Marston et al. 2018. Data for some plants were not reported by Marston et al. 2018.
Note: To convert gallons per minute (gpm) to liters per minute, multiply by 3.784. To convert gpm to cubic meters
per second (m3/s), multiply by 0.000063.
February 2023
3-41
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
Additional operational surface-water-related needs at power plants include service water,
auxiliary system supplies, and radioactive waste systems. These needs combined are small
relative to the flow needed for condenser cooling (NRC 1996).
4
5
Nuclear plant water usage must comply with State, local, and regional regulations regarding
water supply. Most States require permits regulating surface water usage.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
For nuclear plants relying on river water, consumptive water losses reduce surface water
supplies for other users downstream. In areas experiencing water availability problems, nuclear
power plant consumption could conflict with other existing or potential uses (e.g., municipal and
agricultural water withdrawals) and instream uses (e.g., adequate instream flows to protect
aquatic biota, recreation, and riparian communities). Water availability issues have not been
generally noted in past license renewal environmental reviews and are most likely to occur
during times of extended drought.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Both water availability and water temperature are important factors in maintaining operations at
power plants. As was previously described in the 2013 LR GEIS, in August 2007, a heat wave
resulted in high river water temperatures at the Browns Ferry plant in Alabama. Because of the
reduced capability of the river water to cool the condensers, one of the plant’s three reactors
was shut down, while operations at its other two reactors were cut by 25 percent. In summer
2006, the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (Quad Cities) in Illinois had to reduce operations
because the Mississippi River was warm, and other plants in Illinois and Minnesota had to cut
back as a result of drought effects.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
More recently, a number of nuclear power plants have been affected by reduced water
availability due to high temperatures. As relevant examples, in July 2012, Byron Units 1 and 2
had to reduce power due to degraded cooling tower performance during hot weather (NRC
2021o). In August 2014, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 had to operate at reduced power due to
excessive ultimate heat sink (CCS) temperature (NRC 2021m). In July 2016, the Perry Nuclear
Power Plant (Perry) had to reduce power due to high ambient water temperature (NRC 2021p).
In August 2018, the Clinton plant was forced to reduce power due to discharge temperature
limitations (NRC 2021n).
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
In the report, Water-Related Power Plant Curtailments: An Overview of Incidents and
Contributing Factors, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL 2016) identifies 25
incidents at nuclear power plants between 2000 and 2015 where high water temperatures or
water availability affected power generation. The operating nuclear power plants cited included
Duane Arnold, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (Prairie Island), LaSalle, Dresden, Perry,
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (D.C. Cook), Quad Cities, Braidwood, Limerick, Vermont Yankee,
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim), Millstone, Oyster Creek, Hope Creek, Riverbend,
Browns Ferry, Turkey Point, and Monticello.
37
3.5.1.2
38
39
40
41
Discharges from the circulating cooling water system account for the largest volumes of water
and usually the greatest potential impacts on water quality and aquatic systems, although other
systems may also contribute heat and chemical contaminants to the effluent. Provisions of the
CWA regulate the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States.
42
43
To operate a nuclear power plant, NRC licensees must comply with the CWA, including
associated requirements imposed by EPA or the State. Specifically, Section 402 of the CWA
Surface Water Quality
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-42
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
requires that all facilities that discharge pollutants from any point source into waters of the
United States obtain a NPDES permit. A NPDES permit is developed with two levels of
controls: technology-based limits and water quality-based limits. NPDES permit terms may not
exceed 5 years, and the applicant must reapply at least 180 days prior to the permit expiration
date (EPA 2022g). Expired NPDES permits may be administratively extended and remain valid
and in-force if the permit holder submits a complete NPDES renewal application as required.
The EPA is authorized under the CWA to directly implement the NPDES program; however, the
EPA has authorized most States and Tribes to implement all or parts of the national program.
Conditions of discharge for each nuclear power plant are specified in its NPDES permit issued
by the State or EPA.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
CWA Section 401 requires an applicant for a Federal license whose activities may cause a
discharge of regulated pollutants into navigable waters to provide the licensing agency with
water quality certification from the State. This certification implies that discharges from the
project to be licensed will comply with CWA requirements, as applicable, including that the
project will not cause or contribute to a violation of State water quality standards. If the
applicant has not received Section 401 certification, the NRC cannot issue a license unless that
State has waived the requirement.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In July 2020, the EPA published a final rule revising the procedural requirements for CWA
Section 401 certifications at 40 CFR 121 (85 FR 42210). The final rule became effective on
September 11, 2020.3 The revised regulations at 40 CFR 121.6 require that the Federal
licensing agency establish the “reasonable period of time” and communicate that deadline to the
appropriate certifying authority within 15 days of receiving notice of the applicant’s certification
request. Under the revised regulations, under no circumstances can the certifying authority take
more than 1 year to issue the requested certification, deny certification, or waive its right to
certify. The certifying authority’s failure or refusal to act on a certification request within the
reasonable period of time is considered a waiver. The NRC further recognizes that some
NPDES-delegated States explicitly integrate their 401certification process with NPDES permit
renewal and issuance.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Separate from permitting and associated regulatory requirements imposed on operating nuclear
plants, the NRC considers new information and aspects of plant operations that could interact
with the environment in a manner not previously recognized during the course of license
renewal environmental reviews conducted for initial LRs and SLRs. For example, nuclear
power plants with cooling ponds located in coastal areas have the potential to affect the water
quality of adjacent water bodies via the groundwater pathway. This new, plant-specific aspect
of continued operations was discovered during review of the second license renewal of Turkey
Point Units 3 and 4 (NRC 2019c).
3
In 2021, the EPA initiated a process to reconsider and revise the 2020 CWA Section 401 Certification
Rule (86 FR 29541).
February 2023
3-43
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
Clean Water Act
•
Section 402 authorizes the NPDES permit program that controls water pollution by
regulating point sources, including cooling water discharge from all facilities including
thermoelectric power plants that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States.
•
Section 401 requires applicants for Federal licenses or permits whose activities may
cause a discharge of regulated pollutants into navigable waters of the United States to
obtain a certification that their activities will not violate State water quality standards.
•
Section 316(a) addresses the adverse environmental impacts associated with thermal
discharges into waters of the United States. Under 316(b), the NPDES permitting
authority can impose alternative, less-stringent, facility-specific effluent limits (called
“variances”) on the thermal component of individual point source discharges as long as
the variances will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving body of water. Variances
are good for the term of the NPDES permit (5 years), and the facility licensee must
reapply for the variance each permit renewal term.
•
Section 316(b) requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling
water intake structures reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing
impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms. Impingement mortality BTA
compliance options are prescribed in regulations, while entrainment BTA is site-specific.
1
3.5.1.2.1 Thermal Effluents and Withdrawal of Cooling Water from Surface Water Bodies
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
NPDES permits for nuclear power plants impose temperature limits for effluents (which may
vary by season) and/or a maximum temperature increase above the ambient water temperature
(referred to as “delta-T,” which also may vary by season). Other aspects of the permit may
include the compliance measuring location and restrictions against plant shutdowns during
winter to avoid drastic temperature changes in surface water bodies. Some NPDES permits
also require nuclear power plants that operate a once-through cooling system with helper
cooling towers to use the cooling towers seasonally to reduce thermal load to the receiving
waterbody.
10
11
12
13
14
15
The area affected by heated releases to surface water bodies (the thermal plume) varies with
site-specific conditions (e.g., discharge temperature, discharge rate, discharge structure location
and design, flow of the surface water body, and temperature of the surface water body).
Thermal plumes may be assessed in the field through computer modeling using thermal field
data. Generally, the use of cooling towers decreases the thermal effluent discharged by a
nuclear power plant (e.g., NRC 2006d).
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Sections 316(a) and 316(b) of the CWA address thermal effects and impingement mortality and
entrainment of aquatic organisms caused by operation of nuclear power plant cooling systems
that withdraw and discharge to regulated waterbodies. The EPA, or authorized States and
Tribes, impose the requirements of these CWA sections through NPDES permitting programs.
Under CWA Section 316(a), nuclear power plants may apply for a thermal variance from State
thermal surface water quality criteria. To do so, the facility must demonstrate that the requested
variance is more stringent than necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving body of
water (40 CFR Part 125 Subpart H). Variances are good for the NPDES permit term (5 years),
and the licensee must reapply for the variance each permit renewal term. CWA Section 316(b)
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-44
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures
reflect the BTA for minimizing impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms.
Impingement mortality BTA compliance options are prescribed in regulations, while entrainment
BTA is plant-specific. Section 4.6.1.2 describes these sections of the CWA in detail, including
the regulatory requirements relevant to nuclear power plants.
6
3.5.1.2.2 Other Effluents
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Liquids containing chemicals and other constituents are discharged to surface water from
nuclear power plants, as discussed in Section 3.1.4.1. The concentrations and flow rates of the
liquids vary with activities involving the systems associated with floor drains, blowdown,
laundries, decontamination, and other facilities. The liquids may also undergo treatment before
reuse or discharge. These effluents are regulated under the plant’s NPDES permit. As part of
the permitting process, concentration limits are established, and monitoring takes place at
specific outfalls or other monitoring locations. The frequency of sampling is also covered by the
plant’s NPDES permit. The EPA or authorized State or Tribal agencies also provide the
reporting requirements, and they may post results on a publicly accessible website.
Noncompliance issues may range from administrative matters to exceedances of concentration,
temperature, or flow limits. The exceedance of a parameter limit will trigger the permitting
agency to review the history and magnitude of exceedance recurrences. Actions may include
reviewing the permit for appropriate parameter levels, setting a compliance schedule for the
applicant, assessing fines, and, in a worst-case scenario, withdrawing a permit and disallowing
the legal ability to discharge.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Sanitary sewage wastes are treated before their release to the environment to minimize
environmental impacts. The treatment may be through discharge to a municipal wastewater
treatment system, an onsite wastewater treatment plant, or an onsite septic system. In cases
where nonradioactive sanitary or other wastes cannot be processed by onsite wastewater
treatment systems, the wastes are collected by independent contractors and trucked to offsite
treatment facilities. Waste collection and offsite disposal can occur during a planned outage,
when portable toilets may be required to accommodate the additional workforce. Water quality
issues related to sanitary waste treatment include the adequacy of the wastewater treatment
system capacity for handling the increased flow and loading associated with operational
changes to the plant, emission of phosphates from onsite laundries, suspended solids, coliform
bacteria from sewage treatment discharges, and other effluents that cause excessive
biochemical oxygen demand. State regulators are typically involved in site inspections, review
of monitoring reports, and the handling of any violations.
35
36
37
38
39
The control of biological pests is critical to maintaining optimum system performance and
minimizing operating costs. Consequently, many nuclear power plant cooling systems are
periodically treated with molluscides to control the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) and the
zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), which are generally found in the portions of the cooling
system where water temperatures are ambient rather than heated.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Biocides also are commonly used in cooling towers, although they may also be used in oncethrough systems or cooling ponds (DOE 1997a). Discharge of these chemicals to the receiving
body of water can have toxic effects on aquatic organisms. Chlorine is commonly used as a
biocide at nuclear power plants and represents the largest potential source of chemically toxic
release to the aquatic environment. It may be injected at the intake or targeted at various points
(such as the condensers) on an intermittent or continuous basis. Chlorine gas, which was
commonly used in the past, has been replaced by many users with other forms, such as bleach
February 2023
3-45
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
(sodium hypochlorite) (DOE 1997a). At some plants, chemical biocides may be augmented with
a non-chemical cleaning system that involves the injection of small spheres to control biofouling
and buildup in condenser tubing. The spheres are injected into the water system and then
collected upon discharge for reuse.
5
6
7
8
Bromide compounds have been used increasingly in recent years, either in place of or in
addition to chlorine treatments. Dechlorination may occur prior to discharge. Non-oxidizing
biocides used to control zebra mussels and other organisms include quaternary ammonia salts,
triazine, glutaraldehyde, and other organic compounds.
9
10
11
12
13
Most nuclear power plants have a stormwater pollution prevention plan, with the parameter
limits of the stormwater outfalls included in either an NPDES general permit or individual
NPDES permit. Plants may also have a spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan that
contains information about potential liquid spill hazards and the appropriate absorbent materials
to use if a spill occurs.
14
3.5.1.3
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
As described in Section 3.5, urbanization of watersheds in which nuclear power plants operate
increases the amount of impervious surface coverage resulting in water quality impacts and
changes in the hydrologic characteristics of the watershed. Urbanization has a direct correlation
to the degradation of natural receiving streams. The higher the percentage of the impervious
surface coverage in a watershed, the higher the flow velocity and volume in receiving water
bodies. Increases in stream flow erode natural stream banks and scour natural vegetation from
littoral zones, while also adding to higher flow volume and increased potential for flooding. A
flood is the occurrence when, under high water level and/or flow conditions, water overflows the
natural or artificial bank of the water body. The floodplain or zone defines the extent of the land
areas covered by the overflowing water. Floods can occur at any time, but weather patterns,
terrain, land use coverage, and other factors influence when and where floods happen, as well
as their frequency and severity. For example, the western United States can experience
flooding due to cyclones in the winter and early spring; the streams in the southwest United
States can experience flash flooding due to thunderstorms in late summer and fall; frontal
storms in the northern and eastern United States can cause floods during the winter and spring;
and the southeastern United States experiences flooding due to tropical storms, such as
hurricanes, during the late summer and fall.
32
33
34
35
36
37
Flood zone boundaries are determined based on the predicted recurrence interval of flooding
and the extent of the land area inundated through the use of analytical modeling and field
observations. The recurrence interval is the average number of years between floods of a
certain size. For instance, the 100-year flood, on average, is expected to occur once every
100 years. However, statistically there is a 1 in 100 chance that the 100-year flood will occur in
any given year.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Flood zones are dynamic and change over time due to natural forces. Further, changes in
urbanization increase runoff and changes in weather patterns increase the intensity of
precipitation events. In some instances, land areas that were not previously within a flood zone
have been reclassified as being in one after nearby river elevations and flood potential were
reanalyzed. On large rivers, dams have been shown to reduce flooding. Flood-control dams,
such as on multiuse reservoirs, are designed to release water flow at a controlled rate and allow
water to back up in a reservoir when, typically under storm events, the inflows exceed the
Hydrologic Changes and Flooding
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-46
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
predetermined outflow rate. This prevents high flows from reaching streams that would
otherwise flood and allows water flow to bypass communities without flooding them.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Currently operating nuclear power plants were originally sited in consideration of the hydrologic
siting criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 100 and designed and constructed in accordance with
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. The regulations require that plant structures, systems, and
components important to safety be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena,
including flooding, without loss of capability to perform safety functions. Plant-specific design
bases for flood protection are prescribed by a nuclear power plant’s updated safety analysis
report and by applicable technical specifications. Acceptable protection for floods includes
levees, seawalls, floodwalls, or breakwaters. If new information or plant operating experience
related to flooding become available, the NRC evaluates the new information or plant data to
determine whether any changes are needed at existing plants. Flood protection issues are
considered during plant-specific safety reviews and, more specifically, are addressed on an
ongoing basis through the reactor oversight process and other NRC safety programs, which are
separate from the license renewal process.
16
3.5.2
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Some nuclear power plants also use groundwater as a source of water for some of their
operational needs. The rate of usage varies greatly among the plants. Many plants use
groundwater only for the potable water system and require less than 100 gpm (378 liters per
minute or 0.006 m3/s). At some plants, the original construction required dewatering of a
shallow aquifer by using pumping wells or a drain system. Some plants operate dewatering
systems to lower the water table near buildings. This is accomplished either by pumping or by
having footing drains along foundations. Groundwater may also be used for sanitary uses or
landscaping, and it may undergo processing to be used for makeup or service water systems.
Groundwater usage regulations vary considerably from State to State, and State allocation
permits are typically required.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
At the Grand Gulf plant in Mississippi, large-diameter wells with radial collector arms (i.e.,
Ranney wells) are used to withdraw groundwater along the Mississippi River at relatively high
rates. Radial collector wells are installed in alluvial aquifers along rivers to obtain a mixture of
groundwater and surface water through induced infiltration. At Grand Gulf, the average
groundwater pumping rate by their well systems is approximately 27,900 gpm (1.76 m3/s) (NRC
2014e). Groundwater withdrawn at Grand Gulf is used for cooling, makeup, service, potable,
sanitary, landscaping, and fire protection uses.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The quality of groundwater may be affected by operations at nuclear power plants. Water from
cooling ponds may seep into the underlying surficial aquifer. Activities at power plants typically
include general industrial practices, such as the storage and use of hydrocarbon fuels (diesel
and/or gasoline), solvents, and other chemicals. These practices have the potential to
contaminate soil and groundwater, and, at some plants, such contamination has occurred.
Examples from plant-specific supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) include
leakages or spills of gasoline (with methyl tertiary butyl ether or MTBE) at fuel tank storage
areas, spills of fuel at transfer or filling stations, solvent leakages from storage area drums,
spilled or sprayed solvents, and underground line leaks of hydraulic oil or diesel fuel (e.g., NRC
2006d, NRC 2007b, NRC 2016c). These incidents involved regulatory oversight under State
regulations for hydrocarbons and under RCRA (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) for other chemicals,
and offsite groundwater users were not affected.
Groundwater Resources
February 2023
3-47
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Radionuclide releases from nuclear power plants have been identified as the source of
radioactive materials in groundwater (or below-ground moisture) at many plant sites. These
releases have been attributed to system leaks (e.g., from pipes, valves, or tanks), evaporation
of liquids, condensation of vapors, and normal operations (routine, approved releases) (NRC
2021k). Detection of tritium has generally been the initial indicator of a release because it
travels readily in groundwater. The issue of tritium (and other radionuclide) releases to
groundwater rose to prominence as groundwater contamination was observed at an increasing
number of plants, including the exceedance of drinking water standards in onsite groundwater at
some plants.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The NRC formed a task force in 2006 in response to incidents at the Braidwood, Indian Point,
Byron, and Dresden plants to examine the matter of liquid radionuclide releases from power
plants (NRC 2006e). The task force report noted that the leaks were generally not observable
because they occurred underground and because plants were not required to have onsite
groundwater monitoring wells unless an onsite well was used for drinking water or irrigation
water. The task force concluded that the available data on radionuclide releases did not identify
any public health impacts, but the level of public concern warranted recommendations for
enhanced regulations or regulatory guidance for unplanned, unmonitored releases; additional
decommissioning funding and license renewal reviews; and enhanced public communications
(NRC 2006e).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
In response to the discoveries of underground radionuclide releases at nuclear power plants,
the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the nuclear industry on policy issues, developed
the Groundwater Protection Initiative, originally published in 2007 and revised most recently in
2019 (NEI 2019). Each Nuclear Energy Institute member company voluntarily committed to
develop and implement a plant-specific groundwater protection program for operating or
decommissioning nuclear power plants by July 31, 2006. These programs cover the
assessment of plant systems and components, site hydrogeology, and implementation of
groundwater monitoring programs. To monitor the actions of the nuclear industry, the NRC
updated its inspection procedure to include this issue as part of its routine radiological
inspection at all nuclear power plants.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
In March 2010, the NRC formed a Groundwater Task Force to determine whether additional
actions were needed to strengthen the NRC’s response to incidents of radionuclide releases to
groundwater at nuclear power plant sites (NRC 2010e). This new task force was comprised of
NRC management and technical staff charged with reevaluating the recommendations made in
the 2006 lessons learned report and to consider more recent tritium releases to groundwater
from nuclear power plants. On June 11, 2010, the task force issued its report that identified 16
conclusions and 4 recommendations (NRC 2010b).
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Subsequently, the NRC’s Executive Director for Operations appointed a senior management
review group to consider the Groundwater Task Force’s final report, identify the policy issues
associated with the NRC’s groundwater protection regulatory framework, develop options for
addressing the policy issues, and present options to the Commission (NRC 2010c). The
outcome of the appointed senior management group’s review of the Groundwater Task Force
Final Report was issued in February 2011 via SECY-11-0019 (NRC 2011f) along with a
separate memorandum to the NRC Chairman. In summary, the group supported several
ongoing staff actions, including evaluations of the long-term effectiveness of industry
groundwater protection initiatives through onsite inspections, review of licensees’ root cause
analyses, tracking of the frequency of leakage, and evaluation of industry performance metrics
related to leakage and potential groundwater contamination.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-48
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
In SRM-SECY-11-0019, dated August 15, 2011 (NRC 2011d), the Commission approved the
senior management review group’s recommendation to not incorporate the industry’s voluntary
initiative on groundwater protection into the NRC’s regulatory framework and that the staff
continue to monitor the effectiveness of the industry initiatives. The Commission also requested
that the staff provide options for revising the agency’s approach to groundwater protection.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
On March 29, 2012, the staff submitted an options paper regarding the NRC’s approach to
groundwater protection (SECY-12-0046) to the Commission (NRC 2012h). The staff
recommended an option that included continuing the agency’s established regulatory approach
under which the staff would continue inspecting and enforcing existing regulations using the
system of dose limits and as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) principles. The staff
would also implement the new regulatory requirements in 10 CFR 20.1406 for minimizing the
introduction of residual radioactivity into the plant site and in 10 CFR 20.1501 for performing
subsurface (i.e., soil and groundwater) monitoring.
14
15
16
17
18
19
The Commission in its SRM-SECY-12-0046, approved the staff’s recommended option to
continue the current regulatory approach to groundwater protection, including the additional
requirements contained in the decommissioning planning rule. The Commission also directed
the staff to provide a notation vote paper based on the result of comments solicited on the
technical basis including the pros and cons of moving forward with a proposed prompt
remediation rulemaking under consideration by the staff (NRC 2012f).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The NRC staff conducted a public meeting and webinar on June 4, 2013, to obtain stakeholder
comments on the ongoing prompt remediation issue. In SECY-13-0108, dated October 7, 2013,
the staff reported the results of its evaluation of stakeholder comments to the Commission (NRC
2013d). In SRM-SECY-13-0108, the Commission approved the NRC staff’s recommendation to
collect 2 years of additional data from the implementation of the decommissioning planning rule.
Based on the staff’s completion and evaluation of the data and stakeholder engagement, the
Commission directed that the staff provide a paper with recommendations for addressing
remediation of residual radioactivity at licensed facilities during facility operations (NRC 2013c).
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
In SECY-16-0121, dated October 16, 2016, the staff provided the Commission with its
evaluation of options including the consideration of rulemaking to address the remediation of
residual radioactivity at licensed facilities during operations (i.e., prompt remediation). The staff
recommended no rulemaking, and cited existing NRC regulatory requirements and voluntary
industry initiatives as providing adequate protection for public health and safety (NRC 2016g).
In December 2016 (SRM-SECY-16-0121), the Commission approved the staff’s recommended
option (NRC 2016e).
35
36
37
38
The NRC has repeatedly determined that inadvertent releases at nuclear power plant sites
either remain on power plant property or involve such low offsite levels of tritium that they do not
affect public health and safety. The NRC has continued to review incidents of inadvertent
releases to ensure that nuclear power plant operators take appropriate action.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Additionally, the NRC maintains an updated list of operating reactor sites that have experienced
a leak or spill of liquids containing radioactive material to the onsite licensee (owner)-controlled
area. The list includes plant sites where the concentration of tritium in the leak source, or in a
groundwater sample, exceeded the EPA drinking water standard (20,000 pCi/L) at some time
since initial startup (NRC 2021j). To date, tritium in excess of the drinking water standard has
been observed in groundwater at 38 nuclear power plant sites as a result of leaks or spills, with
7 plants continuing to have tritium in groundwater above the drinking water standard as of
February 2023
3-49
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
October 2021 (NRC 2021j). No site has reported tritium above the drinking water standard in
offsite groundwater (NRC 2021j).
3
4
5
6
The NRC provides public access to all radioactive effluent and environmental monitoring data,
including industry groundwater protection initiative monitoring results, reported to the NRC by
nuclear power plant licensees at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/opsexperience/tritium/plant-info.html.
7
8
9
10
11
12
In summary, to protect groundwater quality during the period of operations and to minimize
contamination during decommissioning, NRC licensees are required to conduct operations to
minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the site, including the subsurface. NRC
licensees are also required to survey, evaluate, document, and report the hazard of known spills
or leaks of radioactive material. The NRC has reporting requirements based on the amount of
radioactivity released, thus any large spills or leaks will be reported.
13
3.6
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A variety of ecological resources exist at and in the vicinity of operating nuclear power plants
across the United States. This section presents an overview of those resources.
Sections 3.6.1, 3.6.2, and 3.6.3, discuss terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, and federally
protected ecological resources, respectively. Wetlands and floodplains, which are transitional
areas between terrestrial and aquatic systems, are described with terrestrial resources. This
section summarizes the effects of past activities, including construction and current operations,
at operating commercial nuclear power plant sites.
21
3.6.1
22
23
24
25
26
Operating commercial nuclear power plants are located in a variety of terrestrial habitat types.
For the purposes of this analysis, terrestrial ecological resources in the vicinity of nuclear power
plants are described in terms of upland vegetation and habitats, floodplain and wetland
vegetation and habitats, and wildlife. Section 3.6.3.1 discusses federally protected terrestrial
resources.
27
3.6.1.1
28
29
30
31
32
Terrestrial vegetation and habitats include forests, grasslands, and shrublands. These habitats
have been affected by the initial construction of nuclear power plants, operation of those plants,
and natural successional changes occurring within vegetation communities. In general, the
level of land management varies by land use type at a nuclear power plant. See Section 3.2.1
for a general description of land use at a nuclear power plant.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Impacts on terrestrial vegetation and habitats can result from several activities or processes
during normal operations at a nuclear power plant. Since startup of operations, industrial-use
portions of nuclear power plant sites have typically been maintained as modified landscapes.
These areas may also include disturbed early successional habitats or areas of relatively
undisturbed habitat. Site maintenance, such as mowing and herbicide or pesticide application,
generally keeps the diversity of plant species at a reduced level in these areas. Native plant
species are often replaced by cultivated varieties or weedy species tolerant of disturbance.
Non-industrial use portions of nuclear power plant sites may include natural areas, such as
forest or shrubland, in various degrees of disturbance.
Ecological Resources
Terrestrial Resources
Upland Vegetation and Habitats
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-50
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Terrestrial habitats near nuclear power plants can be subject to radiological releases under
normal plant operations. These habitats are exposed to small amounts of radionuclides that
result from the deposition of particulates released from nuclear power plant vents during normal
operations. Releases typically include noble gases (which are not deposited), tritium, isotopes
of iodine, and cesium, and they may also include carbon-14, strontium, cobalt, and chromium.
Exposure to these radionuclides results in a dose rate to terrestrial plants of much less than
1.0 rad/d (0.1 Gy/d), which is the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) guideline for adequate
protection of terrestrial plant populations from the effects of ionizing radiation (DOE 2019) (see
Section 4.6.1.1.2). Radionuclides, such as tritium, and other constituents in cooling water
systems, such as biocides, that enter shallow groundwater from cooling ponds can be taken up
by terrestrial plants.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Terrestrial habitats near nuclear power plants that have cooling towers are subject to the
deposition of cooling tower drift particulates (including salt); the deposition of water droplets on
vegetation from drift; structural damage from freezing vapor plumes; and increased humidity.
Small amounts of particulates from cooling towers are dispersed over a wide area. Particulates
from natural draft towers are typically dispersed over a larger area and at a lower deposition
rate than those from mechanical draft towers (Roffman and Van Vleck 1974). However, most of
the deposition from cooling towers occurs in relatively close proximity to the towers. Generally,
deposition rates are below those that are known to result in measurable adverse effects on
plants, and no deposition effects on agricultural crops or natural vegetative communities have
been observed at most nuclear power plants. Some exceptions were observed at nuclear
power plants in studies conducted in the 1980s (e.g., Palisades in Michigan and Prairie Island in
Minnesota; NRC 1996); however, the NRC staff’s review of recent license renewals did not
identify any new issues. Impacts from icing, when they have occurred, have been minor and
localized near cooling towers.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Effects of nuclear power plant operations on terrestrial habitats also include the effects of
transmission line ROWs and their maintenance. ROW management typically includes the
periodic cutting and removal of tall woody vegetation and the application of herbicides. Use of
mechanized equipment can crush vegetation or injure or disturb insects and small animals.
However, transmission lines and associated structures within the scope of license renewal
reviews are expected to occur primarily on developed portions of sites and would include only
the short lengths of transmission lines that run from the plant to the nearest substation (see
Section 3.1.6.5).
34
3.6.1.2
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Floodplains are areas where the land is susceptible to flooding from any source and tend to
occur along rivers and coastlines near many nuclear power plants (FEMA 2021). These areas
attenuate the extent of flooding and often include wetlands, marshes, and riparian habitat. Onehundred year floodplains typically have at least a 1 percent chance of flooding in any given year.
Many nuclear power plant cooling water intake systems and outfalls lie within floodplains. Some
transmission lines may also cross through floodplains. Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain
Management” (42 FR 26951), requires Federal agencies to restore and preserve the natural
and beneficial values served by floodplains for activities undertaken in such areas.
43
44
45
46
Many wetland types occur near nuclear power plants. These include riverine, palustrine,
lacustrine, estuarine, and marine wetlands, as described by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) Cowardin classification for the National Wetlands Inventory (Cowardin et al. 1979). Most
nuclear power plants have wetlands nearby (within a radius of 5 mi [8 km]), and wetlands cover
Floodplain and Wetland Vegetation and Habitats
February 2023
3-51
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
an average of 9.3 percent of the land area near operating nuclear power plants, as mapped by
the National Wetlands Inventory (FWS 2022b). The definition of wetlands traditionally excludes
deep-water habitats, which are permanently flooded areas (Cowardin et al. 1979; FGDC 2013)
and which occupy, on average, 21.2 percent of the area within 5 mi of operating nuclear power
plants. The percentage of wetlands and deep-water habitats within 5 mi (8 km) of nuclear
power plants is presented in Table D.5-3 in Appendix D.
Wetland Types That Occur near Nuclear Power Plants
•
Riverine wetlands are contained within a channel that has moving water, at least
periodically, and lack persistent vegetation.
•
Palustrine wetlands are freshwater habitats that primarily support trees, shrubs, or
persistent emergent plants, or they can be small (generally under 20 ac or 8 ha), shallow
wetlands lacking such plant communities.
•
Lacustrine wetlands are large or deep bodies of water that lack persistent vegetation.
•
Estuarine wetlands occur near land with access to the ocean, are influenced by tides,
and are diluted to a variable extent by freshwater.
•
Marine wetlands are exposed to open ocean waves and currents and may be slightly
diluted by freshwater.
Source: Cowardin et al. 1979.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
At many nuclear power plant sites, initial plant construction and various aspects of plant
operation have affected wetlands. These effects include those associated with facility
construction, transmission line construction and maintenance, construction and operation of
cooling systems, and stormwater management. Effects on wetlands from construction activities
and stormwater runoff often include changes in vegetative plant community characteristics,
altered hydrology, decreased water quality, and sedimentation (Wright et al. 2006; EPA 1996).
Forested wetlands in ROWs are converted to scrub/shrub or emergent wetland types when
trees are removed, and ROW management programs maintain ROWs in these habitat types.
The operation of heavy equipment in wetlands during ROW maintenance or transmission line
repairs can damage or compact wetland soils and vegetation and may promote the
establishment of invasive species (DOE 2000). Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species” (64
FR 6183), directs Federal agencies to prevent introduction of or to monitor and control invasive
species.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Wetland losses or alterations occurred during the construction of many nuclear power plants.
For example, during construction of the Oyster Creek plant (no longer operating) in New Jersey,
the South Branch of Forked River and Oyster Creek were dredged and widened to
accommodate operation of the cooling water system. As a result, most of the natural aquatic
habitats that occurred within these portions of the river and creek were destroyed (NRC 2007b).
Construction resulted in the loss of 200 ac of several types of wetlands (AEC 1974), and the
resulting ecology of the river and creek is that they now function similar to Barnegat Bay.
However, at nuclear power plants using cooling ponds, new wetland habitats may form along
the margins of those ponds.
29
30
31
32
The operation of cooling water systems can expose wetland habitats to thermal impacts and
contaminants in effluent discharged from the plant. Intake or discharge structure maintenance,
periodic dredging, and the disposal of dredged sediments may also affect wetlands. Chemical
or fuel spills on nuclear power plant sites can allow contaminants to enter nearby surface or
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-52
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
groundwater, which could affect wetlands that interface with those water sources. Executive
Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands” (42 FR 26961), requires Federal agencies to not only
minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands while they are conducting their
activities but also to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Many
activities that occur in wetlands are regulated under Section 404 of the CWA (Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972). Actions that result in the discharge of dredge or fill material into
wetlands that are covered by the CWA require a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Additional permits may be required dependent upon the State and local jurisdictions.
9
3.6.1.3
Wildlife
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Wildlife near nuclear power plants has also been affected by construction and operations. The
initial construction of a nuclear power plant and transmission lines reduced the available
terrestrial habitat at the site; habitat losses in many cases totaled hundreds of acres. Site
maintenance of developed areas generally results in reduced wildlife diversity in these areas
compared to surrounding habitats. Wildlife species occurring on industrial-use portions of
nuclear power plant sites are typically limited by the low quality of the habitat and generally
include common species adapted to industrial developments.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Because habitats along transmission line ROWs are maintained in a modified condition, the
wildlife communities they support are different from those found in undisturbed habitats. Some
predator species, such as skunks and raccoons, more readily use ROW habitats, and ROWs
may therefore provide a means for new or easier access to some areas, thereby affecting
populations of prey species (Evans and Gates 1997; Crooks and Soule 1999). Wildlife species
in the vicinity of transformers or cooling towers are exposed to elevated noise levels that can
disrupt behavior patterns. Wildlife near transmission lines are exposed to electromagnetic fields
(EMFs). However, to date, there is no evidence that ecological resources are affected by
EMFs. Atmospheric or surface water releases can result in the exposure of wildlife to
contaminants. Wildlife is exposed to small amounts of radionuclides from the deposition of
particulates released from nuclear power plant vents during normal operations. Exposure to
these radionuclides results in a dose rate to terrestrial and riparian animals of much less than
0.1 rad/d (0.001 Gy/d), which is the DOE guideline for adequate protection from the effects of
ionizing radiation (DOE 2019) (see Section 4.6.1.1.2).
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Nuclear power plant structures, such as cooling towers, meteorological towers, and
transmission lines, create collision hazards for birds. Some bird collisions could be considered
unlawful take if the bird species are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of
1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 668–668d), or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as
amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Several nuclear power plants with natural draft cooling
towers have conducted studies to investigate the risk of bird collision hazard related to cooling
towers and other site structures. The results of those monitoring efforts indicate that cooling
towers at nuclear power plants do cause some collision mortality for migrating songbirds;
however, these deaths represent only a fraction of the total annual bird collision mortality from
all human-made sources. There are no reports of relatively high collision mortality, such as
from electrocution, occurring from transmission lines associated with nuclear power plants in the
United States. The length of these lines is considerably less than the total of transmission lines
within the United States (Manville 2005). Although the data are not available, transmission lines
associated with nuclear power plants are likely responsible for only a small fraction of total bird
collision mortality associated with transmission lines nationwide. See Section 4.6.1.1 for a
detailed description of bird collision mortality at nuclear power plants.
February 2023
3-53
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Cooling water systems can have both positive and negative impacts on prey of birds and other
wildlife. Potential fish prey can be impinged or entrained by the cooling water intake system,
while the fish return system, if present, or heated effluent discharge can provide areas of
concentrated prey availability. Cooling system intakes can also create an impingement hazard
for waterfowl, and water demands for cooling can create water use conflicts with wildlife. At the
Nine Mile Point plant in New York, for example, approximately 100 greater scaup (Aythya
marila) and lesser scaup (Aythya affinis) ducks were impinged at the cooling water intake
structure in 2000 while feeding on zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) during reverse flow
conditions for de-icing of the structure (NRC 2006b). As a result of this incident, the licensee
now cleans the Nine Mile Point intake structures annually to remove zebra mussels, and
reverse flow conditions are scheduled during periods when diving duck feeding is limited (NRC
2006b). Water use conflicts at the Wolf Creek Generating Station (Wolf Creek) in Kansas can
occur during drought conditions because makeup water for the cooling lake is withdrawn from
the Neosho River, resulting in reduced flows (NRC 2008a). During such times, riparian
communities along the Neosho River can be degraded or lost because of reduced flows, and
wildlife can experience reduced habitat quantity or quality. For some nuclear power plants,
State permits restrict water withdrawal to limit the adverse impacts of water withdrawals (e.g.,
the Byron [NRC 2015c] and River Bend plants [NRC 2018c]).
19
3.6.2
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Nuclear power plants are usually located near relatively large water bodies, such as major rivers
and reservoirs, the Great Lakes, and estuarine and marine coastal areas, which provide a
source of water to meet cooling system demands (Table 3.1-2, Table 3.1-3, Table 3.1-4). In the
few cases where an operating nuclear power plant is located near only small streams (e.g., the
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station [Summer] in South Carolina and Clinton plant in Illinois), the
streams have been impounded to create cooling lakes. Aquatic resources associated with
these water bodies may be affected by nuclear power plant operation. This discussion
emphasizes the major ecosystem types (i.e., freshwater rivers, reservoirs, and lakes and
coastal estuarine and marine systems) and major groups of aquatic biota (i.e., fish, other
aquatic vertebrates, macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton, and macrophytes).
Section 3.6.3.1 discusses federally protected aquatic resources.
31
3.6.2.1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The aquatic ecological communities that occur in the vicinity of operating nuclear power plants
are diverse because of the differences in their geographies and habitat types and in the physical
and chemical conditions of the water bodies located near them. The geographical setting,
physical conditions (e.g., substrate type, temperature, turbidity, and light penetration), chemical
factors (e.g., dissolved oxygen levels and nutrient concentrations), biological interactions
(e.g., competition and predation), seasonal influences, and anthropogenic factors all interact to
influence the types of species present and the nature of the aquatic community in a particular
aquatic ecosystem. Nuclear power plants use freshwater, estuarine, and marine water bodies
as sources of cooling water, except for the Palo Verde plant, which uses Phoenix City sewage
effluent (Table 3.1-4).
42
43
44
45
46
Freshwater systems can be broadly categorized as lentic or lotic, depending on the degree of
water movement. Lentic systems refer to water bodies that have standing or slow-flowing
water, such as that found in ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and some canals. Lotic habitats generally
have a measurable velocity and include natural rivers and streams and also some artificial
waterways. Although some freshwater aquatic species occur in both lentic and lotic habitats,
Aquatic Resources
Aquatic Habitats
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-54
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
many species are adapted to the physical, chemical, and ecological characteristics of one
system or the other, and the overall ecological communities present within these aquatic
ecosystem types will differ for a given region of the country.
Species composition and ecological conditions within riverine environments are largely
determined by the geographic area, gradient of the riverbed, velocity of the current, and source
of nutrients and organic matter at the base of the food chain. Thus, ecological communities in
rivers become altered if the river is impounded, with the degree of alteration depending on the
degree to which various physical and chemical conditions are affected. These systems are
sensitive to flow depletion or alteration, changes in temperature characteristics, blockages to the
upstream or downstream movement of aquatic organisms, chemical pollution, and the
introduction of non-native species.
Aquatic Ecosystem Types
•
Freshwater: Waters with a salinity of 0.5 ppt or less.
–
Lentic: Standing or slow-flowing fresh water (e.g., lakes and ponds).
–
Lotic: Flowing freshwater with a measurable velocity (e.g., rivers and streams).
•
Marine: Waters with a salinity of about 35–37 ppt (e.g., ocean overlying the continental
shelf and associated shores).
•
Estuarine: Coastal bodies of water, often semi-enclosed, that have a free connection
with marine ecosystems (e.g., bays, inlets, lagoons, and ocean-flooded river valleys). In
these areas, freshwater merges with marine waters; salinity concentrations vary spatially
and temporally due to location and tidal activity.
12
13
14
15
16
17
Major rivers that serve as cooling water sources for operating nuclear power plants include the
Mississippi River, Tennessee River, Missouri River, Susquehanna River, Delaware River, and
Columbia River (see Table 3.1-4). Some nuclear power plants that use rivers for cooling are
located on sections of rivers that have been impounded to slow the rate of flow and create
pooled areas in the vicinity of cooling water withdrawal or discharge structures. These sections
are not as clearly lentic in nature as the reservoirs.
18
19
20
21
22
23
The ecological communities that inhabit the aquatic environment differ, reflecting the
preferences and tolerances of aquatic species at various life stages for the physical and
chemical conditions that exist. A list of cooling water sources by operating nuclear power plant
can be found in Table 3.1-3. Within the United States, nine operating nuclear power plants use
water from natural lakes for cooling. These lakes are Lake Erie, Lake Michigan, and Lake
Ontario.
24
25
26
27
28
29
Reservoirs differ from natural lakes and refer to areas of rivers or streams that are impounded
by a dam or water control structure such that they have become physically, chemically, and
ecologically more similar to lakes instead of the lotic system from which they are formed
(Armantrout 1998). In the United States, 14 nuclear power plants use water from reservoirs for
cooling. Fish species that thrive in the habitat conditions that exist within a given reservoir are
often stocked and managed to support recreational fisheries (see Table 3.1-4).
30
31
Brackish to saltwater estuarine and marine ecosystems occur along the coastlines of the
United States. General habitat types found within these ecosystems include the mouths of
February 2023
3-55
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
rivers, tidal streams, shorelines, salt marshes, beaches, mangroves, submerged aquatic
vegetation, coral reefs, and open water. Estuaries are particularly important as staging points
during the migration of certain fish species (e.g., salmon and eels) because these waterbodies
give fish time to form schools and to physiologically adjust to changes in salinity. Many marine
fish and invertebrate species use estuaries for spawning or as places where young fish can feed
and grow before moving to other marine habitats. Estuarine and marine habitats support
important commercial or recreational finfish and shellfish species. In the United States,
11 nuclear power plants use water from estuarine or marine environments (see Table 3.1-2).
9
3.6.2.2
Aquatic Organisms
10
11
Major groups of aquatic organisms include fish, other macroinvertebrates, aquatic
macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton and aquatic macrophytes.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Fish can be characterized as freshwater, estuarine, marine, or diadromous (e.g., anadromous
and catadromous) species. The first three categories are based on salinity regimes, whereas
the diadromous category is composed of reproductively specialized fish that migrate between
freshwater and saltwater to reproduce. Murdy et al. (1997) defined freshwater fish as those that
usually inhabit waters with a salinity of less than 0.5 ppt; estuarine fish as those that inhabit tidal
waters with salinities that range between 0 and 30 ppt; and marine fish as those that typically
live and reproduce in coastal and oceanic waters with salinities that are 35 to 37 ppt.
Anadromous species migrate from marine waters to freshwater to spawn, while catadromous
species migrate from freshwater to marine waters to spawn. Anadromous species include
sturgeons, clupeids, salmonids, smelts, striped bass (Morone saxatilus), and sea lamprey
(Petromyzon marinus). Within the United States, the only catadromous species is the American
eel (Anguilla rostrata). For some species, migratory movements may be confined within a
freshwater system (e.g., species tend to move to upstream areas for spawning) or within the
ocean (e.g., species tend to move northward as waters warm and southward as they cool).
Many of the fish species that occur in the vicinity of the nuclear power plants are of commercial
or recreational importance, while others serve as forage for those species.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Fish have various mechanisms to maintain health and fitness during large diurnal or seasonal
changes in water temperature. The swimming performance of fish is influenced by temperature.
A given species’ swimming speed and endurance peak within a certain optimal temperature
range but are reduced at lower or higher temperatures (Claireaux et al. 2006). Many marine
fish have buoyant eggs while most stream fish have demersal eggs that are heavy and sink to
the bottom of the water column. Most demersal eggs are also, at least temporarily, adhesive
(Lagler et al. 1962). Newly hatched larvae undergo natural mortality rates of 5 to 30 percent per
day as a result of predation, starvation, disease, pollution, and other causes (Batty and Blaxter
1992).
37
38
39
In addition to fish, other vertebrate species can be present in the aquatic ecosystems near
nuclear power plants. These include marine reptiles, such as sea turtles, and marine mammals,
such as whales, seals, and the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus).
40
41
42
43
44
Aquatic macroinvertebrates include a diverse range of taxa, including immature and adult
insects, crustaceans, mollusks, and worms. These can occur on a variety of stable surfaces
such as substrates, plants, debris, etc., and within the water. Macroinvertebrates control key
ecosystem processes, such as primary production, decomposition, nutrient regeneration, water
chemistry, and water clarity.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-56
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nuisance or invasive species can be present in cooling water sources. For example, Asiatic
clams (Corbicula fluminea) and zebra mussels can alter the trophic and nutrient dynamics of
aquatic ecosystems and displace native mussels. Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species”
(64 FR 6183), directs Federal agencies to prevent introduction of or to monitor and control
invasive species. Many nuclear power plants monitor for these species and periodically use
physical or chemical methods to control biofouling of cooling system structures and
components.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Zooplankton include protozoans, crustaceans, and the drifting larvae of fish and
macroinvertebrates. Rotifers, cladocerans, and copepods are primary components of the
zooplankton community in freshwater ecosystems. The zooplankton of estuarine and marine
ecosystems include eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults of anemones, jellyfish, bristleworms, sea
urchins, starfish, copepods, isopods, amphipods, shrimp, crabs, lobsters, bryozoans, and
mollusks. Ichthyoplankton, which are fish eggs and larvae, are a seasonal component of the
zooplankton in all aquatic ecosystems. Zooplankton are an important link between
phytoplankton and fish or other secondary consumers.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Phytoplankton are an important food source for some invertebrate and fish species and are
important for converting carbon dioxide (CO2) to organic materials via photosynthesis.
Periphyton are algae attached to solid submerged objects and include species of diatoms and
other algae that grow on natural or artificial substrates. These species can become planktonic
as a result of scouring or other actions that separate individuals from their substrate.
Components of phytoplankton include green algae (Chlorophyta), blue-green algae
(Cyanophyta), and golden brown algae (Chrysophyta). Brown algae and kelp (Phaeophyta) and
red algae (Rhodophyta) also occur in marine waters. Diatoms (Bacillariophyta) are a major
component of the phytoplankton in many aquatic systems. Macrophytes can stabilize
sediments, act as important links in nutrient cycling, provide shelter and protection for animal
communities, and provide important nursery areas (Hall et al. 1978). Factors that affect the
distribution and condition of submersed aquatic vascular plants include weather and hydrology,
sedimentation, suspended solids and water clarity, and consumption and disturbance by fish
and wildlife (USGS 1999).
30
3.6.2.3
31
32
33
The effects of nuclear power plant operations on aquatic resources include impingement and
entrainment of aquatic organisms into the cooling water intake system, effects associated with
thermal discharges, and chemical and radiological contamination.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against the outer part of an intake structure’s
screening device (79 FR 48300). The force of the intake water traps the organisms against the
screen, and individuals are unable to escape. Impingement can kill organisms immediately or
cause exhaustion, suffocation, injury, and other physical stresses that contribute to later
mortality. The potential for injury or death is generally related to the amount of time an
organism is impinged, its fragility (susceptibility to injury), and the physical characteristics of the
screen wash and fish return systems of the intake structure. Entrainment occurs when
organisms pass through the screening device and travel through the entire cooling system,
including the pumps, condenser or heat exchanger tubes, and discharge pipes (79 FR 48300).
Organisms susceptible to entrainment are of smaller size, such as ichthyoplankton,
meriplankton, zooplankton, and phytoplankton. Impingement and entrainment occurs at all
nuclear power plants that withdraw water from a natural water body. The magnitude of impact
that impingement and entrainment creates on the aquatic environment depends on the plant-
Effects of Existing Nuclear Plant Operations on Aquatic Resources
February 2023
3-57
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
specific characteristics of the cooling system as well as the characteristics of the local aquatic
community.
3
4
5
6
Temperature can influence most biochemical, physiological, and life history activities of aquatic
organisms (Beitinger et al. 2000). Thermal effects on aquatic biota can be lethal, sub-lethal, or
community-level. These effects include heat shock; cold shock; interference with fish migration;
accelerated maturation of aquatic insects; and proliferated growth of aquatic nuisance species.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Nuclear power plants also affect aquatic organisms through radiological and nonradiological
chemical releases. Chemical effects on aquatic biota can occur from exposure to biocides and
other contaminants (e.g., heavy metals such as copper, zinc, and chromium that may be
leached from condenser tubing and other heat exchangers). Blowdown from closed-cycle
cooling systems can contain concentrated levels of constituents present in the makeup water,
residual biocides, process contaminants, and other chemicals added for controlling corrosion or
deposits (DOE 1997a). Radionuclides are released to aquatic systems at or below permitted
levels at nuclear power plants (10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B). Radionuclides can be
environmentally significant because they have a strong tendency to adsorb onto particles
(e.g., suspended and settled solids), can accumulate in biological organisms, or can be
concentrated through trophic transfers (MDNR 2019). However, exposure to radionuclides
results in a dose rate to aquatic organisms of much less than 1.0 rad/d (0.1 Gy/d), which is the
DOE guideline for adequate protection from the effects of ionizing radiation (DOE 2019) (see
Section 4.6.1.2.9). Radionuclides, such as tritium, and other constituents in cooling water
systems, such as biocides, can enter aquatic systems and be taken up by aquatic plants and
animals.
23
24
25
26
27
The impact of any type of nuclear power plant on aquatic resources can be difficult to determine
because individual organisms and populations also respond to changes in environmental
conditions (EPA 2002). Table 3.6-1 lists factors that influence the impacts of nuclear power
plant operation on aquatic organisms, including characteristics of the nuclear power plant itself,
as well as physical and biological ecosystem factors.
28
29
Table 3.6-1
Factors That Influence the Impacts of Nuclear Power Plant Operation on
Aquatic Organisms
Nuclear Power Plant Factors
• Volume of water withdrawn from source waterbody, which generally relates to type of cooling
system (e.g., once-through, cooling tower, cooling pond, or hybrid)
• Cooling water intake velocity
• Intake and discharge location (e.g., distance from shoreline, depth of intake, biological richness of
area, proximity to spawning and rearing habitat)
• Exclusion technologies (e.g., traveling screens and mesh size, screen wash characteristics, fish
return system, capture and release programs)
• Thermal effluent temperature when entering receiving waterbody
• Thermal plume characteristics (e.g., surface area, depth, isotherm contours)
• Mitigation strategies (e.g., helper cooling tower operation, seasonal water withdrawal reductions,
timing of outages, multiport or jet diffusers that promote rapid mixing of effluent)
• Radiological effluents
• Nonradiological chemical contaminants (e.g., chlorine, heavy metals, biocides)
• Dredging to improve intake flow and keep intake and discharge areas clear of sediment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-58
February 2023
Affected Environment
Nuclear Power Plant Factors
• Water use conflicts with aquatic resources
Physical Ecosystem Factors
• Waterbody type (e.g., riverine, lacustrine, estuarine, marine)
• Ambient water temperatures and seasonal regimes
• Ambient water quality (e.g., salinity, dissolved oxygen, pollutant levels)
• Stream flow and tidal influence
• Other human-induced stressors (e.g., dams, agricultural runoff, other industrial water users)
Biological Ecosystem Factors
• Spatial and temporal distribution of aquatic organisms and populations
• Species richness and evenness
• Population abundances and trends
• Habitat and sediment types present
• Seasonality of habitat use and migratory patterns of species
• Developmental stage of organism (e.g., egg, larvae, juvenile, adult)
• Body size of organism
• Condition and health of organism
• Ability of organism to detect or avoid flow of water into cooling water intake system
• Swimming capability of organism (e.g., burst, prolonged, and sustained swimming speeds)
• Physiological tolerance to abiotic factors (e.g., temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen)
• Reproductive strategy and characteristics (e.g., location of spawning, mode of egg and larval
dispersal)
• Predation pressures
1
3.6.3
Federally Protected Ecological Resources
2
3
4
5
The NRC must consider the effects of its actions on ecological resources protected under
several Federal statutes and must consult with the FWS or the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) prior to taking action in cases where an agency action may
affect those resources. These statutes include the following:
6
•
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)
7
8
•
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.)
9
•
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
•
The FWS and the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, “the
Services”) promulgated regulations on interagency consultation under the ESA in 1986 (51
FR 19926). Depending on when a nuclear power plant was constructed and began
operating, the NRC staff may have consulted with one or both Services under the ESA
during initial permitting and licensing. NMFS promulgated regulations on interagency
consultation under the MSA in 2002 (67 FR 2343). Congress amended the NMSA to
require interagency coordination with NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
(ONMS) in 1992 (National Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992). The
NRC staff did not conduct essential fish habitat (EFH) and NMSA consultations during initial
permitting and licensing of any current nuclear power plants, including those that have been
February 2023
3-59
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
decommissioned or are in decommissioning, because these statutes had either not been
passed or had not been amended to require consultation; however, rare species and unique
ecological habitats were often considered in project planning. The NRC staff did not
conduct EFH consultation for the first several initial LR reviews because these reviews were
also conducted prior to the establishment of consultation requirements.
6
7
8
The sections below discuss species and habitats protected under each of the three statutes and
how nuclear power plant operation during an initial LR or SLR term may affect these protected
resources.
9
3.6.3.1
Endangered Species Act
10
11
12
13
14
Congress enacted the ESA in 1973 to protect and recover imperiled species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA provides a program for the conservation of
endangered and threatened plants and animals (collectively, “listed species”) and the habitats in
which they are found. The FWS and NMFS are the lead Federal agencies for implementing the
ESA, and these agencies are charged with determining species that warrant listing.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Section 7 of the ESA establishes interagency consultation requirements for actions by Federal
agencies. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA charges Federal agencies to aid in the conservation of
listed species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult with the
Services for actions that “may affect” federally listed species and critical habitats and to ensure
that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of those species or destroy or
adversely modify those habitats. Private actions with a Federal nexus, such as construction and
operation of facilities that involve Federal licensing or approval, are also subject to consultation.
Therefore, the NRC’s issuance of initial or subsequent renewed licenses may trigger
consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7(a)(2) is commonly referred
to as “Section 7 consultation.”
25
26
27
28
29
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits any action that causes a “take” of any listed species of
endangered fish or wildlife by any person or entity. Take, as defined under the ESA, means to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage
in any such conduct. Likewise, import, export, interstate, and foreign commerce of listed
species are all generally prohibited.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Species listings and critical habitat designations require rulemakings and are codified at
50 CFR Part 17, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.” As of 2022, over
700 animals and 900 plants are listed as endangered or threatened, and the Services have
designated critical habitat for many of these species. Given this large number, listed species
are likely to occur near all operating nuclear power plants. However, the potential for a given
species to occur in the action area of a specific nuclear power plant depends on the life history,
habitat requirements, and distribution of that species and the ecological environment present on
or near the power plant site. The “action area” is a regulatory term. It includes all areas to be
affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved
in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area is not limited to the footprint of the action nor is
it limited by the Federal action agency's authority; rather, it is a biological determination of the
reach of the proposed action on the listed species.
42
43
44
In general, estuarine or marine listed species may occur in the action area of plants that draw
directly from estuaries or the ocean. Examples of such species include listed species of
sturgeon, sea turtles, whales, and salmon. Freshwater listed species, such as mussels and
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-60
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), may occur in the action area of plants that draw directly
from freshwater sources, such as rivers or Great Lakes. Listed aquatic species are generally
less likely to be present in constructed habitats, such as cooling ponds or canals, that do not
hydrologically connect to natural surface waters from which colonization or immigration could
occur. The presence of terrestrial listed species is highly dependent upon habitat availability
and quality on or near the nuclear power plant site. Northern long-eared bats (Myotis
septentrionalis) and Indiana bats (M. sodalis) are widely distributed across the eastern and
north central United States and may be present at any site within their ranges whose habitat
provides sufficient forage, roosting, or hibernating opportunities. Likewise, listed migratory birds
may seasonally inhabit the action area of a nuclear power plant whose site provides even
marginal stopover habitat, especially if that site is within one of the four major North American
flyways.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Table 3.6-2 and Table 3.6-5 identify critical habitats and listed species that the NRC staff, in
consultation with the Services, evaluated during initial LR or SLR environmental reviews
conducted since development of the 2013 LR GEIS. As part of the 19 environmental reviews
identified in the tables below, the NRC staff evaluated 107 listed species and designated critical
habitat of 7 listed species. Many of the same species were present in the action area of multiple
nuclear power plants. The most commonly evaluated terrestrial species were northern longeared bats (11 license renewal reviews), Indiana bat (9 reviews), piping plover (Charadrius
melodus) (6 reviews), eastern prairie fringed orchid (Platanthera leucophaea) (5 reviews), and
rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) (4 reviews). The most commonly evaluated aquatic species
were Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) (5 reviews), shortnose sturgeon (A. brevirostrum)
(5 reviews), and pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (4 reviews). Notably, the NRC staff
evaluated the effects of nuclear power plant license renewal on all five of the listed Atlantic
sturgeon distinct population segments (DPSs) among the five evaluations of this species. All
other species listed in Table 3.6-5 were evaluated in three license renewal reviews or less.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Critical habitat represents the habitat that contains the physical or biological features essential
to conservation of the listed species and that may require special management considerations
or protection (78 FR 53058). Critical habitat may also include areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species if the Services determine that the area itself is essential for
conservation. The NRC staff evaluated the critical habitat of seven listed species among six
license renewal reviews since publication of the 2013 LR GEIS. Notably, the FWS has
designated much of the Turkey Point site in Florida, including the plant’s artificial cooling canal
system (i.e., CCS), as critical habitat for the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). At the
Surry plant in Virginia, the entirety of the James River in the action area of the plant is
designated as critical habitat for the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. The Hudson
River within the action area of the Indian Point plant (no longer operating) in New York is
designated critical habitat for the New York Bight DPS of Atlantic sturgeon. At the Point Beach
plant in Wisconsin, the FWS has designated critical habitat for the Great Lakes population of
piping plover approximately 3 mi (5 km) south of the plant site along the shoreline of Lake
Michigan.
42
43
44
45
46
As the Services continue to evaluate species for listing and delisting, new species may be
relevant to license renewal reviews and additional critical habitat designations may occur near
operating nuclear power plants. This means that for a given plant, the staff may be required to
evaluate different or additional listed species and critical habitats during an SLR review than the
staff evaluated during the initial LR review for that same plant.
February 2023
3-61
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
Table 3.6-2
Critical Habitats Evaluated in License Renewal Reviews, 2013–Present
Nuclear
Power Plant
Grand Gulf
FWS Critical Habitat
Louisiana black bear
Grand Gulf
LaSalle
Indian Point(a)
Final Effect
Determination(c))
NE
NMFS Critical
Habitat
-
Final Effect
Determination(c)
-
rabbitsfoot mussel(d)
NE
-
-
Indiana bat
NE
-
-
-
Atlantic sturgeon, New
York Bight DPS
NLDM
LDM
-
-
West Indian manatee
NLDM
-
-
Atlantic sturgeon,
Chesapeake Bay
DPS
NLDM
Atlantic sturgeon,
Chesapeake Bay DPS
NLDM
NE
-
-
-
Turkey Point(b) American crocodile
(b)
Turkey Point
Surry
(b)
Point Beach(b)
piping plover
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; NMFS = U.S. National Marine Fishery Services; NE = no effect; NLDM = may
affect but is not likely to destroy or adversely modify; and LDM = likely to destroy or adversely modify; DPS = distinct
population segment.
(a) The evaluation of this species was a part of a review that supplemented the NRC's Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (final SEIS).
(b) This review evaluated an SLR term.
(c) The effect determinations provided here are the final determinations concerning each species that resulted from
consultation with the Services. In some cases, the Service's letter of concurrence revised or amended the NRC
staff's original effect determinations for a given species.
(d) At the time the NRC staff performed its review, critical habitat for this species was proposed for Federal listing.
The Services have now issued a final rule designating this critical habitat.
No entry has been denoted by “-”.
Sources: NRC 2014e, NRC 2016d, NRC 2018e, NRC 2019c, NRC 2020f, NRC 2021f.
15
16
17
18
19
20
Listed species and critical habitats can be adversely affected by the same factors described in
Sections 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 relevant to terrestrial and aquatic resources. However, the magnitude
and significance of such impacts can be greater for listed species because—by virtue of being
eligible for Federal listing—these species are significantly more sensitive to environmental
stressors as their populations are already in decline. Similarly, critical habitats are afforded
special protections because they are critical to the preservation of the listed species.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
In cases where adverse effects on listed species or critical habitats are possible, the NRC staff
has engaged the Services in formal ESA Section 7 consultation as part of the license renewal
review and obtained a biological opinion. A biological opinion evaluates the nature and extent
of effects of the action on listed species and critical habitats. It is prepared by the FWS or
NMFS and documents the Service’s assessment of effects on listed species and critical habitat
and whether the Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of those species
or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Biological opinions may
include an incidental take statement (ITS) consisting of the level of anticipated take, reasonable
and prudent measures, and terms and conditions. Any take that is subject to and in compliance
with an ITS is not prohibited under the ESA. Biological opinions may also include discretionary
conservation recommendations.
32
33
For consultations resulting in the Service’s issuance of a biological opinion, the NRC requires its
licensees to comply with the ITS of the biological opinion by incorporating environmental
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-62
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
conditions into the relevant NRC facility license(s). As conditions of NRC-issued licenses, the
NRC has a continuing duty to monitor compliance at facilities with valid biological opinions. This
role is performed by the NRC’s Interagency Consultation Coordinator. The NRC may exclude
specific ITS requirements from its license(s) if another Federal agency will require those actions
be taken.
Since the publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, the Services have issued six biological opinions in
connection with continued operation of nuclear power plants during an initial LR or SLR term.
These biological opinions are for the Indian Point (no longer operating), Salem Nuclear
Generating Station (Salem) and Hope Creek, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant (St. Lucie), Columbia,
Turkey Point, and Oyster Creek (no longer operating) plants. Each biological opinion includes
an ITS that allows for a specified amount of take of these species that is incidental to, and not
the purpose of, carrying out the Federal action of license renewal, as well as reasonable and
prudent measures and terms and conditions to minimize such take. In accordance with these
requirements, these plants monitor and report the effects of continued operation under the
license renewal terms to the Services and the NRC. In total, NMFS has issued biological
opinions to address take of listed fish and sea turtles resulting from impingement, entrainment,
or entrapment at 10 nuclear power plants. Table 3.6-3 lists the nuclear plants and relevant
species to which these opinions apply. The FWS has issued one biological opinion to address
the effects of operation of the Turkey Point plant. Table 3.6-4 lists the species to which this
opinion applies.
Table 3.6-3
Nuclear Power
Plant
NMFS-Issued Biological Opinions for Nuclear Power Plant Operation
Issue Date
Brunswick
January 1, 2000
Columbia
March 10, 2017
Crystal River(a)
August 8, 2002
Diablo Canyon
September 18, 2006
Hope Creek(b)
July 17, 2014, as clarified
on November 23, 2018
January 30, 2013, as
amended on April 10,
2018, and October 5,
2020
May 29, 2020
Indian Point(d)
Oyster Creek(e)
February 2023
Species Addressed in ITS
green sea turtle
hawksbill sea turtle
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
leatherback sea turtle
loggerhead sea turtle
chinook salmon, Upper Columbia
River spring run
steelhead, Upper Columbia River
green sea turtle
hawksbill sea turtle
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
leatherback sea turtle
loggerhead sea turtle
green sea turtle
leatherback sea turtle
loggerhead sea turtle
olive ridley sea turtle
none(c)
Atlantic sturgeon
shortnose sturgeon
green sea turtle
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
loggerhead sea turtle
3-63
Opinion Reference
NRC 2000
NMFS 2017
NMFS 2002
NMFS 2006
NMFS 2014c NMFS
2018c
NMFS 2013 NMFS
2018a
NMFS 2020a
NRC 2020b
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
Nuclear Power
Plant
Issue Date
(b)
Salem
July 17, 2014, as clarified
on November 23, 2018
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
San Onofre(f)
September 18, 2006
St. Lucie(g)
March 24, 2016
Opinion Reference
NMFS 2014c NMFS
2018c
NMFS 2006
NMFS 2016
ITS = incidental take statement.
(a) Crystal River plant shut down in February 2013. In a letter dated January 24, 2022, NMFS (2022) confirmed that
the 2002 biological opinion is no longer applicable because the plant’s cooling water intake system has been
repurposed and modified for the Duke Energy Citrus Combined Cycle Station and is currently compliant with the
2014 programmatic biological opinion on the EPA’s final regulations implementing Section 316(b) of the CWA
(FWS/NMFS 2014).
(b) As of mid-2022, the NRC is in reinitiated consultation with NMFS to address incidental take of Atlantic sturgeon
and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles at Salem in excess of the levels established in the ITS. At the conclusion of this
consultation, NMFS will issue a new biological opinion for continued operation of Salem and Hope Creek plants
under the terms of the renewed operating licenses.
(c) In its biological opinion, NMFS evaluates the potential effects of Hope Creek operations on Atlantic and
shortnose sturgeon and sea turtles but does not exempt incidental take at this plant because none is anticipated.
(d) Indian Point 2 ceased power operations in April 2020, and Indian Point 3 ceased in April 2021. Certain terms
and conditions of the biological opinion continue to impose requirements during the decommissioning period.
(e) Oyster Creek plant ceased power operations in September 2018. The 2020 biological opinion addresses the
effects of the last several years of operation as well as decommissioning. Although NMFS’s prior biological
opinion, issued on November 21, 2011, allowed for incidental take of sea turtles in the form of impingement into
the cooling system intake system, the 2020 biological opinion does not exempt any additional take and does not
include an ITS.
(f) San Onofre plant ceased power operations in June 2013. As of mid-2022, the NRC is in reinitiated consultation
with NMFS to address the potential impacts of decommissioning on federally listed species. At the conclusion of
consultation, NMFS may issue a new biological opinion if it determines that take is anticipated during the
decommissioning period, or NMFS may not issue a new biological opinion and conclude consultation informally if
take is not anticipated.
(g) As of mid-2022, the NRC is in reinitiated consultation with NMFS to address incidental take of smalltooth
sawfish, green sea turtles, and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles in excess of the levels established in the ITS.
Additionally, the plant collected two giant manta rays in the intake canal in 2020. At the conclusion of this
consultation, NMFS will issue a new biological opinion for continued operation of St. Lucie plant under the terms
of the renewed operating licenses. The new biological opinion will also address scalloped hammerhead sharks,
which were listed under the ESA in 2014 and have been historically captured at St. Lucie.
Table 3.6-4
FWS-Issued Biological Opinions for Nuclear Power Plant Operation
Nuclear Power
Plant
Issue Date
Turkey Point
July 25, 2019, as amended
on March 21, 2022
32
Species Addressed in ITS
Atlantic sturgeon
shortnose sturgeon
green sea turtle
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
loggerhead sea turtle
green sea turtle
leatherback sea turtle
loggerhead sea turtle
olive ridley sea turtle
green sea turtle
hawksbill sea turtle
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
leatherback sea turtle
loggerhead sea turtle
smalltooth sawfish
Species Addressed in ITS
American crocodile
eastern indigo snake
Opinion Reference
FWS 2019a
FWS 2022a
ITS = incidental take statement.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-64
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The primary concern for listed aquatic species at operating nuclear power plants is the effects
associated with operation of the cooling system. Listed fish, shellfish, and sea turtles are
vulnerable to impingement, entrainment, and entrapment at plants that withdraw cooling water
from natural water bodies, such as rivers, estuaries, and the ocean. Open-cycle cooling
systems withdraw more water, and at a typically higher velocity, than cooling-tower-based
closed-cycle systems. Therefore, risk of impingement, entrainment, and entrapment is greater
at these facilities.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Sea turtles are susceptible to impingement or entrapment at numerous once-through oceanic
plants. For instance, at the St. Lucie plant in Florida, marine organisms can enter one of three
intake pipes located in the Atlantic Ocean and be drawn into the intake canal where they
become entrapped. Since operations began in the late 1970s, St. Lucie plant has collected
seven listed species in its intake canal: five species of sea turtles,4 smalltooth sawfish (Pristis
pectinata), and giant manta rays (Mobula birostris). Additionally, the plant collected two
scalloped hammerhead sharks (Sphyrna lewini) prior to the NMFS’s listing of this species in
2014. The NRC (2019a) most recently evaluated the impacts of St. Lucie plant operations on
federally listed species in a 2019 biological assessment prepared to support reinitiated ESA
Section 7 consultation. In that assessment, the NRC found that sea turtles could become
injured or die from travel through the intake pipes or from entanglement in barrier nets within the
intake canal. Turtles could suffer additional stress associated with capture and release. The
NRC found that smalltooth sawfish may experience minor to moderate injury because of St.
Lucie’s cooling water intake system. As of mid-2022, the NRC and NMFS remain in reinitiated
consultation, and NMFS has not yet made a final determination of effects. Sea turtle
impingement or entrapment has also occurred at six other nuclear power plants: (1) Oyster
Creek in New Jersey (no longer operating); (2) Salem in New Jersey; (3) Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant (Brunswick) in North Carolina; (4) Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant (Crystal
River) in Florida (no longer operating); (5) Diablo Canyon in California; and (6) San Onofre (no
longer operating) in California. NMFS has issued biological opinions for each of these plants to
address these effects (see Table 3.6-3).
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
At coastal northeast plants, Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon can become impinged or entrained
on trash racks, traveling screens, or other components of the cooling water intake system.
NMFS has issued biological opinions for both the Salem and Indian Point (no longer operating)
plants to address these effects (Table 3.6-3). At other plants, although sturgeon are in the
action area, the NRC and NMFS have determined that impingement and entrainment are not
likely. For instance, at the Surry plant, the NRC (2020f) found that impingement of shortnose
and Atlantic sturgeon is extremely unlikely to occur during the SLR term because the life stages
of sturgeon in the action area would be of sufficient size and swimming capability to resist the
flow of water into Surry’s low-level intake structure. The NRC (2020f) found that entrainment
does not pose a risk to sturgeon because entrainable life stages do not occur in the action area.
NMFS (2020b) concurred with this determination and did not issue a biological opinion for this
plant.
41
42
43
44
45
At the Columbia plant in Washington, Upper Columbia River spring run Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Upper Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss) are susceptible
to impingement on the intake screens or entrainment into the intake system because these
species migrate past the plant seasonally as fry, which are only a few centimeters in length at
this life stage. Notably, following the license renewal review, the licensee conducted fish
4
The species of sea turtles are green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), leatherback
(Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and Kemp’s ridley (Lepidochelys kempii).
February 2023
3-65
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
entrainment characterization studies that showed that very few fish of any species are entrained
into Columbia’s cooling water intake system due to its design, which hydraulically deflects fish
from becoming trapped on or passing through the intake screens. Neither of the two listed
salmon species were collected during the study. Nonetheless, because Chinook salmon fry are
small and seasonally abundant in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, researchers
estimated that one to two Chinook salmon fry could have been entrained during the two-year
study period (Anchor QEA, LLC 2020). Such take, if it occurred, is allowable under the NMFS’s
2017 biological opinion (see Table 3.6-3).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Effects associated with thermal effluent discharge are another primary concern for aquatic listed
species and their critical habitats. Cooling water discharges are regulated by the EPA, or
authorized States or Tribes, under Section 316(a) of the CWA. Thermal effluent criteria and
limitations are imposed on many plants through special conditions in the site NPDES permit.
Under CWA Section 316(a), EPA or the States must establish thermal effluent limitations that
assure the protection and propagation of the water body’s balanced, indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife. Nonetheless, thermal discharges can affect habitat availability and
fish behavior or migration. For instance, if a thermal plume extends across a river, it can affect
fish migration by causing individuals to exert additional energy to avoid heated water, or it can
block passage altogether. In general, the NRC has found thermal effects on listed species to be
insignificant or discountable, and the NMFS has concurred on these findings during
consultation.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Listed terrestrial species, including bats, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and
invertebrates, can be affected by habitat loss, degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation
resulting from construction, refurbishment, or other site activities, including site maintenance
and infrastructure repairs, during the license renewal term. In general, the NRC staff has not
found habitat alternation to be of concern in past NRC license renewal reviews. Nuclear power
plant sites are already fully developed to support power operations, and neither initial LR nor
SLRs generally require additional development that would affect natural habitats on or
surrounding the site.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Noise and vibration and general human disturbance are stressors that can disrupt normal
feeding, sheltering, and breeding activities. At low noise levels or farther distances, animals
initially may be startled but would likely habituate to the low background noise levels. At louder
noise levels and closer range, animals would likely be startled to the point of fleeing from the
area. Fleeing individuals would expend increased levels of energy and would forgo the
foraging, resting, or breeding opportunities that the action area may have otherwise provided.
However, listed species that use the action area of operating nuclear power plants have likely
become habituated to such disturbance because these plants have been consistently operating
for several decades. For instance, the NRC (2021f) found that continued disturbances during
the SLR term of the Point Beach plant in Wisconsin would not cause behavioral changes in
piping plovers to a degree that would be able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or
evaluated or that would reach the scale where a take might occur. The FWS (2021) concurred
with this determination.
42
43
44
45
46
47
Listed bats can be vulnerable to mortality or injury from collisions with plant structures and
vehicles. Bat collisions with human-made structures at nuclear power plants are not well
documented but are likely rare based on the available information. In an assessment of the
potential effects of operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse) plant in
Ohio, the NRC (2014a) noted that four dead bats were collected at the plant during bird
mortality studies conducted from 1972 through 1979. Two red bats (Lasiurus borealis) were
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-66
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
collected at the cooling tower, and one big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) and one tri-colored bat
(Perimyotis subflavus) were collected near other plant structures. During the initial LR review,
the NRC (2014a) found that future collisions of bats would be extremely unlikely and, therefore,
discountable given the small number of bats collected during the study and the marginal
suitable habitat that the plant site provides. The FWS (FWS 2014) concurred with this
determination. In a 2015 assessment associated with the Indian Point plant in New York, the
NRC (2015a) determined that bat collisions were less likely to occur at the Indian Point plant
than at the Davis-Besse plant because Indian Point does not have cooling towers or similarly
large obstructions. The tallest structures on the Indian Point site are 134 ft (40.8 m) tall turbine
buildings and 250 ft (76.2 m) tall reactor containment structures. The NRC (2015a) concluded
that the likelihood of bats colliding with these and other plant structures on the Indian Point site
during the license renewal period was extremely unlikely and, therefore, discountable. The
FWS (2015b) concurred with this determination. In 2018, the NRC (2018a) determined that the
likelihood of bats colliding with site buildings or structures on the Seabrook site in New
Hampshire would be extremely unlikely. The tallest structures on that site are a 199 ft (61 m)
tall containment structure and 103 ft (31 m) tall turbine and heater bay building. The FWS
(2018) concurred with the NRC’s determination. In 2020, the NRC (2020f) determined that the
likelihood of bats colliding with site buildings or structures on the Surry site in Virginia would be
extremely unlikely. The FWS (2019b) again concurred with the NRC staff’s determination on
the basis that activities associated with the Surry plant SLR would be consistent with the
activities analyzed in the FWS’s January 5, 2016, programmatic biological opinion (FWS 2016).
Most recently, the NRC (2021f) determined that the likelihood of bats colliding with site buildings
or structures at the Point Beach plant in Wisconsin would be extremely unlikely based on
structure height and operating experience. The FWS (2021) also concurred with this
determination on the basis of the FWS’s 2016 programmatic biological opinion (FWS 2016).
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Unlike bat collision risk, the risk of bird collisions is more species-specific and depends on the
particular life history, behaviors, and flight patterns of a species. For example, in 2014, the
FWS (2014) used mortality data for blackpoll warbler (Setophaga striata), an unlisted species, to
estimate future mortality of the Kirtland’s warbler (S. kirtlandii)5 at the Davis-Besse site during
the license renewal term because the two species are similar. Because blackpoll warblers had
been collected during past bird and bat mortality studies, the FWS determined that Kirtland’s
warbler mortality from collisions with the site’s cooling tower or meteorological tower was
possible. However, the FWS estimated the total Kirtland’s warbler mortality during the seasonal
migratory periods over the license renewal period to be less than 0.01 birds. Therefore, the
FWS determined that no take was ultimately expected, and the FWS concurred with the NRC’s
(2014a) determination that the likelihood of this bird colliding with nuclear power plant buildings
and structures is discountable or extremely unlikely to occur. In the same review, the FWS
(2014) determined that red knot collisions were also a discountable effect due to the specific
habitat needs of this species and the limited number that have been observed in Ohio, and the
FWS did not calculate mortality for this species.
41
42
43
44
45
46
In 2016, the NRC (NRC 2016c) found that the risk of both red knots and piping plovers colliding
with plant buildings or structures at the Fermi site in Michigan would be extremely unlikely to
occur. The NRC made these determinations based on species-specific factors. For red knots,
the NRC made this determination because this species is rare in the action area; the last red
knot observed at the Fermi site was in 1973. For piping plovers, the NRC made this
determination because individuals are not likely to inhabit inland developed portions of the site
At the time of this review, the Kirtland’s warbler was listed as endangered. The FWS has since delisted
this species due to recovery (84 FR 54436).
5
February 2023
3-67
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
that contain collision hazards. Factors relevant to both species included seasonal migration
periods and the absence of the two species in bird mortality surveys conducted on the site. The
FWS (2015a) concurred with the NRC’s determination that Fermi license renewal was not likely
to adversely affect these species.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
In 2021, the NRC (2021f) evaluated the risk of piping plovers colliding with nuclear power plant
buildings and structures as part of the Point Beach SLR review. The staff found that tall
structures are unlikely to represent a unique collision hazard for this species based on its typical
flight behavior. For instance, Stantial and Cohen (2015) assessed flight heights of piping
plovers in New Jersey and Massachusetts during the 2012 and 2013 breeding seasons. The
researchers found that flight heights ranged from 2.3 to 34.5 ft (0.7 to 10.5 m) with a mean of
8.5 ft (2.6 m). Visually estimated flight heights ranged from 0.25 to 131 ft (0.25 to 40 m).
Because piping plovers fly relatively low to the ground, they are acclimated to navigating various
natural and human-made flight hazards, and tall structures on nuclear power plant sites are
unlikely to create an additional risk. Even in the case of wind turbines, which have moving
components, researchers found that collision hazards at five wind facilities in New England
during the piping plover breeding season—assuming constant turbine operation—ranged from
0.06 to 2.27 collisions per year for a single large turbine (41 m radius), 0.03 to 0.99 for a single
medium turbine (22.5 m radius), and 0.01 to 0.29 for a single small turbine (9.6 m radius)
(Stantial 2014). With respect to vehicle collision hazards, Stantial and Cohen (2015)
determined the average calculated flight speed of piping plovers to be 30.5 fps (9.3 m/s). The
high speed at which piping plovers can fly makes them unlikely to collide with nuclear power
plant site vehicles, especially given that posted speed limits are generally low throughout these
sites. The FWS (2021) concurred with these findings for Point Beach SLR.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-68
February 2023
February 2023
1
Table 3.6-5 ESA Listed Species Evaluated in License Renewal Reviews, 2013–Present
3-69
FWS Species(c)
piping plover (Charadrius melodus)
Seabrook
Seabrook
roseate tern (Sterna dougallii)
-
Seabrook
-
Seabrook
-
Seabrook
Seabrook
-
Seabrook
-
South Texas
American alligator (Alligator
mississipiensis)
Eskimo curlew (Numenius borealis)
N/A
Louisiana black bear (Ursus
americanus luteolus)
northern aplomado falcon (Falco
femoralis septentrionalis)
ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)
piping plover
NE
South Texas
South Texas
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
South Texas
South Texas
South Texas
South Texas
South Texas
South Texas
South Texas
Red wolf (Canis rufus)
smooth pimpleback (Quadrula
houstonensis)(f)
Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon)(f)
West Indian manatee (Trichechus
manatus)
Final Effect
Determination(d)
NLAA
NLAA
NE
NMFS Species(c)
Atlantic sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus),
Gulf of Maine DPS(g)
fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
humpback whale (Megaptera
novaeangliae)
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys
kempii)
leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys
coriacea)
loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta)
North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena
glacialis)
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum)
green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas)(e)
Final Effect
Determination(d)
NLAA
NLAA
NLAA
NLAA
NLAA
NLAA
NLAA
NLAA
NE
hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricata)
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
NE
leatherback sea turtle
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
loggerhead sea turtle(e)
smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata),
U.S. DPS
-
NE
NE
-
NLAA
NE
NE
NE
-
Affected Environment
Nuclear
Power Plant
Seabrook
Limerick
Limerick
Limerick
Grand Gulf
Grand Gulf
Grand Gulf
Grand Gulf
3-70
Grand Gulf
Grand Gulf
Grand Gulf
Grand Gulf
Grand Gulf
Callaway
Callaway
Callaway
Callaway
Callaway
Callaway
February 2023
Callaway
Callaway
Callaway
FWS Species(c)
whooping crane (Grus americana)
bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon)
Indiana bat
small whorled pogonia (Isotria
medeoloides)
American black bear (Ursus
americanus)
bayou darter (Etheostoma rubrum)
fat pocketbook mussel (Potamilus
capax)
least tern (Sterna antillarum), Interior
population
Louisiana black bear
pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)
rabbitsfoot mussel (Quadrula cylindrica
cylindrica)(g)
red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis)
wood stork (Mycteria americana)
gray bat (Myotis grisescens)
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)
Niangua darter (Etheostoma nianguae)
pallid sturgeon
pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta)
running buffalo clover (Trifolium
stoloniferum)
scaleshell (Leptodea leptodon)
spectaclecase (Cumberlandia
monodonta)
Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka)
Final Effect
Determination(d)
NE
NE
NMFS Species(c)
Final Effect
Determination(d)
NE
NE
Atlantic sturgeon, New York Bight
DPS
shortnose sturgeon
NE
NE
-
-
NLAA
none
-
NLAA
NE
-
-
NE
-
-
NLAA
NLAA
NE
-
-
NE
-
-
NE
NE
NLAA
NE
NLAA
NLAA
NE
none
-
-
NLAA
NLAA
-
-
NE
-
-
NE
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Nuclear
Power Plant
South Texas
Limerick
February 2023
Nuclear
Power Plant
Davis-Besse
Davis-Besse
Davis-Besse
Davis-Besse
Davis-Besse
Davis-Besse
Davis-Besse
Sequoyah
3-71
Sequoyah
Sequoyah
Sequoyah
Sequoyah
Sequoyah
Final Effect
Determination(d)
NE
NMFS Species(c)
none
Final Effect
Determination(d)
-
NLAA
NLAA
-
-
NE
NLAA
-
-
NLAA
-
-
NLAA
NE
none
-
NE
NE
NE
-
-
NE
NE
-
-
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
none
-
-
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Sequoyah
Sequoyah
Sequoyah
Sequoyah
Sequoyah
Byron
Byron
Byron
Byron
Byron
FWS Species(c)
eastern prairie fringed orchid
(Platanthera leucophaea)
Indiana bat
Kirtland's warbler (Setophaga
kirtlandii)(h)
lakeside daisy (Hymenopsis herbacea)
northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis)
piping plover, Great Lakes watershed
population
rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa)(g)
dromedary pearlymussel (Dromus
dromas)
gray bat
Indiana bat
large-flowered skullcap (Scutellaria
montana)
northern long-eared bat
orangefoot pimpleback (Plethobasus
cooperianus)
pink mucket
rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum)
small whorled pogonia
snail darter (Percuba tanasi)
Virginia spirarea (Spiraea virginiana)
eastern prairie fringed orchid
Indiana bat
leafy prairie clover (Dalea foliosa)
northern long-eared bat
prairie bush clover (Lespedeza
leptostachya)
Braidwood
Braidwood
Braidwood
Braidwood
Braidwood
Braidwood
Braidwood
3-72
Braidwood
Fermi
Fermi
Fermi
Fermi
Fermi
Fermi
Fermi
Fermi
Fermi
Fermi
LaSalle
February 2023
LaSalle
LaSalle
LaSalle
LaSalle
LaSalle
FWS Species(c)
eastern massasauga (Sistrurus
catenatus)(g)
eastern prairie fringed orchid
Hine's emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora
hineana)
lakeside daisy
leafy prairie clover
Mead's milkweed (Asclepias meadii)
northern long-eared bat
sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus
cyphyus)
snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra)
eastern massasauga(g)
eastern prairie fringed orchid
Indiana bat
Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa
samuelis)
northern long-eared bat
northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa
rangiana)
piping plover
rayed bean (Villosa fabalis)
rufa red knot
Snuffbox
decurrent false aster (Boltonia
decurrens)
eastern prairie fringed orchid
Indiana bat
leafy prairie clover
northern long-eared bat
sheepnose mussel
Final Effect
Determination(d)
NE
NMFS Species(c)
none
Final Effect
Determination(d)
-
NE
NE
-
-
NE
NE
NE
NE
NLAA
-
-
NE
NE
NLAA
NLAA
NE
none
-
-
NLAA
NE
-
-
NLAA
NE
NLAA
NE
NE
none
-
-
-
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Nuclear
Power Plant
Braidwood
February 2023
Nuclear
Power Plant
Indian Point(a)
Indian Point(a)
Indian Point(a)
River Bend
Waterford
Waterford
Waterford
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
3-73
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
bog turtle
Indiana bat
northern long-eared bat
pallid sturgeon
gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus
desotoi)
pallid sturgeon
West Indian manatee
American alligator
American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus)
Bachman's warbler (Vermivora
bachmani)
Bartram's hairstreak butterfly (Strymon
acis bartrami)
beach jacquemontia (Jacquemontia
reclinata)
Blodgett's silverbush (Argythamnia
blodgettii)
Cape Sable seaside sparrow
(Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis)
Cape Sable thoroughwort
(Chromolaena frustrata)
Carter's mustard (Warea carteri)
Carter's small-flowered flax (Linum
carteri carteri)
crenulate lead-plant (Amorpha
crenulata)
deltoid spurge (Chamaesyce deltoidea
deltoidea)
eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon
corais couperi)
Final Effect
Determination(d)
NE
NLAA
NLAA
NLAA
NE
NLAA
NE
N/A
NMFS Species(c)
Atlantic sturgeon, New York Bight,
Gulf of Maine, and Chesapeake Bay
DPSs
shortnose sturgeon
none
none
Final Effect
Determination(d)
LAA
LAA
NLAA
LAA
NE*
green sea turtle, North Atlantic and
South Atlantic DPSs
hawksbill sea turtle
leatherback sea turtle
NE*
loggerhead sea turtle(e)
NLAA
NE*
smalltooth sawfish, U.S. DPS
NLAA
NLAA
NLAA
NLAA
-
-
NE*
-
-
NLAA
-
-
NE*
NE*
-
-
NE*
-
-
NE*
-
-
LAA
-
-
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Turkey Point(b)
FWS Species(c)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
3-74
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
February 2023
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
FWS Species(c)
Everglades bully (Sideroxylon
reclinatum austrofloridense)
Everglades snail kite (Rostrhamus
sociabilis)
Florida bonneted bat (Eumops
floridanus)
Florida brickell-bush (Brickellia mosieri)
Florida bristle fern (Trichomanes
punctatum floridanum)
Florida grasshopper sparrow
(Ammodramus savannarum)
Florida leafwing butterfly (Anaea
troglodyta floridalis)
Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi)
Florida pinelands crabgrass (Digitaria
pauciflora)
Florida prairie-clover (Dalea
carthagenensis floridana)
Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma
coerulescens)
Florida semaphore cactus (Consolea
corallicola)
Garber's spurge (Chamaesyce garberi)
ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus
principalis)
Kirtland's warbler(h)
Miami blue butterfly (Cyclargus thomasi
bethunebakeri)
Okeechobee gourd (Cucurbita
okeechobeensis okeechobeensis)
pineland sandmat (Chamaesyce
deltoidea pinetorum)
piping plover
Final Effect
Determination(d)
NE*
-
Final Effect
Determination(d)
-
NLAA
-
-
NLAA
-
-
NE*
NLAA
-
-
NE*
-
-
NE*
-
-
NLAA
NE*
-
-
NE*
-
-
NE*
-
-
NLAA
-
-
NE*
NE*
-
-
NLAA
NE*
-
-
NE*
-
-
NE*
-
-
NLAA
-
-
NMFS Species(c)
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Nuclear
Power Plant
Turkey Point(b)
February 2023
Nuclear
Power Plant
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Turkey Point(b)
Surry(b)
3-75
Final Effect
Determination(d)
N/A
-
Final Effect
Determination(d)
-
NE*
NLAA
NLAA
NE*
-
-
NE*
NE*
-
-
NE*
NLAA
NLAA
NLAA
NMFS Species(c)
Atlantic sturgeon, Chesapeake Bay
DPS
bog turtle
NE
Atlantic sturgeon, Chesapeake Bay
DPS
shortnose sturgeon
none
NLAA
NE
-
-
Chesapeake logperch (Percina
bimaculata)(i)
Indiana bat
LAA
-
-
NLAA
-
-
northern long-eared bat
NLAA
-
-
rufa red knot
NE
-
-
shortnose sturgeon
NE
-
-
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)
dwarf wedgemussel
green floater (Lasmigona subviridis)
NE*
NE*
NE*
none
-
-
NLAA
-
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Surry(b)
Peach
Bottom(b)
Peach
Bottom(b)
Peach
Bottom(b)
Peach
Bottom(b)
Peach
Bottom(b)
Peach
Bottom(b)
Peach
Bottom(b)
North Anna(b)
North Anna(b)
North Anna(b)
FWS Species(c)
puma (Puma concolor), all subspecies
except coryi
red-cockaded woodpecker
rufa red knot
sand flax (Linum arenicola)
Schaus swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides
aristodemus ponceanus)
Small's milkpea (Galactia smallii)
Stock Island tree snail (Orthalicus
reses)
tiny polygala (Polygala smallii)
West Indian manatee
wood stork
northern long-eared bat
North Anna(b)
North Anna(b)
Point Beach(b)
Point Beach(b)
Point Beach(b)
Point Beach(b)
Point Beach(b)
Point Beach(b)
3-76
February 2023
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
FWS Species(c)
James spineymussel (Pleurobema
collina)
northern long-eared bat
small whorled pogonia
dwarf lake iris (Iris lacustris)
Hine's emerald dragonfly
northern long-eared bat
piping plover
Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri)
rusty patched bumblebee (Bombus
affinis)
Final Effect
Determination(d)
NE*
NLAA
NE*
NE*
NE*
NLAA
NLAA
NE*
NE*
NMFS Species(c)
none
-
Final Effect
Determination(d)
-
FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; NMFS = U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service; NE = no effect; NLAA = may affect but is not likely to adversely affect; and
LAA = likely to adversely affect; DPS = distinct population segments.
(a) The evaluation of this species was a part of a review that supplemented the NRC's final SEIS.
(b) This review evaluated an SLR term.
(c) This table omits species that were candidates or proposed for Federal listing at the time of the NRC staff's review but for which the Services later determined
that listing was not warranted.
(d) The effect determinations provided here are the final determinations concerning each species that resulted from consultation with the Services. In some
cases, the Service's letter of concurrence revised or amended the NRC staff's original effect determinations for a given species. For certain species, the NRC
staff determined that the species was not present in the action area. Accordingly, potential effects to these species were not evaluated in detail because there
would be none. Effect determinations for these species are designated in this table as NE*.
(e) At the time the NRC staff performed its review, NMFS had not yet designated DPSs for this species.
(f) At the time the NRC staff performed its review, this species was a candidate for Federal listing. The Services have now issued a proposed rule to list the
species.
(g) At the time the NRC staff performed its review, this species was a candidate species or was proposed for Federal listing. The Services have now issued a final
rule listing the species.
(h) This species has been delisted since the NRC staff performed its review.
(i) At the time the NRC staff performed its review, this species was under review for Federal listing. It remains under review at this time.
No entry has been denoted by “-”.
Sources: NRC 2015b, NRC 2013b, NRC 2014d, NRC 2014e, NRC 2014f, NRC 2015e, NRC 2015f, NRC 2015c, NRC 2015d, NRC 2016c, NRC 2016d, NRC
2018e, NRC 2018c, NRC 2018d, NRC 2019c, NRC 2020f, NRC 2020g, NRC 2021g, NRC 2021f
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Nuclear
Power Plant
North Anna(b)
Affected Environment
1
3.6.3.2
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
2
3
4
5
6
7
Congress enacted the MSA in 1976 to foster long-term biological and economic sustainability of
the Nation’s marine fisheries. The MSA is a comprehensive, multi-purpose statute. Its key
objectives include preventing overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, increasing long-term
economic and social benefits, and ensuring a safe and sustainable supply of seafood. NOAA,
together with eight regional Fishery Management Councils established under the act, implement
the provisions of the MSA.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The MSA directs the Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NMFS, to designate
areas of EFH and to manage marine resources within those areas. EFH is defined as the
coastal and marine waters and substrate necessary for fish to spawn, breed, feed, or grow to
maturity (50 CFR 600.10). The NMFS further defines “waters,” “substrate,” and “necessary” at
50 CFR 600.10. EFH applies to federally managed finfish and shellfish (herein referred to as
“EFH species”). As of 2022, the Councils and NMFS have designated EFH for nearly
1,000 species at multiple life stages.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The Fishery Management Councils may also designate some EFH as habitat areas of particular
concern (HAPC) if that habitat exhibits one or more of the following traits: rare, stressed by
development, possessing important ecological functions for EFH species, or especially
vulnerable to anthropogenic degradation. HAPCs can cover a specific location (e.g., an estuary
bank or a single spawning location) or cover habitat type that is found at many locations (e.g.,
coral, nearshore nursery areas, or pupping grounds). HAPC designation does not convey
additional restrictions or protections on an area. The designation simply focuses on increased
scrutiny, study, or mitigation planning compared to surrounding areas because HAPCs
represent high-priority areas for conservation, management, or research and are necessary for
healthy ecosystems and sustainable fisheries. The Fishery Management Councils may,
however, restrict the use or possession of fishing gear types within HAPCs. The geographic
boundaries of HAPCs are subject to refinement through amendments, as research better
informs management decisions (NOAA 2020).
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Section 305(b) of the MSA contains interagency consultation requirements pertaining to Federal
agencies and their actions. Under MSA Section 305(b)(2), Federal agencies must consult with
NMFS for actions that may adversely affect EFH. Private actions with a Federal nexus, such as
construction and operation of facilities that involve Federal licensing or approval, are also
subject to consultation. Therefore, the NRC’s issuance of initial or subsequent renewed
licenses may trigger consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant to MSA Section 305(b) is
commonly referred to as “EFH consultation.”
35
36
37
EFH includes the substrate and benthic resources (e.g., submerged aquatic vegetation, shellfish
beds, salt marsh wetlands, etc.), as well as the water column and prey species. NMFS defines
“adverse effects” under the MSA as (50 CFR 600.810):
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
…any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may
include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters
or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their
habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality
and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring
within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts,
including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.
February 2023
3-77
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
Further, in 50 CFR 600.815(a)(7), adverse effects on EFH resulting from prey loss are
described as follows:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Loss of prey may be an adverse effect on EFH and managed species because the
presence of prey makes waters and substrate function as feeding habitat, and the
definition of EFH includes waters and substrate necessary to fish for feeding.
Therefore, actions that reduce the availability of a major prey species, either
through direct harm or capture, or through adverse impacts to the prey species'
habitat that are known to cause a reduction in the population of the prey species,
may be considered adverse effects on EFH if such actions reduce the quality of
EFH.
11
12
13
14
15
Notably, EFH is assessed in terms of impacts on the habitat of the EFH species rather than on
the species itself. Therefore, the physical removal of habitat through cooling water withdrawals
is an impact on EFH, whereas impingement and entrainment are not. Continued operation of a
nuclear power plant during an initial LR or SLR term may cause the following adverse effects in
the area:
16
•
physical removal of habitat through cooling water withdrawals,
17
•
physical alteration of habitat through heated effluent discharges,
18
19
•
chemical alteration of habitat through radionuclides and other contaminants in heated
effluent discharges,
20
•
physical removal of habitat through maintenance dredging, and
21
•
reduction in the prey base of the habitat.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
EFH may occur at nuclear power plants located on or near estuaries, coastal inlets and bays,
and the ocean. The MSA applies to marine and diadromous species. Therefore, EFH is
generally not relevant for license renewal reviews of plants located on rivers well above the
saltwater interface or confluence with marine waters; plants located on freshwater lakes,
including the Great Lakes; or at plants that draw cooling water from human-made cooling ponds
or canals that do not hydrologically connect to natural surface waters. One exception is in
cases where a plant draws cooling water from the freshwater portion of a river that is inhabited
by diadromous prey of EFH species with designated EFH downstream of the plant. By
definition, adverse effects may occur outside of EFH, and loss of prey may be an adverse effect
(see regulatory definitions above).
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The Limerick plant in Pennsylvania is an example where prey loss was relevant to the license
renewal review although the plant itself is not located near designated EFH. Limerick withdraws
cooling water from the Schuylkill River and Perkiomen Creek and discharges heated effluent to
the Schuylkill River. In cases where the natural flow of Perkiomen Creek is not adequate to
supply cooling water to Limerick, the plant augments flow from the Delaware River to Perkiomen
Creek. Although these waterways do not contain designated EFH, they provide habitat for
anadromous fish consumed by several EFH species (bluefish [Pomatomus saltatrix],
windowpane flounder [Scophthalmus aquosus], summer flounder [Paralichthys dentatus], and
winter skate [Leucoraja ocellata]). These four species have designated EFH in the mixing zone
of the Delaware River downstream from the Limerick plant. Prey of these species, such as
Alosa species (e.g., American shad and river herring), spawn in freshwater and migrate to
marine waters as juveniles. During migration, individuals pass through areas of designated
EFH. Therefore, loss of Alosa individuals through impingement and entrainment at the Limerick
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-78
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
plant has the potential to affect the abundance of prey downstream in the mixing zone, which
could affect the quality of this EFH as feeding habitat. Based on this reasoning, NMFS
recommended that the NRC engage in EFH consultation during the license renewal review.
The NRC (2014b) prepared an EFH assessment that addressed these and other relevant
effects. The NRC staff concluded that the Limerick license renewal would have minimal
adverse effects on EFH for juveniles and adults of the four EFH species. Subsequently, NMFS
(2014b) provided the NRC with EFH conservation recommendations, and the NRC (2014g)
responded to these recommendations, which concluded EFH consultation.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The NRC staff also assessed prey loss for SLR of the Peach Bottom plant in Pennsylvania.
During that review, the NRC (NRC 2020g) found that SLR would have no direct effects on the
EFH of any species because no designated EFH is present in Conowingo Pond. All potential
adverse impacts on EFH would be limited to loss of prey for those EFH species that consume
anadromous prey species that migrate through Conowingo Pond. Anadromous prey fish, such
as Alosa species, have been rare in collections associated with Conowingo Pond aquatic
studies. None of the available studies or other information indicate that impingement,
entrainment, thermal effects, or indirect impacts on the habitat of prey species would be
noticeably affected as a result of SLR. Accordingly, no adverse effects on EFH would result
from loss of prey, and the NRC staff concluded that the proposed action would have no adverse
effects on the designated EFH for little skate, windowpane flounder, or winter skate.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Table 3.6-6 identifies EFH species and life stages whose EFH the NRC staff, in consultation
with NMFS, evaluated during initial LR and SLR environmental reviews conducted since
publication of the 2013 LR GEIS.6 During this period, EFH was relevant to six reviews, and the
NRC staff evaluated the EFH of 37 species among these reviews. Atlantic herring (Clupea
harengus), Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), summer flounder, winter flounder
(Pleuronectes americanus), and winter skate were the most prevalently evaluated EFH species.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
In most cases, the NRC staff concluded that license renewal would result in no adverse effects
or minimal adverse effects on EFH. For two EFH species, silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis)
and winter flounder, the NRC concluded that license renewal would result in more than minimal
but less than substantial adverse effects. The NRC (2015b) made this determination for all life
stages of silver hake and larvae, juveniles, and adults of winter flounder as a result of the
Seabrook plant license renewal. This was based on the effects of impingement, entrainment,
and thermal effluents on these species’ habitat.
6
Prior to the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC assessed EFH as part of seven license renewal environmental
reviews: Oyster Creek (no longer operating); (2) Brunswick; (3) Pilgrim in Massachusetts (no longer
operating); (4) Vermont Yankee in New York (no longer operating); (5) Indian Point (no longer operating);
(6) Salem and Hope Creek; and (7) Crystal River in Florida (no longer operating). These are not
described in detail in the 2013 LR GEIS. See the plant-specific SEISs for more information about these
EFH consultations. The NRC has also prepared EFH assessments and conducted EFH consultation with
NMFS for extended power uprates at the Hope Creek (NRC 2007a) and St. Lucie (NRC 2012c) plants.
February 2023
3-79
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
Table 3.6-6
EFH Evaluated in License Renewal Reviews, 2013–Present
Nuclear Power
Plant
Species
Life
Stage(s)(b)
Final Effect
Determination(c)
E, L, J
MAE
A
NAE
J, A
NAE
E, L, J, A
NAE
E
NAE
L, J, A
MAE
Seabrook
American angler fish (Lophius americanus)
Seabrook
American angler fish
Seabrook
American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides)
Seabrook
Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus)
Seabrook
Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)
Seabrook
Atlantic cod
Seabrook
Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus)
E, L
NAE
Seabrook
Atlantic halibut
J, A
MAE
Seabrook
Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus)
J, A
MAE
Seabrook
Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus)
E, A
MAE
Seabrook
Atlantic mackerel
L, J
NAE
Seabrook
Atlantic sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus)
E, L, A
NAE
Seabrook
Atlantic sea scallop
J
MAE
Seabrook
Atlantic surf clam (Spisula solidissima)
J, A
NAE
Seabrook
bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)
A
NAE
Seabrook
haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)
J
NAE
Seabrook
longfin inshore squid (Loligo pealei)
J, A
NAE
Seabrook
northern shortfin squid (Illex illecebrosus)
J, A
NAE
Seabrook
ocean pout (Macrozoarces americanus)
E, L, A
NAE
Seabrook
ocean pout
J
MAE
Seabrook
pollock (Pollachius virens)
J
MAE
Seabrook
red hake (Urophycis chuss)
E, L, J, A
MAE
Seabrook
redfish (Sebastes fasciatus)
L
NAE
Seabrook
Redfish
J, A
MAE
Seabrook
scup (Stenotomus chrysops)
J, A
NAE
Seabrook
silver hake (Merluccius bilinearis)
E, L, J, A
LSA
Seabrook
summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus)
A
MAE
Seabrook
windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus)
J, A
MAE
Seabrook
winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus)
E
NAE
Seabrook
winter flounder
L, J, A
LSA
Seabrook
yellowtail flounder (Pleuronectes ferruginea)
J, A
MAE
Columbia
coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)
-
MAE
Columbia
Upper Columbia River Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
-
MAE
Limerick
American plaice
J
NAE
Limerick
Atlantic butterfish
J
NAE
Limerick
Atlantic herring
J
NAE
Limerick
black sea bass (Centropristus striata)
J
NAE
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-80
February 2023
Affected Environment
Nuclear Power
Plant
Species
Life
Stage(s)(b)
Final Effect
Determination(c)
J, A
MAE
J
NAE
Limerick
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)
Limerick
Scup
Limerick
summer flounder
J, A
MAE
Limerick
windowpane flounder
J, A
MAE
Limerick
winter flounder
J, A
MAE
Limerick
winter skate (Leucoraja ocellata)
J, A
MAE
(a)
gray snapper (Lutjanus griseus)
J, A
NE
(a)
mutton snapper (Lutianus analis)
J
NE
(a)
Turkey Point
pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum)
-
NE
Turkey Point(a)
spiny lobster (Panulirus argus)
-
NE
white grunt (Haemulon plumieri)
A
NE
J, A
MAE
Turkey Point
Turkey Point
(a)
Turkey Point
Surry
(a)
Atlantic butterfish
Surry
(a)
Atlantic herring
-
NAE
Surry
(a)
black sea bass
-
NAE
Surry
(a)
Bluefish
J
MAE
Surry
(a)
clearnose skate (Raja eglanteria)
-
NAE
Surry
(a)
little skate (Urophycis chuss)
(P)
MAE
Surry
(a)
red hake
-
NAE
Surry
(a)
summer flounder
L, J, A
MAE
Surry
(a)
windowpane flounder
J, A
MAE
winter skate
(P)
MAE
Surry(a)
Peach Bottom(a)
Atlantic herring
J, A
NE
Peach Bottom
(a)
clearnose skate
J, A
NE
Peach Bottom
(a)
little skate
E, L, J, A
NAE
Peach Bottom
(a)
red hake
A
NE
Peach Bottom
(a)
windowpane flounder
A
NAE
Peach Bottom
(a)
winter skate
J, A
NAE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(a) This review evaluated an SLR term.
(b) EFH is designated by life stage. E = eggs; L = larvae; J = juveniles; A = adults; (P) = prey of EFH species.
(c) The effect determinations provided here are the final determinations concerning each species that resulted from
consultation with NMFS. NE = no effect; NAE = no adverse effects; MAE = minimal adverse effects; LSA = more
than minimal but less than substantial adverse effects; and SAA = substantial adverse effects.
No entry has been denoted by “-”.
Sources: NRC 2015b, NRC 2012a, NRC 2014b, NRC 2019c, NRC 2020f, NRC 2020g.
8
3.6.3.3
9
10
11
12
13
14
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
Congress enacted the NMSA in 1972 to protect areas of the marine environment that have
special national significance. The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to establish the
National Marine Sanctuary System and designate sanctuaries within that system. ONMS is
charged with comprehensively managing this system, which includes 15 sanctuaries and the
Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments, encompassing more than
600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington State to the Florida
February 2023
3-81
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. Within these areas, sanctuary resources
include any living or nonliving resource of a national marine sanctuary that contributes to the
conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, educational, cultural, archaeological, scientific,
or aesthetic value of the sanctuary. As of 2022, four additional sanctuaries are proposed for
designation. Figure 3.6-1 depicts the locations of designated and proposed marine sanctuaries
and marine national monuments. Maps of designated and proposed sanctuaries are available
at: https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/maps.html.
8
9
10
Figure 3.6-1 National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments. Source:
NOAA 2022a.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
In 1992, Congress amended the NMSA to require interagency coordination. Pursuant to
Section 304(d) of the NMSA, Federal agencies must consult with ONMS when their proposed
actions are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource. Private actions
with a Federal nexus, such as construction and operation of facilities that involve Federal
licensing or approval, are also subject to consultation. Therefore, the NRC’s issuance of initial
or subsequent renewed licenses may trigger consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant
to NMSA Section 304(d) is commonly referred to as “NMSA consultation.”
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Currently, five operating nuclear power plants are located near designated or proposed national
marine sanctuaries (see Table 3.6-7). Notably, this is a snapshot; the geographic extent of
existing sanctuaries may change or expand in the future, and NOAA is likely to designate new
sanctuaries as additional areas of conservation need are identified and assessed. National
marine sanctuary advisory councils, which are community-based advisory groups, actively help
ONMS determine whether additional areas warrant statutory protection. For instance, the
advisory council for the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary coordinated with
ONMS to recommend expanding this sanctuary to include certain sensitive underwater features
and marine biodiversity hotspots in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In 2021, NOAA published
a final rule that added 14 additional shelf-edge reefs and banks off the coasts of Texas and
Louisiana to this sanctuary (86 FR 4937). The Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine
Sanctuary in western Lake Michigan is also a recent designation. NOAA designated this
sanctuary in 2021 (86 FR 45860). As described further below, the Point Beach plant is located
near this sanctuary.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-82
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
Table 3.6-7
National Marine Sanctuaries Near Operating Nuclear Power Plants
Sanctuary Name
Lake Ontario(a)
Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast
Florida Keys
Nearby Nuclear
Power Plants
Location
Eastern Lake Ontario and a segment of the
Thousand Islands region of the St. Lawrence River
Western Lake Michigan bordering Wisconsin
Ginna, Nine Mile
Point, FitzPatrick
Point Beach
Florida Keys from south of Miami westward to
encompass the Dry Tortugas, excluding Dry
Tortugas National Park
Turkey Point
2
(a)
3
4
5
6
The NRC staff has evaluated the potential impacts of license renewal on national marine
sanctuaries in two environmental reviews conducted since publication of the 2013 LR GEIS: the
Turkey Point and Point Beach plants, both of which were SLRs. These reviews are summarized
below; neither ultimately required NMSA consultation with ONMS.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary encompasses 2,900 nautical mi2 (5,370 nautical
km2) of coastal and ocean waters and submerged land surrounding the Florida Keys from south
of Miami westward and encompassing the Dry Tortugas. The sanctuary includes several
unique habitats, including the Nation’s only coral reef that lies adjacent to the continent and one
of the largest seagrass communities in the hemisphere. Card Sound, which lies adjacent and
east of the Turkey Point site, is within the boundaries of the sanctuary. In 2019, the NRC staff
determined that the Turkey Point SLR would not affect the resources of this sanctuary (NRC
2019c). Available monitoring data indicated no discernable impact of Turkey Point plant’s CCS
on the ecology of surrounding marsh and mangrove areas, Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, or any
other nearby surface waters. The staff found that any potential future impacts would be
addressed and mitigated through State and county requirements concerning the CCS and
groundwater quality. Accordingly, the NRC staff concluded that SLR was not likely to destroy,
cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resources and that consultation under the NMSA was
not required.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary encompasses a 962 mi2
(1,550 km2) area of western Lake Michigan along the Wisconsin coast. The sanctuary protects
shipwrecks that possess exceptional historic, archaeological, and recreational value. Rock
reefs and the structures of the shipwrecks provide shelter and foraging habitat for many species
of commercially and recreationally important fish. The sanctuary also includes the Statemanaged Southern Refuge and the largest spawning population of lake trout (Salvelinus
namaycush). The Point Beach plant lies on the coast of Lake Michigan within the region
designated for this sanctuary. In 2021, the NRC staff determined that the Point Beach SLR
would not affect the resources of this sanctuary (NRC 2021f). The NRC staff found that the
sanctuary resources of concern (a nationally significant collection of maritime cultural heritage
resources, including 36 known shipwrecks) are located at least 2 mi (3.2 km) from the Point
Beach site and beyond the influence of either Point Beach’s cooling water intake structure or the
area affected by thermal effluent discharges and, thus, continued operation of Point Beach plant
would not affect these resources. The licensee did not plan to conduct any shoreline
stabilization or other in-water work during the proposed SLR term. Accordingly, the NRC staff
concluded that subsequent license renewal was not likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure
any sanctuary resources and that consultation under the NMSA was not required.
This sanctuary is currently proposed for designation.
February 2023
3-83
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
3.7
2
3.7.1
Historic and Cultural Resources
Scope of Review
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Historic and cultural resources vary widely from site to site; there is no generic way of
determining their existence or significance. Historic and cultural resource impacts must be
analyzed on a plant-specific basis, and the NRC is required to complete a NEPA (42 U.S.C.
§ 4321 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 review (54 U.S.C. §
300101 et seq.) prior to issuing a renewed license. This section presents an overview of these
resources and the NEPA and NHPA Section 106 review and consultation processes. Historic
and cultural resources are the remains of past human activities and include precontact (i.e.,
prehistoric) and historic era archaeological sites, districts, buildings, structures, and objects.
Precontact era archaeological sites pre-date the arrival of Europeans in North America and may
include small temporary camps, larger seasonal camps, large village sites, or specialized-use
areas associated with fishing or hunting or with tool and pottery manufacture. Historic era
archaeological sites post-date European contact with Indian Tribes7 and may include
farmsteads, mills, forts, residences, industrial sites, and shipwrecks. Architectural resources
include buildings and structures. Historic and cultural resources also include elements of the
cultural environment such as landscapes, sacred sites, and other resources that are of religious
and cultural importance to Indian Tribes, such as traditional cultural properties (TCPs) important
to a living community of people for maintaining its culture.8
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
A historic or a cultural resource is deemed to be historically significant, and thus, a “historic
property” within the scope of the NHPA if it has been determined to be eligible for listing or is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).9 The NRHP is maintained by the
U.S. National Park Service in accordance with its regulations in 36 CFR Part 60. The NRHP
criteria to evaluate the eligibility of a property are set forth in 36 CFR 60.4.10 In this regard, a
historic property is at least 50 years old, although exceptions can be made for properties
determined to be of “exceptional significance.”11
7
Per 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii), the agency official will consult with any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian
organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by
an undertaking.
8 According to U.S. National Park Service guidance, a “traditional cultural property” is associated “with
the cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history and
(b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (Parker and King 1998).
9
Historic property is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1) as “... any prehistoric or historic district, site, building,
structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the [NRHP] maintained by the Secretary of
Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such
properties.” As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l)(2), “The term eligible for inclusion in the National Register
includes both properties formally determined as such in accordance with regulations of the Secretary of
the Interior and all other properties that meet National Register listing criteria.”
10 The eligibility of a resource for listing in the NRHP is evaluated based on four criteria and is articulated
in 36 CFR 60.4, as follows: Criterion a: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to broad patterns of our history; Criterion b: Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
Criterion c: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and Criterion d: Has
yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to prehistory and history.
11 36 CFR 60.4(g).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-84
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
3.7.2
NEPA and NHPA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their actions on the affected
human environment, which includes “aesthetic, historic, and cultural resources as these terms
are commonly understood, including such resources as sacred sites” (CEQ and ACHP 2013).
For NEPA compliance, impacts on cultural resources that are not eligible for or listed in the
NRHP would also need to be considered (CEQ and ACHP 2013). The Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an independent Federal agency that oversees the NHPA
Section 106 review process in accordance with its implementing regulations in 36 CFR Part
800, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 800). Section 106 of the NHPA requires
Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings12 on historic properties
and consult with the appropriate parties as defined in 36 CFR 800.2. Consulting parties include
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), ACHP, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, and
Indian Tribes that attach cultural and religious significance to historic properties on a
government-to-government basis and other parties that have a demonstrated interest in the
effects of the undertaking, including local governments and the public, as applicable. Issuing a
renewed license (initial LR or SLR) is a Federal undertaking that requires compliance with the
NHPA Section 106.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
When preparing plant-specific supplements to this LR GEIS (see 36 CFR 800.8(c)), the NRC’s
practice is to fulfill the requirements of NHPA Section 106 through the NEPA review process.
For each application, the NRC would identify consulting parties and determine the scope of
potential effects from the undertaking by defining the area of potential effect (APE). The license
renewal (initial LR or SLR) APE includes lands within the nuclear power plant site boundary and
the transmission lines up to the first substation that may be directly (e.g., physically) affected by
land-disturbing or other operational activities associated with continued plant operations and
maintenance and/or refurbishment activities. The APE may extend beyond the nuclear plant
site when these activities may indirectly (e.g., visual and auditory) affect historic properties.
This determination is made irrespective of land ownership or control.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
The NRC will rely on historic and cultural resource investigations completed by qualified
professionals, who meet the Secretary of Interior’s standards at 36 CFR Part 61, to identify
historic and cultural resources located within the APE and complete NRHP eligibility
determinations in consultation with the SHPO and other consulting parties to determine whether
historic properties are present in the APE. The NHPA requires that information about the
locations of some historic and cultural resources, as well as sensitive sacred and religious
information, be withheld from the public to protect the resources (36 CFR 800.11(c)(1)). Other
legal authorities regarding protection of information from public release may also apply.
36
37
Additional historic and cultural resource laws could apply if a proposed project is located on
Federal lands (see Appendix F).
38
3.7.3
39
40
Nuclear power plant sites tend to be located in areas of focused past human activities (along
waterways) and, as such, there is a potential for historic and cultural resources to be present
Historic and Cultural Resources at Nuclear Power Plant Sites
An undertaking is “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect
jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those
carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval”
(see 36 CFR 800.16(y)).
12
February 2023
3-85
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
within existing nuclear power plant site boundaries. A review of historic and cultural resources
at various nuclear power plants that have undergone initial LR or SLR since 2013 indicates that
there are a variety of historic and cultural resources (mainly archaeological resources) that have
been identified that reflect land use throughout precontact and historic time periods. For
example, at one nuclear power plant site there were 129 historic and cultural resources
identified within the site boundaries. There are other examples of nuclear power plant sites that
contain fewer or no historic and cultural resources identified. The number and diversity of
resource types is dependent upon geographic location and prior site land use.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Based on experience from initial LR and SLR environmental reviews, ground-disturbing
activities occurred during nuclear power plant construction resulting in extensive disturbance of
much of the land in and immediately surrounding the power block. The term “power block”
refers to the buildings and components directly involved in generating electricity at a power
plant. At a nuclear power plant, the components of the power block vary with the reactor
design, but always include the reactor and turbine building, and usually include several other
buildings that include access, reactor auxiliary, safeguards, waste processing, or other nuclear
generation support functions. Buildings within the power block require significant excavation of
existing material, followed by placement of structural fill for a safe and stable base. Building
excavations are extensive, and the area of excavation is larger than the as-built power block
and reactor containment. There are also less-developed and undeveloped areas at nuclear
power plant sites, including areas that were not extensively disturbed (e.g., construction
laydown areas). Laydown areas are lands that were cleared, graded, and used to support
fabrication and installation activities during initial power plant construction. Intact archaeological
resources are unlikely to be present in heavily disturbed areas and do not require field
investigation, whereas less disturbed areas could still contain unrecorded archaeological
resources and should be investigated for the presence of historic and cultural resources.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Many nuclear power plant facilities were constructed prior to the implementation of NHPA
Section 106 regulations located at 36 CFR Part 800; therefore, there were no formal standards
for archaeological field investigations or requirements to identify and consult with Indian Tribes.
A review of historic and cultural resources at various nuclear power plants that have undergone
license renewal (initial LR or SLR) since 2013 indicates that most existing nuclear power plants
in the United States were not investigated prior to initial construction for the presence of
archaeological, architectural or TCP resources, nor have Indian Tribes been consulted
regarding historic and cultural resources that may have significance to a Tribe’s history, culture,
or religion. In some cases, archaeological and architectural resource investigations were
completed prior to construction, but the methods used then are unlikely to meet the current
Secretary of Interior’s standards for archaeological and architectural resource investigation.
Historic and cultural resource field investigations may be necessary at the time of initial LR and
SLR if none were completed previously or may need to be updated to meet current standards.
In addition, identification of and consultation with Indian Tribes that have cultural and religious
ties to nuclear power plant sites are required to identify all historic and cultural resources that
may be located within the APE. Identification and consultation with Indian Tribes is the
responsibility of the NRC.
43
44
45
46
47
48
For example during the license renewal review of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
during the environmental audit, the NRC determined that a mound site that was thought to have
been destroyed by initial facility construction was partially intact. The mound site was originally
recorded in 1913 and excavated in 1936 and 1973. In 2010, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
conducted a cultural resources survey in preparation for its license renewal application. The
survey was unable to locate the mound site and presumed that the site no longer existed.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-86
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TVA’s environmental report stated that the mound was destroyed during the construction of
Sequoyah Units 1 and 2. As a result of the NRC environmental audit and after further
discussions, TVA reopened its NHPA Section 106 consultation with the Tennessee SHPO and
submitted revisions to its previous cultural resource surveys and prepared an updated site form
for the mound site. Additionally, TVA also reinitiated NHPA Section 106 consultation with Indian
Tribes. There was no formal eligibility determination of the site for listing in the NRHP, although
TVA believes the site is eligible (NRC 2015f).
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Most license renewals are granted for a period of 20 years, so it is possible for historic and
cultural resources, including the nuclear power plant facility itself, to fall within the 50-year
threshold for inclusion in the NRHP and to have achieved historic significance during the license
renewal period. For example, Fermi plant Unit 1, the Nation’s first commercial-size nuclear
power plant was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in 2012 (NRC 2016c). Due to the
passage of time since initial licensing, documentation and NRHP eligibility evaluation of all
historic and cultural resources that fall within the 50-year threshold should be completed for
initial LR and SLR.
16
3.8
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
This section describes socioeconomic factors that have the potential to be directly or indirectly
affected by changes in nuclear power plant operations. The nuclear plant and the communities
that support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The communities provide
the people, goods, and services needed to operate the nuclear power plant. Power plant
operations, in turn, provide employment and income and pay for goods and services from the
communities. The measure of a community’s ability to support power plant operations depends
on the ability of the community to respond to changing economic conditions.
24
25
26
27
28
29
The socioeconomics region of influence (ROI) is defined by the counties where nuclear power
plant employees and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby
affecting economic conditions in the region. Changes in power plant operation affects
socioeconomic conditions in the ROI, including employment and income, recreation and
tourism, tax revenue, community services and education, population and housing, and
transportation.
30
3.8.1
31
32
33
34
35
Nuclear power plants generate employment and income in the local economy. Wages, salaries,
and expenditures generated by nuclear plant operation create demand for goods and services
in the local economy, while wage and salary spending by workers creates additional demand for
services and housing. Nuclear power plants also provide tax revenue for education, public
safety, government services, and transportation.
36
37
38
39
40
Employment at nuclear power plants varies based on a number of factors, including the number
of reactor units, energy production, and the type and age of the nuclear plant. The review of
annual economic data on 15 nuclear power plants shows employment at these nuclear plants
averaged about 800 workers, ranging from 506 workers at Point Beach to 941 workers at the
Surry plant (Table 3.8-1).
Socioeconomics
Power Plant Employment and Expenditures
February 2023
3-87
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
Table 3.8-1 Local Employment and Tax Revenues at 15 Nuclear Plants from 2014
through 2020
Nuclear Power
Plant
Byron
Braidwood
Comanche Peak
Fermi
Ginna
South Texas
LaSalle
Cooper
Waterford
River Bend
Turkey Point
Surry
Peach Bottom
North Anna
Point Beach
3
4
5
Data Year
2013
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2015
2016
2016
2017
2018
2018
2019
2020
2020
Percent of Local
Employment
0.50
0.22
N/A
0.12
N/A
N/A
0.22
N/A
0.27
0.31
0.05
4.60
0.19
2.69
0.30
Employment
867
885
889
889
889
680
889
641
641
680
679
941
919
903
506
Tax
Revenues
($ million)
33.0
24.5
70.0
19.6
10.0
70.0
22.5
N/A
22.4
14.2
36.6
13.3
1.4
11.6
10.2
Percent of
Local Tax
Revenue
28.3
1.4
N/A
43.7
N/A
N/A
31.1
N/A
15.2
63.1
0.4
61.3
0.8
4.8
2.8
N/A = Not available.
Sources: NRC 2015c, NRC 2016d, NRC 2016c, NRC 2018c, NRC 2018d, NRC 2019c, NRC 2020g, NRC 2020f,
NRC 2021f, NRC 2021g, NEI 2015b, NEI 2015c, NEI 2018, NEI 2015a.
6
7
8
9
10
11
Nuclear power plants provide tax revenue to State and local governments, and the 15 nuclear
plants evaluated have tax characteristics similar to those in the 2013 LR GEIS. State and local
tax payments ranged from $1.4 million at the Peach Bottom plant to $70.0 million at both the
South Texas plant and Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (Comanche Peak), averaging
$25.3 million. Differences in tax revenue generated by the nuclear power plants are due to
differences in State and local tax laws, electricity output, plant size, and plant employment.
12
13
14
Additional employment and expenditures occur during refueling and maintenance outages at
each nuclear power plant, when additional workers and services are required for a 1- to 2-month
period. Refueling outages generally occur on a 18- to 24-month cycle.
15
3.8.2
16
17
18
19
Regional economic characteristics can vary depending on the location of the nuclear power
plant. Socioeconomic conditions in the county where the nuclear plant is located are directly
affected by power plant operations as are the counties where the majority of power plant
workers reside.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Many areas have changed since the nuclear power plant was constructed. Residential and
commercial development and the diversification of economic activity in these areas have also
changed the local and regional economic profile. Outdoor recreational activities have changed
the focus of local and regional economic activity and the growth of retirement communities, in
some instances, rivals the importance of traditional economic activities in the vicinity of a
nuclear power plant.
Regional Economic Characteristics
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-88
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
As previously discussed, nuclear power plant operations generate employment, income, and
expenditures in the local economy. These expenditures—payments for goods and services—
create additional opportunities for employment and income in the regional economy. Nuclear
plants are located in one of two regional economic settings: rural or urban.
5
3.8.2.1
Rural Economies
6
7
8
9
10
11
Most nuclear power plants are located in rural areas, where agriculture is the primary economic
activity. Rural areas are considered to have relatively simple economies, without industries that
provide the equipment and services needed to support nuclear plant operations, and with
smaller, less diversified labor markets. A range of other industrial activities, including those
associated with resource extraction, manufacturing, and transportation, provide employment
and income.
12
13
14
15
Nuclear power plants located in rural economies include the Byron, River Bend, Waterford,
Surry, North Anna, Point Beach, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna), Comanche Peak,
South Texas, and Cooper plants. Only 2 of the 10 nuclear plants, Surry and North Anna,
provided 1 percent or more to regional employment.
16
3.8.2.2
17
18
19
20
21
Some nuclear power plants are located in or near urban areas that have more complex
economic activities, a wider range of industries, and larger and more diverse labor markets.
Urban areas may also serve more specialized economic functions, including maritime shipping,
fishing, and boatbuilding; recreation; and tourism. Many also have residential areas with
second homes and retirement communities.
22
23
24
Nuclear power plants located in urban economies include the Braidwood, Fermi, LaSalle,
Turkey Point, and Peach Bottom plants. None of the nuclear plants provided 1 percent or more
to regional employment.
25
3.8.3
26
27
28
29
30
Although most nuclear power plants are situated in rural areas, population densities within 20 mi
(50 km) of most nuclear plant sites are generally high, and most are within 50 mi (80 km) of a
city with a population of at least 100,000 (see Appendix C). Demographics vary around each
nuclear power plant and many are affected by the remoteness of the nuclear plant to regional
population centers.
31
32
33
34
Two measures of remoteness were developed for the LR GEIS—“sparseness” and “proximity”—
which combine demographic data on population density and the distance to larger cities to place
nuclear plants into three population classes (1996 LR GEIS). Population classifications of
15 representative nuclear power plant sites are presented in Table 3.8-2.
Urban Economies
Demographic Characteristics
February 2023
3-89
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
Table 3.8-2
Population
Population Classification of Regions around Selected Nuclear Power Plants
Nuclear Power
Plant
Population
Density Within
20 miles
Sparseness
Measure
Population
Density Within
50 miles
Proximity
Measure
Low
Cooper
12.9
1
19.7
1
Low
South Texas
40.1
2
42.8
1
Low
River Bend
105.7
3
137.0
3
Moderate
Comanche Peak
70.5
3
269.4
4
Moderate
Byron
220.1
4
165.3
3
High
North Anna
149.1
4
296.3
4
High
Point Beach
226.9
4
298.0
4
High
LaSalle
253.2
4
250.9
4
High
Waterford
438.8
4
353.2
4
High
Braidwood
486.8
4
655.8
4
High
Surry
531.3
4
427.2
4
High
Turkey Point
937.3
4
685.4
4
High
Peach Bottom
1,268.5
4
874.8
4
High
Fermi
1,486.7
4
788.2
4
High
Ginna
3,339.3
4
335.7
4
2
Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory calculations based on 2020 decennial census data.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Many communities near a nuclear power plant have transient populations attracted to tourism
and recreational activities, weekend and summer homes, and students attending full-time
colleges and other educational institutions. Nuclear power plants located in coastal regions,
notably D.C. Cook and Palisades plants on Lake Michigan and Brunswick plant on the North
Carolina coast between Wilmington, North Carolina, and Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, have
weekend, summer, and retirement populations and a range of recreational amenities that attract
visitors from nearby metropolitan areas.
10
11
12
13
In addition to transient populations, farms and factories in rural communities often employ
migrant workers on a seasonal basis. For example, berry production near the D.C. Cook and
Palisades plants is a local agricultural activity that employs a sizable migrant labor force in the
summer.
14
3.8.4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Housing in the vicinity of nuclear power plants ranges in the number of housing units and the
type and quality of available housing. Much of the difference is due to the local economy,
population, and income; proximity to metropolitan areas; and recreation, tourism, second
homes, and retirement communities. Although housing demand can be affected by changes in
the number of workers at a nuclear power plant, demand for temporary rental housing increases
during refueling and maintenance outages. This demand affects the availability and cost of
housing. Some workers may occupy motel rooms and other temporary accommodations during
refueling outages which include onsite temporary housing at some nuclear power plants.
Housing and Community Services
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-90
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
Rural communities have smaller housing markets, stable prices for most types of housing, lower
median house values, and stable vacancy rates. Housing markets in urban areas are generally
less stable and feature more turnover, higher prices, and lower vacancy rates. Controls on
housing development are more likely in urban areas, particularly where there is a transient
seasonal population.
Sparseness and Proximity Measures
Sparseness
Most Sparse
1. There are fewer than 40 people/mi2 (15 people/km2) and there is no community with
25,000 or more people within 20 mi (32 km) of the plant.
2. There are 40 to 60 people/mi2 (15 to 23 people/km2) and there is no community with
25,000 or more people within 20 mi (32 km) of the plant.
3. There are 60 to 120 people/mi2 (23 to 46 people/km2) and there is at least one
community with more than 25,000 people/mi2 (10,000 people/km2) within 20 mi
(32 km) of the plant.
Least Sparse
4. There are more than 120 people/mi2 (46 people/km2) within 20 mi (32 km) of the plant.
Proximity
Not in Close Proximity
1. There are fewer than 50 people/mi2 (19 people/km2) and there is no city with more
than 100,000 people within 50 mi (80 km) of the plant.
2. There are 50 to 190 people/mi2 (19 to 73 people/km2) and there is no city with 100,000
people within 50 mi (80 km) of the plant.
3. There are fewer than 190 people/mi2 (73 people/km2) and there are one or more cities
with more than 100,000 people within 50 mi (80 km) of the plant.
In Close Proximity
4. There are more than 190 people/mi2 (73 people/km2) within 50 mi (80 km) of the plant.
Source: Adapted from NUREG/CR-2239.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
3.8.5
Tax Revenue
Nuclear power plants provide tax revenue to State and local governments. Although property
taxes are the most important source of revenue for most communities, other sources of revenue
include taxes on energy production and direct funding from Federal and State governments for
educational facilities and programs. Between 2014 and 2020, State and local taxes paid by the
15 nuclear power plants listed in Table 3.8-1 ranged from $1.4 million at the Peach Bottom plant
to $70 million at the South Texas and Comanche Peak plants, averaging $24.1 million.
Differences in tax revenue are due to variations in State and local tax laws, energy production,
power plant size, and employment. Tax revenue is also used by State, regional, and local
governments to fund education, public safety, services, and transportation networks. Property
taxes paid by nuclear power plant owners contribute more than 50 percent of total property tax
February 2023
3-91
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
revenue in some rural communities (e.g., at the River Bend plant in Louisiana and the Surry
plant in Virginia). Loss of tax revenue can affect the quality and availability of public services.
3
4
5
The deregulation of electricity markets in some States has led to changes in the methods used
to estimate property values at some nuclear power plants. Any changes in tax revenues after
utility deregulation would not occur as a direct result of license renewal (initial LR or SLR).
6
3.8.6
Local Transportation
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Local and regional transportation networks in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant vary
considerably depending on population density, the location and size of communities, economic
development patterns, the power plant’s location relative to interregional transportation
corridors, and land surface features, such as mountains, rivers, and lakes. Commuting patterns
in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant depend on the extent to which these factors limit or
facilitate traffic movement and on the size of the workforce that uses the transportation network
at any given time. Traffic volumes near a nuclear power plant depend on road network
capacity, local traffic patterns, and the availability of alternate routes. Because most nuclear
power plants have only one access road, congestion on this road may occur during shift
changes.
17
3.9
18
3.9.1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Radiological exposures from nuclear power plants include offsite doses to members of the
public and onsite doses to the workforce. Each of these impacts is common to all commercial
U.S. reactors. The AEA requires the NRC to promulgate, inspect, and enforce standards that
provide an adequate level of protection for public health and safety and the environment. The
NRC continuously evaluates the latest radiation protection recommendations from international
and national scientific bodies to establish the requirements for nuclear power plant licensees.
The NRC has established multiple layers of radiation protection limits to protect the public
against potential health risks from exposure to effluent discharges from nuclear power plant
operations. If the licensees exceed a certain fraction of these dose levels in a calendar quarter,
they are required to notify the NRC, investigate the cause, and initiate corrective actions within
the specified time frame. Section 3.9.1.1 discusses regulatory requirements at nuclear power
plants. Sections 3.9.1.2 and 3.9.1.3 discuss occupational and public exposure, respectively.
These sections evaluate the performance of licensees in implementing these requirements, and
they compare the doses and releases with permissible levels. Risk estimates are provided in
Section 3.9.1.4.
34
3.9.1.1
35
36
37
38
Nuclear power reactors in the United States must be licensed by the NRC and must comply with
NRC regulations and conditions specified in the license in order to operate. The licensees are
required to comply with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart C, “Occupational Dose Limits for Adults,” and
10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D, “Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public.”
39
3.9.1.1.1 Regulatory Requirements for Occupational Exposure
40
10 CFR 20.1201 establishes occupational dose limits (see Table 3.9-1).
Human Health
Radiological Exposure and Risk
Regulatory Requirements
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-92
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
Table 3.9-1
Occupational Dose Limits for Adults Established by 10 CFR Part 20
Dose Limit(a)
Tissue
2
3
4
5
Whole-body or any individual
organ or tissue other than the
lens of the eye
More limiting of 5 rem/yr TEDE to whole-body or 50 rem/yr sum of
the deep dose equivalent and the committed dose equivalent to
any individual organ or tissue other than the lens of the eye
Lens of the eye
15 rem/yr dose equivalent
Extremities, including skin
50 rem/yr shallow dose equivalent
rem/yr = rem per year; TEDE = total effective dose equivalent.
(a) See table below for definitions.
Note: To convert rem to sievert, multiply by 0.01.
Source: 10 CFR Part 20
Definitions of Dosimetry Terms
•
Total effective dose equivalent (TEDE): Sum of the dose equivalent (for external
exposure) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposure).
•
Committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE): Sum of the products of the weighting
factors for body organs or tissues that are irradiated and the committed dose equivalent
to these organs or tissues.
•
Deep dose equivalent: Applies to external whole-body exposure and is the dose
equivalent at a tissue depth of 1 cm.
•
Committed dose equivalent: Dose equivalent to organs or tissues from an intake of
radioactive material for the 50-year period following the intake.
•
Dose equivalent: Product of the absorbed dose in the tissue, quality factor, and all other
necessary modifying factors at the location of interest.
•
Shallow dose equivalent: Applies to the external exposure of the skin, as the dose
equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.007 cm averaged over an area of 1 cm2.
•
Organ dose: Dose received as a result of radiation energy absorbed in a specific organ.
•
Total body dose or whole-body dose: Sum of the dose received from external
exposure to the total body, gonads, active blood-forming organs, head and trunk, or lens
of the eye and the dose due to the intake of radionuclides by inhalation and ingestion,
where a radioisotope is uniformly distributed throughout the body tissues rather than
being concentrated in certain parts.
6
7
8
Under 10 CFR 20.2206, the NRC requires licensees to submit an annual report of the results of
individual monitoring carried out by the licensee for each individual for whom monitoring was
required by 10 CFR 20.1502 during that year.
9
10
11
12
13
14
Under 10 CFR 20.2202 and 10 CFR 20.2203, the NRC requires all licensees to submit reports
of all occurrences involving personnel radiation exposures that exceed certain control levels.
The control levels are used to investigate occurrences and to take corrective actions as
necessary. Depending on the magnitude of the exposure, the occurrence reporting is required
immediately, within 24 hours, or within 30 days. On the basis of the reporting requirement, the
control levels can be placed in one of three categories (A, B, or C), as follows (NRC 2020i):
February 2023
3-93
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
•
Category A, immediate notification. A TEDE of 25 rem or more to any individual, an eye
dose equivalent of 75 rem or more, or a shallow dose equivalent to the skin or extremities of
250 rad or more (10 CFR 20.2202(a)(1)).
4
5
6
•
Category B, notification within 24 hours. A TEDE of 5 rem or more to any individual, an eye
dose equivalent of 15 rem or more, or a shallow dose equivalent to the skin or extremities of
50 rem or more (10 CFR 20.2202(b)(1)).
7
8
9
•
Category C, written report within 30 days. Any incident for which notification was required
and doses or releases that exceed the limits in the license set by the NRC or EPA
(10 CFR 20.2203).
10
3.9.1.1.2 Regulatory Requirements for Public Exposure
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 identify maximum allowable concentrations of radionuclides
that can be released from a licensed facility into the air and water above background levels at
the boundary of unrestricted areas to control radiation exposures of the public and releases of
radioactivity. These concentrations are derived on the basis of an annual TEDE of 0.1 rem to
individual members of the public. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36a, nuclear power
reactors have special license conditions called technical specifications for radioactive gaseous
and liquid releases from the plant that are required to minimize the radiological impacts
associated with plant operations to levels that are ALARA.
19
20
21
Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical values on dose-design objectives for
operation of LWRs to meet the ALARA requirement. The design objective doses for Appendix I
are summarized here in Table 3.9-2.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
In addition to keeping within NRC requirements, nuclear power plant releases to the
environment must comply with EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 190, “Environmental Radiation
Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” These standards specify limits on the
annual dose equivalent from normal operations of uranium fuel-cycle facilities (except mining,
waste disposal operations, transportation, and reuse of recovered non-uranium special nuclear
and by-product materials). The standards are given in Table 3.9-3. Radon and its daughters
are covered by Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 192 (the conforming NRC regulations are in
Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40.
30
31
Table 3.9-2 Design Objectives and Annual Standards on Doses to the General Public
from Nuclear Power Plants(a) from Appendix I to 10 CFR 50
Tissue
Gaseous Effluents
Total body, mrem
5
Any organ (all pathways), mrem
(b)
Ground-level air dose,
Any organ
(c)
mrad
(all pathways), mrem
Skin, mrem
32
33
34
35
36
37
(b)
Liquid Effluents
3
N/A
10
10 (gamma) and 20 (beta)
N/A
15
N/A
15
N/A
mrem = millirem; mrad = millirad; N/A = not applicable.
(a) Calculated doses.
(b) The ground-level air dose has always been limiting because an occupancy factor cannot be used. The 5-mrem
total body objective could be limiting only in the case of high occupancy near the restricted area boundary.
(c) Particulates, radioiodines.
Source: 10 CFR Part 50.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-94
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
Table 3.9-3
Design Objectives and Annual Standards on Doses to the General Public
from Nuclear Power Plants(a) from 40 CFR 190, Subpart B
Tissue
Whole-body,
Thyroid,
(b)
(b)
mrem
mrem
Any other organ,(b) mrem
3
4
5
6
Gaseous Effluents
Liquid Effluents
25
N/A
75
N/A
25
N/A
mrem = millirem; N/A = not applicable.
(a) Calculated doses.
(b) All effluents and direct radiation except radon and its daughters.
Source: 40 CFR Part 190.
7
8
9
10
11
12
EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 61, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,”
apply only to airborne releases. The EPA specified an annual effective dose equivalent limit of
10 mrem for airborne releases from nuclear power plants; however, no more than 3 mrem can
be caused by any isotope of iodine. However, the EPA later rescinded Subpart I of 40 CFR Part
61 as it applies to nuclear reactors based on the EPA’s determination that the NRC’s
regulations provide an ‘ample margin of safety’ (60 FR 46206 1995).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Experience with the design, construction, and operation of nuclear power reactors indicates that
compliance with the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 will keep average annual
releases of radioactive material in effluents at small percentages of the limits specified in
10 CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 190. At the same time, the licensee is given the flexibility in
operations, compatible with considerations of health and safety, to ensure that the public is
provided with a dependable source of power, even under unusual operating conditions that
might temporarily result in releases that were higher than such small percentages but still well
within the regulatory limits.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Another 10 CFR Part 20 requirement is that the sum of the external and internal doses (i.e., in
TEDE) for a member of the public shall not exceed 100 mrem/yr. This value is an annual limit
and is not intended to be applied as a long-term average goal. The dose limits in 10 CFR
Part 20 are based on the methodology described in International Commission on Radiological
Protection (ICRP) Publication 26 (ICRP 1977). The radiation levels at any unrestricted area
should not exceed 2 mrem in any one hour. As stated in 10 CFR 20.1302(b), licensees comply
with the 100-mrem limit for individual members of the public by (1) demonstrating by
measurement or calculation that the dose to the individual likely to receive the highest dose
from sources under the licensee’s control does not exceed the annual dose limit or (2) that the
annual average concentrations of radioactive material released in gaseous and liquid effluents
at the boundary of the unrestricted area do not exceed the levels specified in Table 2 of 10 CFR
Part 20, Appendix B; and at the unrestricted area boundary, the dose from external sources
would not exceed 2 mrem in any given hour and 50 mrem in a single year. The concentration
values given in Table 2 of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20 are equivalent to the radionuclide
concentrations that, if inhaled or ingested continuously in a year, would produce a TEDE of
50 mrem. Nuclear power reactors, as discussed earlier in this section, are subject to additional
regulatory controls which maintain doses to members of the public to the ALARA dose-design
objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
February 2023
3-95
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
3.9.1.2
Occupational Radiological Exposures
2
3
4
5
6
7
This section provides an evaluation of the radiological impacts on nuclear power plant workers.
This evaluation extends to all nuclear power reactors. The data in this section are generally
sourced from NUREG-0713 Volume 40 (NRC 2020i), which provides data through 2018. In
2018, there were 98 operating reactors in the United States, and all were LWRs; among them
33 are BWRs and 65 are PWRs. Currently (as of 2022), there are 92 operating reactors in the
United States, and all are LWRs. Among them, 31 are BWRs and 61 are PWRs (NRC 2021c).
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Plant workers conducting activities involving radioactively contaminated systems or working in
radiation areas can be exposed to radiation. Individual occupational doses are measured by
NRC licensees as required by the basic NRC radiation protection standard, 10 CFR Part 20
(see Section 3.9.1.1). Most of the occupational radiation dose to nuclear plant workers results
from external radiation exposure rather than from internal exposure from inhaled or ingested
radioactive materials. Workers also receive radiation exposure during the storage and handling
of radioactive waste and during the inspection of stored radioactive waste. However, this
source of exposure is small compared with other sources of exposure at operating nuclear
plants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Table 3.9-4 shows the radiation exposure data from all commercial U.S. nuclear power plants
for the years 2006 through 2018. The year 2006 was chosen as a starting date because the
dose data for years before 2006 were presented in the 2013 LR GEIS and the 1996 LR GEIS.
For each year, the number of reactors, the number of workers receiving measurable exposures,
the collective dose13 for all reactors combined, and the number of individuals receiving a dose in
the range of 4 to 5 rem are given. Data indicate that no worker received a dose in the range of
4 to 5 rem from 2006 to 2018. The collective dose has been about 11,000 person-rem or less
since 2006 and shows a decreasing trend.
25
26
Table 3.9-4
Occupational Whole-Body Dose Data at U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power
Plants
Calendar
Year
2006
Number of Workers with
Measurable Dose
80,265
Collective Dose
(person-rem)
11,021
Number of
Licensees
104
Number of Workers in
the Range of 4 to 5
0
2007
79,530
10,120
104
0
2008
79,450
9,196
104
0
2009
81,754
10,025
104
0
2010
75,010
8,631
104
0
2011
81,321
8,771
104
0
2012
79,549
8,035
104
0
2013
67,236
6,760
100
0
2014
70,847
7,125
100
0
2015
70,798
7,019
99
0
2016
59,353
5,366
99
0
2017
64,761
6,417
99
0
13
The collective dose is the sum of all personal doses and is expressed as person-rem.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-96
February 2023
Affected Environment
Calendar
Year
2018
1
2
Number of Workers with
Measurable Dose
61,014
Collective Dose
(person-rem)
5,829
Number of
Licensees
98
Number of Workers in
the Range of 4 to 5
0
Note: To convert rem to sievert (Sv), multiply by 0.01.
Source: NRC 2020i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Table 3.9-5 and Table 3.9-6 show the occupational dose history (2006 to 2018) for all
commercial U.S. reactors. Average measurable occupational dose and annual collective
occupational dose information are presented for plants that operated between 2006 and 2018.
For the period from 2006 to 2018, the annual average measurable dose per plant worker has
shown decreasing trends for both PWRs and BWRs. During 2018, at all operating nuclear
power plants, the annual average individual dose was 0.1 rem compared with an exposure limit
of 5 rem. The average collective occupational exposure for the year 2018 was roughly
1.11 person-Sv (111 person-rem) per plant at BWRs and about 0.34 person-Sv (34 person-rem)
per plant at PWRs. For the years 2016 to 2018, the average collective occupational
exposure for the BWRs was 1.09 person-Sv (109 person-rem) per plant, and for the PWRs,
it was 0.34 person-Sv (34 person-rem) (Table 3.9-6).
14
15
16
Table 3.9-7 and Table 3.9-8 show the 3-year collective dose per reactor, number of workers
with measurable doses, and average dose per worker for BWRs and PWRs, respectively, for
the years 2016 to 2018.
17
18
Table 3.9-5
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Annual Average Measurable Occupational Dose per Individual for U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in rem
BWR
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.12
PWR
0.13
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
LWR
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.10
0.10
19
20
BWR = boiling water reactor; PWR = pressurized water reactor; LWR = light water reactor.
Source: NRC 2020i
21
22
Table 3.9-6
Year
2006
2007
2008
February 2023
Annual Average Collective Occupational Dose for U.S. Commercial
Nuclear Power Plants in person-rem
BWR
143
154
129
PWR
87
69
68
3-97
LWR
106
97
88
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
BWR
151
137
142
120
127
109
122
98
118
111
PWR
69
55
55
56
35
51
44
31
37
34
LWR
96
83
84
77
68
71
71
54
65
59
1
2
BWR = boiling water reactor; PWR = pressurized water reactor; LWR = light water reactor.
Source: NRC 2020i
3
4
5
Deviations higher than these averages in the table are routinely experienced, depending largely
on whether a plant had an outage during a given year and the nature and extent of
refurbishment or repair activities undertaken during outages.
6
7
Table 3.9-7
Collective and Individual Worker Doses at Boiling Water Reactors from
2016 to 2018
Nuclear Power Plant
Browns Ferry 1, 2, 3
Brunswick 1, 2
Clinton
Columbia Generating
Cooper Station
Dresden 2, 3
Duane Arnold
Fermi 2
FitzPatrick
Grand Gulf
Hatch 1, 2
Hope Creek 1
Lasalle 1, 2
Limerick 1, 2
Monticello
Nine Mile Point 1, 2
Peach Bottom 2, 3
Perry
Pilgrim 1
Quad Cities 1, 2
River Bend 1
Reactor
Years
9
6
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
3
6
3
6
6
3
6
6
3
3
6
3
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Three-year Collective
TEDE per Reactor
Year 2016-2018
(person-rem)
139.255
94.421
88.537
83.386
119.565
64.987
68.644
216.286
140.683
133.971
77.276
107.282
209.774
71.931
57.866
130.573
96.229
131.318
82.006
79.658
137.909
3-98
Number of
Workers with
Measurable
TEDE
9,285
5,047
2,958
2,804
2,686
5,689
2,053
5,377
2,969
3,282
4,092
3,666
8,400
5,110
1,401
4,985
5,593
2,017
2,966
5,441
2,605
Average TEDE
per Worker
(rem)
0.135
0.112
0.090
0.089
0.134
0.069
0.100
0.121
0.142
0.122
0.113
0.088
0.150
0.084
0.124
0.157
0.103
0.195
0.083
0.088
0.159
February 2023
Affected Environment
Nuclear Power Plant
Susquehanna 1, 2
Reactor
Years
6
1
2
3
TEDE = total effective dose equivalent.
Source: NRC 2020i
Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.
4
5
Table 3.9-8
Number of
Workers with
Measurable
TEDE
5,007
Average TEDE
per Worker
(rem)
0.110
Collective and Individual Worker Doses at Pressurized Water Reactors from
2016 through 2018
Nuclear Power Plant(a)
Arkansas 1, 2
Beaver Valley 1, 2
Braidwood 1, 2
Byron 1, 2
Callaway 1
Calvert Cliffs 1, 2
Catawba 1, 2
Comanche Peak 1, 2
D.C. Cook 1, 2
Davis-Besse 1
Diablo Canyon 1, 2
Farley 1, 2
Ginna
Harris 1
Indian Point 2, 3
McGuire 1, 2
Millstone 2, 3
North Anna 1, 2
Oconee 1, 2, 3
Palisades
Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
Point Beach 1, 2
Prairie Island 1, 2
Robinson 2
Salem 1, 2
Seabrook
Sequoyah 1, 2
South Texas 1, 2
St. Lucie 1, 2
Summer 1
Surry 1, 2
Three Mile Island 1
Turkey Point 3, 4
Vogtle 1, 2
Waterford 3
February 2023
Three-year Collective
TEDE per Reactor
Year 2016-2018
(person-rem)
91.689
Reactor
Years
6
6
6
6
3
6
6
6
6
3
6
6
3
3
6
6
6
6
9
3
9
6
6
3
6
3
6
6
6
3
6
3
6
6
3
Three-year Collective
TEDE per Reactor
Year 2016-2018
(person-rem)
55.664
28.776
29.911
27.836
24.565
31.945
32.773
33.220
32.038
57.032
19.610
21.258
25.329
25.276
43.977
42.541
40.472
36.845
16.433
122.031
17.754
31.334
20.022
41.480
46.256
21.427
45.732
26.319
43.445
34.140
36.714
34.047
39.260
30.981
21.750
3-99
Number of
Workers with
Measurable
TEDE
5,454
2,448
2,711
2,779
1,240
2,465
2,853
2,240
2,990
1,807
2,312
2,124
1,155
1,295
4,580
3,689
2,751
2,583
3,286
1,927
3,390
1,791
1,822
1,974
3,374
1,047
3,331
1,749
3,204
1,752
2,596
1,396
2,676
2,357
1,247
Average TEDE
per Worker
(rem)
0.061
0.071
0.066
0.060
0.059
0.078
0.069
0.089
0.064
0.095
0.051
0.060
0.066
0.059
0.058
0.069
0.088
0.086
0.045
0.190
0.047
0.105
0.066
0.063
0.082
0.061
0.082
0.090
0.081
0.058
0.085
0.073
0.088
0.079
0.052
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
Nuclear Power Plant(a)
Watts Bar 1, 2(b)
Wolf Creek 1
Totals and Averages
Average per Reactor-Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Reactor
Years
5(b)
3
194
-
Three-year Collective
TEDE per Reactor
Year 2016-2018
(person-rem)
23.416
55.650
33.992
Number of
Workers with
Measurable
TEDE
2,042
2,792
91,229
470
Average TEDE
per Worker
(rem)
0.057
0.060
0.072
-
TEDE = total effective dose equivalent.
(a) Sites where not all reactors had completed 3 full years of commercial operation as of December 31, 2018, are
not included.
(b) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Watts Bar) 2 came online in October of 2016 and even though the unit has not
completed 3 full years of commercial operation as of December 31, 2018, it is included in the total because
Watts Bar 1 and 2 report together.
No entry has been denoted by “-”.
Source: NRC 2020i.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
To identify trends, Figure 3.9-1 and Figure 3.9-2 provide the average and median values of the
annual collective dose per reactor for BWRs and PWRs for the years 1994 through 2018. The
reported ranges of the values are shown by the vertical lines that extend to the minimum and
maximum observed values. The rectangles indicate the range of values of the collective dose
exhibited by those plants ranked in the 25th through the 75th percentiles. The median values
do not normally fluctuate as much as the average values from year to year because they are not
affected as much by the extreme values of the collective doses. The median collective dose
was 28 person-rem for PWRs and 89 person-rem for BWRs in 2018. Figure 3.9-1 also shows
that, in 2018, 50 percent of the PWRs reported collective doses between 19 and 44 person-rem,
while 50 percent of the BWRs reported collective doses between 70 and 167 person-rem (NRC
2020i).
20
21
22
Table 3.9-9 and Table 3.9-10 presents the average, maximum, and minimum collective and
individual occupational doses for all commercial nuclear power plants operating between 2006
and 2018.
23
24
25
26
For PWRs, the maximum variation in collective dose and annual average occupational dose
was observed for Palisades. From 2006 to 2018, the collective dose varied from 6 to
486 person-rem, and the annual average occupational dose varied from 0.04 to 0.39 rem. The
collective dose values were calculated per reactor rather than per site.
27
28
29
30
For BWRs, the maximum variation in collective dose and annual average occupational dose
was observed for Perry. From 2006 to 2018, the collective dose varied from 30 to 615 personrem and the annual average occupational dose was it varied from 0.10 to 0.34 rem. The
collective dose values were calculated per reactor rather than per site.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-100
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
Figure 3.9-1
February 2023
Average, Median, and Extreme Values of the Collective Dose per Boiling
Water Reactors Reactor from 1994 to 2018. Source: NRC 2020i.
3-101
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
Figure 3.9-2
Average, Median, and Extreme Values of the Collective Dose per
Pressurized Water Reactor from 1994 to 2018. Source: NRC 2020i.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-102
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
Table 3.9-9 Annual Collective Dose and Annual Occupational Dose for Pressurized
Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants from 2006 through 2018
3
4
5
6
7
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Collective
Collective
Collective
Annual
Annual
Annual
Dose
Dose
Dose
Average
Maximum
Minimum
(person-rem/ (person-rem/
(personOccupational Occupational Occupational
PWR Plant
reactor)(a)
reactor)(a)
rem/reactor)(a) Dose (rem)
Dose (rem)
Dose (rem)
Arkansas 1, 2
54
98
22
0.07
0.12
0.05
Beaver Valley 1, 2
53
185
21
0.09
0.17
0.06
Braidwood
44
100
16
0.07
0.12
0.05
Byron 1, 2
46
122
13
0.08
0.13
0.04
Callaway 1
33
80
3
0.06
0.10
0.03
Calvert Cliffs 1, 2
47
102
23
0.11
0.17
0.06
Catawba 1, 2
49
106
16
0.08
0.12
0.05
Comanche Peak 1, 2
47
110
18
0.09
0.16
0.05
D.C. Cook 1, 2
48
156
15
0.09
0.18
0.05
Crystal River 3(b)
38
222
1
0.06
0.16
0.02
Davis-Besse 1
98
464
1
0.09
0.28
0.02
Diablo Canyon 1, 2
48
169
14
0.07
0.13
0.04
Farley 1, 2
29
70
15
0.07
0.11
0.05
Fort Calhoun(b)
61
289
3
0.08
0.18
0.03
Ginna
39
102
2
0.07
0.11
0.02
Harris 1
43
87
0
0.06
0.10
0.02
Indian Point 2, 3(b)
59
145
30
0.08
0.18
0.04
Kewaunee(b)
51
93
5
0.08
0.16
0.02
McGuire 1, 2
51
83
20
0.07
0.11
0.05
Millstone 2, 3
63
136
32
0.12
0.19
0.07
North Anna 1, 2
53
155
22
0.11
0.20
0.07
Oconee 1, 2, 3
46
84
12
0.08
0.13
0.04
Palisades
182
486
6
0.19
0.39
0.04
Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
30
53
14
0.06
0.10
0.04
Point Beach 1, 2
42
80
20
0.12
0.17
0.08
Prairie Island 1, 2
36
69
3
0.09
0.13
0.05
Robinson 2
46
86
3
0.06
0.09
0.03
Salem 1, 2
53
164
17
0.07
0.10
0.04
San Onofre(b)
46
158
0
0.07
0.19
0.01
Seabrook
44
96
2
0.05
0.08
0.01
Sequoyah 1, 2
62
145
22
0.09
0.14
0.06
South Texas 1, 2
43
94
16
0.10
0.16
0.07
St. Lucie 1, 2
81
205
36
0.11
0.17
0.08
Summer 1
44
111
2
0.06
0.12
0.02
Surry 1, 2
66
117
22
0.12
0.19
0.07
Three Mile Island 1
74
242
2
0.07
0.12
0.03
Turkey Point 3, 4
55
121
26
0.09
0.12
0.07
Vogtle 1, 2
46
78
23
0.10
0.13
0.07
Waterford 3
84
260
1
0.07
0.17
0.01
Watts Bar 1, 2
31
161
1
0.06
0.16
0.02
Wolf Creek 1
62
134
3
0.06
0.12
0.01
(a) The collective dose per reactor was calculated by dividing the “Collective Dose per Site” by the number of
reactors on the site.
(b) Indicates nuclear power plants that have been shut down.
Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.
Source: NRC 2020i.
February 2023
3-103
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table 3.9-10 Annual Collective Dose and Annual Occupational Dose for Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants from
2006 through 2018
BWR Plant
3-104
Browns Ferry 1, 2, 3
Brunswick 1, 2
Clinton
Columbia
Cooper Station
Dresden 1, 2, 3
Duane Arnold
Fermi 2
FitzPatrick
Grand Gulf
Hatch 1, 2
Hope Creek 1
LaSalle 1, 2
Limerick 1, 2
Monticello
Nine Mile Point 1, 2
Oyster Creek
Peach Bottom 2, 3
Perry
Pilgrim 1
Quad Cities 1, 2
River Bend 1
Susquehanna 1, 2
Vermont Yankee
February 2023
3
4
5
6
Average
Collective Dose
(person-rem/
reactor)(a)
Maximum
Collective Dose
(person-rem/
reactor)(a)
Minimum
Collective Dose
(person-rem/
reactor)(a)
Annual
Average
Occupational
Dose (rem)
Annual
Maximum
Occupational
Dose (rem)
Annual
Minimum
Occupational
Dose (rem)
145
148
119
150
173
61
85
153
120
121
87
119
171
82
101
137
99
152
220
118
120
147
101
101
214
204
296
336
360
96
201
329
234
276
130
191
285
117
237
204
212
242
615
264
280
312
133
214
96
84
14
27
28
39
16
24
21
21
42
25
109
61
29
71
18
89
30
22
71
16
74
13
0.16
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.13
0.09
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.12
0.07
0.15
0.10
0.13
0.17
0.11
0.14
0.19
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.20
0.14
0.18
0.16
0.21
0.14
0.18
0.13
0.16
0.13
0.18
0.09
0.20
0.15
0.18
0.23
0.14
0.20
0.34
0.20
0.24
0.18
0.14
0.19
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.10
(a) The collective dose per reactor was calculated by dividing the “Collective Dose per Site” by the number of reactors on the site.
Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.
Source: NRC 2020i.
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1
2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Table 3.9-11 and Table 3.9-12 show the annual collective occupational dose for all commercial
nuclear power plants operating between 2006 to 2018 and Table 3.9-13 and Table 3.9-14 show
the annual individual average occupational dose for PWR and BWR commercial nuclear power
plants operating between 2006 to 2018. The year 2006 was chosen as a starting date because
the dose data for years prior to 2006 were presented in the 2013 LR GEIS and the 1996 LR
GEIS. From 2006 to 2018, operating nuclear power plants would have gone through many
refueling outages, 5-year ISI, 10-year ISI, and also some refurbishment activities. To check for
trends, data were divided into two time frames: from 2006 to 2012 and from 2013 to 2018. The
averages for these two time frames were calculated and compared. The yearly average
collective dose from 2013 to 2018 was lower than the dose from 2006 to 2012. For a few
nuclear power plants, the average annual collective dose from 2013 to 2018 was higher, but in
all cases, the yearly average occupational dose was less than 0.39 rem. The yearly average
occupational dose was lower from 2013 to 2018 than from 2006 to 2012.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
The data in Table 3.9-11, Table 3.9-12, Table 3.9-13, and Table 3.9-14 show that although
there are variations from year to year, there is no consistent trend that shows that occupational
doses are increasing over time. The average, maximum, and minimum collective occupational
doses are presented in Table 3.9-15 and Table 3.9-16 for plants operated between 2014 to
2018. The average collective doses, however, are based on widely varying yearly doses. For
example, between 2014 to 2018, annual collective doses for operating PWRs ranged from 1 to
486 person-rem; for operating BWRs, they ranged from 16 to 387 person-rem.
21
22
23
24
Average, maximum, and minimum individual occupational doses per reactor type are presented
in Table 3.9-17 and Table 3.9-18 for plants that operated between 2006 and 2018. From 2006
through 2018, the annual dose per plant worker for operating PWRs ranged from 0.0 to
0.43 rem; for operating BWRs, it ranged from 0.03 to 0.34 rem.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Table 3.9-19 provides the distribution of individual whole-body doses for 2018. The dose
distribution indicates that no worker received doses greater than 3 rem in 2018. Only 1 worker
received a whole-body dose exceeding 2 rem during 2018. At BWRs, less than 0.003 percent
of the workers received doses greater than 2 rem. At PWRs, no worker received a dose greater
than 2 rem, and about 0.1 percent of the workers received a dose greater than 1 rem.
Figure 3.9-3 shows the collective dose distribution by dose range for all commercial U.S.
reactors from 2014 to 2018. The distribution of collective dose has been fairly constant over the
past 5 years.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
As mentioned in Section 3.9.1.1, under 10 CFR 20.2206, the NRC requires licensees to submit
an annual report of the results of individual monitoring. In addition to reporting data on external
exposures, licensees are required to report information about internal exposures. Licensees are
required to list for each intake, the radionuclide, pulmonary clearance class, intake mode, and
amount of the intake in microcuries. Eleven intakes by ingestion were reported by licensees
during 2018 (5 for cobalt-60, 4 for manganese-54, and 2 for zinc-65). Fifty-five intakes were
reported for the inhalation mode in 2018 (10 for cobalt-60, 10 for cobalt-58,1 for americium-241,
33 for iodine-131, and 1 niobium-95) (NRC 2020i). Table 3.9-20 lists the number of individuals
with measurable CEDE, collective CEDE, and average measurable CEDE per individual as
reported by different nuclear power reactor stations.
February 2023
3-105
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table 3.9-11 Annual Collective Dose for Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Nuclear Power Plants from 2006 through 2018
(person-rem/reactor)
3-106
February 2023
No. of
Reactors Nuclear Power Plant
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2
2
Arkansas 1, 2
Beaver Valley 1, 2
72
185
53
43
98
42
51
11
50
25
58
36
22
63
25
21
36
31
68
48
56
22
43
27
68
37
1
2
1
2
Braidwood
Byron 1, 2
Callaway 1
Calvert Cliffs 1, 2
199
67
6
102
98
64
73
77
103
70
46
37
142
42
5
48
64
28
59
64
70
122
80
48
168
25
5
58
32
29
43
31
42
40
37
31
52
21
3
23
40
27
47
43
79
44
24
25
61
13
3
28
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
Catawba 1, 2
Comanche Peak 1, 2
D.C. Cook 1, 2
Crystal River 3
Davis-Besse 1
Diablo Canyon 1, 2
Farley 1, 2
Fort Calhoun
Ginna
Harris 1
Indian Point 2, 3
Kewaunee
106
30
156
4
204
41
33
289
45
87
145
75
72
110
119
185
7
56
70
4
4
65
55
11
43
84
38
16
107
118
20
96
102
10
71
93
85
26
20
222
4
169
21
111
42
41
40
56
49
35
42
32
464
63
61
10
3
83
100
5
26
77
29
8
73
16
19
79
101
5
32
79
47
33
25
2
43
22
15
39
55
80
55
39
41
23
52
1
3
14
27
64
3
55
37
5
25
70
27
1
200
34
19
5
58
1
71
2
49
21
15
1
1
29
28
76
24
58
30
0
39
18
47
15
118
19
30
11
2
44
36
0
16
60
29
4
2
24
16
3
46
0
51
6
44
21
20
1
51
16
18
7
28
32
44
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
2
McGuire 1, 2
Millstone 2, 3
North Anna 1, 2
Oconee 1, 2, 3
Palisades
Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
Point Beach 1, 2
54
87
41
74
240
51
20
78
82
155
84
257
50
26
83
136
31
62
23
53
72
40
80
39
60
267
33
47
41
41
91
64
220
38
48
60
85
45
61
22
20
80
31
37
53
44
245
20
35
55
32
61
35
16
31
32
69
80
36
36
486
20
64
25
32
22
23
231
19
24
34
32
60
18
6
22
29
74
56
22
12
154
18
44
20
33
28
19
206
14
22
2
1
Prairie Island 1, 2
Robinson 2
69
3
3
81
63
68
27
7
27
86
29
4
60
65
65
81
35
29
31
56
24
4
17
59
19
62
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1
2
February 2023
3-107
No. of
Reactors Nuclear Power Plant
2
Salem 1, 2
2006
45
2007
59
2008
164
2009
51
2010
39
2011
63
2012
24
2013
30
2014
55
2015
17
2016
47
2017
68
2018
25
2
1
2
2
2
San Onofre
Seabrook
Sequoyah 1, 2
South Texas 1, 2
St. Lucie 1, 2
158
77
121
75
60
46
4
62
46
205
63
75
42
94
56
89
87
83
40
66
100
4
28
40
99
15
66
55
70
148
111
54
145
25
93
3
2
22
30
37
1
40
39
17
61
1
96
68
42
94
1
2
53
16
38
0
29
24
28
36
12
33
61
35
56
1
Summer 1
61
3
49
56
2
32
82
5
111
65
3
50
49
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
Surry 1, 2
Three Mile Island 1
Turkey Point 3, 4
Vogtle 1, 2
Waterford 3
Watts Bar 1, 2
Wolf Creek 1
117
5
75
58
110
161
97
104
114
54
60
20
2
4
75
2
49
69
134
35
95
97
242
83
40
255
32
74
56
39
43
45
5
3
11
57
130
31
59
100
26
134
84
13
121
30
260
31
8
34
126
41
39
3
1
111
29
13
57
78
69
14
28
91
171
40
30
66
32
75
22
17
38
29
3
2
91
29
83
54
40
61
38
3
59
3
26
23
1
18
73
1
2
Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.
Source: NRC 2020i.
3
4
Table 3.9-12 Annual Collective Dose for Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants from 2006 through 2018 (personrem/reactor)
Nuclear Power
Plant
Browns Ferry 1, 2, 3
Brunswick 1, 2
Clinton
Columbia
Cooper Station
Dresden 1, 2, 3
Duane Arnold
Fermi 2
FitzPatrick
Grand Gulf
2006
214
140
296
56
270
96
29
181
234
60
2007
185
145
31
306
50
92
184
194
59
178
2008
161
177
205
55
360
66
24
35
185
168
2009
116
175
48
305
254
77
140
149
35
31
2010
186
204
220
55
61
71
201
146
220
188
2011
99
191
228
336
349
79
30
24
35
21
2012
155
185
14
45
279
47
135
145
170
276
2013
128
181
129
224
36
46
16
26
39
35
2014
130
131
18
34
203
39
122
200
136
182
2015
96
115
98
289
28
46
20
235
21
25
2016
135
84
33
27
196
47
111
55
28
195
2017
117
108
155
180
30
43
17
265
162
40
2018
166
92
78
43
133
40
78
329
232
167
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
No. of
Reactors
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3-108
1
2
3
4
5
Nuclear Power
Plant
Hatch 1, 2
Hope Creek 1
LaSalle 1, 2
Limerick 1, 2
Monticello
Nine Mile Point 1, 2
Oyster Creek
Peach Bottom 2, 3
Perry
Pilgrim 1
Quad Cities 1, 2
River Bend 1
Susquehanna 1, 2
Vermont Yankee
2006
130
134
124
97
33
115
190
124
65
44
280
214
92
50
Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.
Sources: NRC 2020i.
(a) NRC 2019f, data missing from Vol 40.
2007
69
191
114
99
191
165
47
192
505
241
125
131
132
171
2008
95
35
109
88
44
151
212
106
52
23
137
312
96
214
2009
93
169
148
117
174
119
37
155
615
264
159
219
133
61
2010
123
161
192
84
56
188
206
110
32
26
121
40
88
206
2011
88
25
170
92
237
122
47
195
308
241
144
211
84
176
2012
96
154
112
80
39
204
165
153
43
22
97
34
88
45(a)
2013
70
151
192
67
199
109
30
242
374
176
96
188
117
170
2014
95
37
183
69
35
132
145
215
85
37
78
16
107
21
2015
42
170
251
62
130
80
23
198
387
219
85
128
103
50
2016
111
140
169
63
29
128
134
101
36
44
71
71
119
13
2017
51
32
285
92
116
71
18
99
328
163
87
273
83
14
2018
70
150
175
61
29
193
38
89
40
39
81
70
74
18
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
No. of
Reactors
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
February 2023
February 2023
1
2
Table 3.9-13 Annual Average Measurable Occupational Doses at Pressurized Water Reactor Commercial Nuclear Power
Plant Sites from 2006 through 2018 (in rem)
3-109
2006
0.12
0.17
0.01
0.12
0.12
0.03
0.17
0.12
0.09
0.18
0.03
0.15
0.08
0.09
0.18
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.04
0.18
0.14
0.09
0.15
0.15
0.11
0.12
0.27
0.10
0.09
2007
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.13
0.10
0.14
0.18
0.16
0.04
0.09
0.11
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.07
0.01
0.06
0.08
0.43
0.11
0.03
0.14
0.20
0.13
0.24
0.06
0.10
2008
0.11
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.10
0.08
0.16
0.08
0.06
0.11
0.11
0.06
0.11
0.10
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.10
0.16
0.04
0.01
0.10
0.19
0.08
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.15
2009
0.09
0.15
0.10
0.08
0.03
0.11
0.12
0.05
0.06
0.13
0.03
0.13
0.06
0.13
0.07
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.09
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.16
0.10
0.10
0.27
0.06
0.12
2010
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.15
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.28
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.08
0.06
0.01
0.10
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.07
0.11
0.18
0.10
0.24
0.07
0.11
2011
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.13
0.10
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.07
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.05
0.08
0.11
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.03
0.07
0.16
0.11
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.16
2012
0.05
0.10
0.09
0.06
0.03
0.16
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.02
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.01
0.07
0.10
0.00
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.04
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.07
0.22
0.05
0.12
2013
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.11
0.08
0.06
0.09
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.07
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.14
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.08
0.09
0.13
0.07
0.05
0.08
0.12
2014
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.11
0.05
0.12
0.07
0.03
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.11
0.03
0.09
0.03
0.08
0.13
0.10
0.05
0.39
0.06
0.17
2015
0.07
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.06
0.10
0.06
0.02
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.05
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.25
0.05
0.11
2016
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.16
0.12
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.02
0.11
0.02
0.06
0.07
0.11
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.11
2017
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.05
0.12
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.11
0.02
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.04
0.19
0.05
0.12
2018
0.07
0.08
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.09
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.13
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.09
0.07
0.05
0.22
0.04
0.08
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
PWR Plants
Arkansas 1, 2
Beaver Valley 1, 2
Big Rock(a)
Braidwood 1, 2
Byron 1, 2
Callaway 1
Calvert Cliffs 1, 2
Catawba 1, 2
Comanche Peak 1, 2
D.C. Cook 1, 2
Crystal River 3(b)
Davis-Besse 1
Diablo Canyon 1, 2
Farley 1, 2
Fort Calhoun(c)
Ginna
Haddam Neck(d)
Harris 1
Humbold T Bay(e)
Indian Point 1(f)
Indian Point 2, 3(g)
Kewaunee(h)
La Crosse(i)
Maine Yankee(j)
McGuire 1, 2
Millstone 1(k)
Millstone 2, 3
North Anna 1, 2
Oconee 1, 2, 3
Palisades
Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
Point Beach 1, 2
3-110
February 2023
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
2006
0.12
0.22
0.04
0.06
0.12
0.19
0.06
0.14
0.14
0.10
0.09
0.19
0.04
0.11
0.13
0.09
0.16
0.12
0.02
0.02
2007
0.05
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.09
0.01
0.10
0.10
0.17
0.04
0.19
0.09
0.10
0.13
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.03
2008
0.12
0.03
0.09
0.10
0.02
0.12
0.06
0.09
0.16
0.10
0.08
0.14
0.03
0.09
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.10
0.02
0.02
2009
0.10
0.05
0.08
0.11
0.07
0.12
0.07
0.12
0.07
0.16
0.12
0.12
0.09
0.17
0.07
0.05
0.02
-
2010
0.08
0.09
0.08
0.12
0.01
0.07
0.09
0.15
0.02
0.12
0.05
0.08
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.03
0.03
2011
0.09
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.12
0.14
0.05
0.10
0.11
0.07
0.10
0.09
0.06
0.11
0.01
0.22
2012
0.13
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.05
0.11
0.08
0.11
0.11
0.14
0.05
0.12
0.08
0.14
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.41
2013
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.03
0.01
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.03
0.09
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.20
2014
0.09
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.08
0.11
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.09
0.11
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.22
2015
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.01
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.13
0.08
0.14
0.12
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.42
2016
0.07
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.02
0.07
0.05
0.09
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.07
0.01
0.24
2017
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.01
0.02
0.06
2018
0.07
0.06
0.09
0.19
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.10
0.03
0.08
0.07
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.01
0.01
PWR = pressurized water reactor.
(a) Big Rock Point ceased operations in August 1997 and is no longer included in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant
was operational.
(b) Crystal River ceased power generation in 2010 due to problems associated with containment building delamination. In June 2013, it was decided that it would
not be put in commercial operation again and, therefore, it is no longer included in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity when
plant was operational.
(c) Fort Calhoun ceased power generation in October 2016 and is no longer included in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity
when plant was operational.
(d) Haddam Neck (also known as Connecticut Yankee) ceased operations on December 4, 1996, and is no longer in the count of operating reactors.
Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant was operational.
(e) Humboldt Bay had been shut down since 1976, and in 1983, PG&E announced its intention to decommission the unit. Therefore, it is no longer included in
the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant was operational.
(f) Indian Point 1 was shut down October 31, 1974. All spent fuel was removed from the reactor vessel by January 1976. Therefore, it is no longer included in
the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant was operational.
(g) Indian Point 3 was purchased by a different utility in 1979 and subsequently reported its dose separately. Indian Point 1, 2, and 3 have been owned by the
same utility since 2001 and report together.
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
PWR Plants
Prairie Island 1, 2
Rancho Seco(l)
Robinson 2
Salem 1, 2
San Onofre 1(m)
San Onofre 2, 3(n)
San Onofre 1(m), 2, 3(n)
Seabrook
Sequoyah 1, 2
South Texas 1, 2
St. Lucie 1, 2
Summer 1
Surry 1, 2
Three Mile Island 1(o)
Turkey Point 3, 4
Vogtle 1, 2
Waterford 3
Watts Bar 1, 2
Wolf Creek 1
Yankee Rowe(p)
Zion 1, 2(q)
February 2023
3-111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
(h) Kewaunee Power Station (Kewaunee) ceased operations in May 2013 and is no longer included in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant
capacity when plant was operational.
(i) La Crosse ceased operations in 1987 and will not be put in commercial operation again. Therefore, it is no longer included in the count of operating reactors.
Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant was operational.
(j) Maine Yankee ceased operations in August 1997 and is no longer included in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant
was operational.
(k) Millstone 1 ceased operations in 1998 and is no longer included in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant was
operational. From 2008-2014, Millstone 1 voluntarily provided an estimate of the collective dose for Unit 1, but not the number of individuals with measurable
dose.
(l) Rancho Seco ceased operations in June 1989 and is no longer in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant was
operational.
(m) San Onofre 1 ceased operations in November 1992 and is no longer in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant was
operational.
(n) San Onofre 2, 3 ceased power generation in January 2012, and in June 2013 it was decided that they would not be put back into commercial operation.
Therefore, they are no longer included in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacities when plants were operational.
(o) Three Mile Island, Unit 1 (Three Mile Island) resumed commercial power generation in October 1985 after being under regulatory restraint since 1979.
(p) Yankee Rowe ceased operations as of October 1991 and will not be put in commercial operation again. It is no longer in the count of operating reactors.
Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant was operational.
(q) Zion 1, 2 ceased operations in 1997 and 1996, respectively, and are no longer included in the count of operating reactors.
No entry has been denoted by “-”.
Source: NRC 2020i.
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table 3.9-14
Annual Average Measurable Occupational Doses at Boiling Water Reactor Commercial Nuclear Power Plant
Sites from 2006 through 2018 (in rem)
3-112
BWR Plants
Browns Ferry(a) 1(a), 2, 3
Brunswick 1, 2
Clinton
Columbia Generating(b)
Cooper Station
Dresden 1(c), 2, 3
Duane Arnold
Fermi 2
FitzPatrick
Grand Gulf
Hatch 1, 2
Hope Creek 1
Lasalle 1, 2
Limerick 1, 2
Monticello
Nine Mile Point 1, 2
Oyster Creek(d)
Peach Bottom 2, 3
Perry
Pilgrim 1
Quad Cities 1, 2
River Bend 1
Susquehanna 1, 2
Vermont Yankee(e)
February 2023
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2006
0.18
0.13
0.18
0.09
0.21
0.14
0.12
0.13
0.15
0.06
0.18
0.06
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.20
0.13
0.16
0.13
0.07
0.24
0.14
0.10
0.13
2007
0.18
0.13
0.10
0.14
0.07
0.12
0.17
0.13
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.12
0.13
0.18
0.18
0.10
0.20
0.31
0.17
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.14
2008
0.18
0.14
0.15
0.08
0.21
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.13
0.09
0.14
0.03
0.09
0.13
0.12
0.22
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.06
0.13
0.17
0.10
0.15
2009
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.15
0.10
0.07
0.06
0.14
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.16
0.10
0.15
0.34
0.20
0.13
0.11
0.14
0.16
2010
0.2
0.13
0.14
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.18
0.09
0.15
0.10
0.14
0.08
0.16
0.11
0.11
0.22
0.12
0.13
0.12
0.08
0.11
0.05
0.09
0.19
2011
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.20
0.10
0.07
0.06
0.07
0.04
0.11
0.06
0.12
0.09
0.12
0.18
0.11
0.14
0.19
0.20
0.12
0.11
0.09
0.17
2012
0.15
0.11
0.07
0.04
0.16
0.07
0.12
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.07
0.11
0.08
0.07
0.23
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.08
0.16
2013
0.15
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.07
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.07
0.20
0.08
0.16
0.15
0.10
0.17
0.23
0.15
0.09
0.10
0.13
0.11
2014
0.16
0.07
0.10
0.04
0.16
0.07
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.11
0.12
0.04
0.17
0.09
0.13
0.18
0.13
0.14
0.19
0.09
0.08
0.05
0.11
0.12
2015
0.13
0.09
0.08
0.14
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.13
0.08
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.20
0.08
0.15
0.10
0.08
0.13
0.24
0.16
0.09
0.14
0.12
0.10
2016
0.13
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.15
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.13
0.13
0.08
0.13
0.08
0.09
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.08
0.13
0.11
0.11
2017
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.13
0.14
0.07
0.09
0.08
0.20
0.10
0.14
0.10
0.07
0.11
0.23
0.10
0.09
0.18
0.11
0.10
2018
0.15
0.12
0.07
0.09
0.13
0.06
0.11
0.13
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.12
0.07
0.11
0.20
0.11
0.10
0.14
0.06
0.10
0.12
0.11
-
BWR = boiling water reactor.
(a) All three Browns Ferry units were placed on administrative hold in 1985. Units 2 and 3 were restarted in 1991 and 1995, respectively. Browns Ferry Unit 1
was restarted during 2007.
(b) Energy Northwest changed the name of Washington Nuclear 2 to Columbia Generating Station in 2001.
(c) Dresden 1 ceased power generation in 1978, and in 1985, it was decided that it would not be put in commercial operation again. Therefore, it is no longer
included in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant was operational.
(d) Oyster Creek ceased operations in September 2018 and is no longer included in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity when
plant was operational.
(e) Vermont Yankee ceased operations in December 2014 and is no longer in the count of operating reactors. Parentheses indicate plant capacity when plant
was operational.
No entry has been denoted by “-”.
Source: NRC 2020i.
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1
2
Affected Environment
1
2
Table 3.9-15 Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Collective Occupational Dose per
Plant for Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants in person-rem
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Average
51
44
31
37
34
Maximum
486
231
118
154
206
Minimum
1
1
2
1
1
3
4
Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.
Source: NRC 2020i.
5
6
Table 3.9-16 Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Collective Occupational Dose per
Plant for Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants in person-rem
Year
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
7
8
9
10
Maximum
215
387
196
328
329
Minimum
16
20
27
17
29
Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.
Source: NRC 2020i.
Table 3.9-17 Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Individual Occupational WholeBody Dose for Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants in rem
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
11
12
Average
109
122
98
118
111
Average Whole-Body
Dose (rem) per Plant
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.07
Maximum Whole-Body
Dose (rem) per Plant
0.27
0.43
0.19
0.27
0.28
0.22
0.41
0.20
0.39
0.42
0.24
0.19
0.22
Minimum Whole-Body
Dose (rem)
per Plant
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.
Source: NRC 2020i.
February 2023
3-113
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
Table 3.9-18 Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Individual Occupational WholeBody Dose for Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants in rem
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Average Whole-Body
Dose (rem) per Plant
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.11
Maximum Whole-Body
Dose (rem) per Plant
0.24
0.31
0.22
0.34
0.22
0.20
0.23
0.23
0.19
0.24
0.15
0.23
0.20
Minimum Whole-Body
Dose (rem) per Plant
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.06
3
4
Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.
Source: NRC 2020i.
5
6
7
Table 3.9-19 Number of Workers at Boiling Water Reactors and Pressurized Water
Reactors Who Received Whole-Body Doses within Specified Ranges during
2018
Whole Body Dose Range (rem)(a)
Meas. <0.025
0.025-0.10
0.10-0.25
0.25-0.50
0.50-0.75
0.75-1.0
1.0-2.0
2.0-3.0
3.0-4.0
4.0-5.0
5.0-6.0
>6.0
Total Number Monitored
Number with Measured Dose
Total Collective Dose (Whole Body) (person-rem)
BWRs (33)
9,354
11,320
6,258
3,021
831
250
134
1
0
0
0
0
61,622
31,168
3,659.59
PWRs (65)
11,145
12,387
4,772
1,186
255
66
34
0
0
0
0
0
88,597
29,846
2,169.88
Total (98)
20,499
23,707
11,030
4,207
1,086
316
168
1
0
0
0
0
150,219
61,014
5,829.47
8
9
10
11
BWRs = boiling water reactors; PWRs = pressurized water reactors.
(a) Dose values exactly equal to the values separating ranges are reported in the next higher range.
Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.
Source: NRC 2020i.
12
13
14
15
16
17
A portion of the total workforce can be defined as “transient.” These individuals are usually
employed for special functions and may be employed at multiple reactor sites during a given
year. Data for individual reactors described earlier include these people, but only for each
power plant. Thus, some people are counted more than once, and some people receive greater
annual doses than are reported by individual plants. In 2018, there were about 25,000 of these
people (NRC 2020i). Over the years, doses to transient workers at nuclear power plants have
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-114
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
been decreasing in the same way as doses to more permanent workers, going from an average
of 0.32 rem in 2005 (NRC 2006f) to 0.20 rem in 2018 (NRC 2020i). In 2018, two transient
workers received whole-body doses between 3 and 4 rem, and none received more than 4 rem
(NRC 2020i).
5
6
7
8
Figure 3.9-3 shows the percentage of workers that received dose in five dose ranges for all
commercial U.S. Reactors for 2014 through 2018 from NUREG-0713 (NRC 2020i). The data
shows that the majority of the doses were less than 0.1 rem with much fewer dose contributions
between 0.1 and 2 rem.
9
10
11
Figure 3.9-3 Dose Distribution for All Commercial U.S. Reactors by Dose Range (rem),
2014 through 2018. Source: NRC 2020i.
12
13
Table 3.9-20 Collective and Average Committed Effective Dose Equivalent for
Commercial U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Sites in 2018
Nuclear Power Plant
Diablo Canyon
Duane Arnold
Indian Point
Millstone
Wolf Creek
14
15
16
Number of Individuals
with Measurable CEDE
1
4
1
1
96
Collective CEDE
(person-rem)
0.006
0.016
0.002
0.001
0.194
Average Measurable
CEDE (rem)
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.001
0.002
CEDE = committed effective dose equivalent.
Note: To convert rem to Sv, multiply by 0.01.
Source: NRC 2020i.
February 2023
3-115
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
As mentioned in Section 3.9.1.1, under 10 CFR 20.2202 and 10 CFR 20.2203, the NRC
requires that all licensees submit reports of all occurrences involving personnel radiation
exposures and releases of radioactive material that exceed certain control levels. For 2018,
there was no occurrence reported for nuclear power reactors (NRC 2020i).
5
3.9.1.3
Public Radiological Exposures
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Commercial nuclear power plants, under controlled conditions, release small amounts of
radioactive materials to the environment during normal operation. Radioactive waste
management systems are incorporated into each plant. They are designed to remove most of
the fission product radioactivity that leaks from the fuel, as well as most of the activation- and
corrosion-product radioactivity produced by neutrons in the vicinity of the reactor core. The
amounts of radioactivity released through vents and discharge points to areas outside the plant
boundaries are recorded and published annually in the radioactive effluent release reports for
each facility. These reports are publicly available on the NRC’s ADAMS. The effluent releases
result in radiation doses to humans. Nuclear power plant licensees must comply with Federal
regulations (e.g., 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 50.36a, and 40 CFR
Part 190) and technical specifications in the operating license.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Potential environmental pathways through which persons may be exposed to radiation
originating in a nuclear power plant include the atmospheric and water pathways. Radioactive
materials released under controlled conditions include fission products and activation products.
Fission product releases consist primarily of the noble gases and some of the more volatile
materials like tritium, isotopes of iodine, and cesium. These materials are monitored before
release to determine whether the limits on releases can be met. Releases to the aquatic
pathways are similarly monitored. Radioactive materials in the liquid effluents are processed in
radioactive waste treatment systems. The major radionuclides released to aquatic systems
have been tritium, isotopes of cobalt, and cesium.
26
27
28
29
30
When an individual is exposed to radioactive materials released by the plant into air or water
pathways, the dose is determined in part by the amount of time spent in the vicinity of the
source or the amount of time the radionuclides inhaled or ingested are retained in the
individual’s body (exposure). The consequences associated with this exposure are evaluated
by calculating the dose. The major exposure pathways include the following:
31
•
inhalation of contaminated air;
32
33
•
drinking milk or eating meat from animals that graze on open pasture on which radioactive
contamination may be deposited;
34
•
eating vegetables grown near the site; and
35
•
drinking (untreated) water or eating fish caught near the point of discharge of liquid effluents.
36
37
38
39
Radiation doses are calculated for the maximally exposed individual (MEI) (that is, a
hypothetical individual potentially subject to maximum exposure). Doses are calculated by
using plant-specific data where available. For those cases in which plant-specific data are not
readily available, conservative (overestimating) assumptions are used to estimate dose.
40
41
42
Members of the general public are also exposed when the low-level waste (LLW) is shipped
offsite. The public radiation exposures from radioactive material transportation have been
addressed in Table S-4 of 10 CFR Part 51. Table S-4 indicates that the cumulative dose to the
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-116
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
exposed public from the transport of both LLW and spent fuel is estimated to be about 0.03
person-Sv (3 person-rem) per reactor year (see Table 4.14-2).
3
3.9.1.3.1 Effluent Pathways for Calculations of Dose to the Public
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Radioactive effluents can be divided into several groups on the basis of their physical
characteristics. Among the airborne effluents, the radioisotopes of the noble gases krypton,
xenon, and argon neither deposit on the ground nor are absorbed and accumulated within living
organisms; therefore, the noble gas effluents act primarily as a source of direct external
radiation emanating from the effluent plume. For these effluents, dose calculations are
performed for the site boundary where the highest external radiation doses to a member of the
general public are estimated to occur.
11
12
13
14
15
16
A second group of airborne radioactive effluents—the fission product radioiodines and tritium—
are also gaseous, but some of them can be deposited on the ground or inhaled during
respiration. For this class of effluents, estimates are made of direct external radiation doses
from ground deposits (as well as exposure to the plume). Estimates are also made of internal
radiation doses to the total body, thyroid, bone, and other organs from inhalation and from
vegetable, milk, and meat consumption.
17
18
19
20
21
22
A third group of airborne effluents consists of particulates and includes fission products, such as
cesium and strontium, and activated corrosion products, such as cobalt and chromium. These
effluents contribute to direct external radiation doses and to internal radiation doses through the
same pathways as those described above for the radioiodine. Doses from the particulates are
combined with those from the radioiodines and tritium for comparison with one of the design
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Liquid effluent constituents could include fission products such as strontium and iodine;
activation and corrosion products, such as sodium, iron, and cobalt; and tritiated water. These
radionuclides contribute to the internal doses through the pathways described above from fish
consumption, water ingestion (as drinking water), and consumption of meat or vegetables raised
near a nuclear plant and using irrigation water, as well as from any direct external radiation from
recreational use of the water near the point of a plant’s discharge.
29
30
31
32
33
The release of each radioisotope and the site-specific meteorological and hydrological data
serve as input to radiation dose models that estimate the maximum radiation dose that would be
received outside the facility by way of a number of pathways for individual members of the
public and for the general public as a whole. These models and the radiation dose calculations
are discussed in Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Doses from gaseous radioactive iodine and radioactive material in particulate form in gaseous
effluents are calculated for individuals at the location or source point (e.g., site boundary,
garden, residence, dairy animal, meat animal) where the highest radiation dose to a member of
the public has been established from each applicable pathway (e.g., ground deposition,
inhalation, vegetable consumption, milk consumption, meat consumption). Only those
pathways associated with airborne effluents that are known to exist at a single location are
combined to calculate the total maximum exposure to an exposed individual. Pathway doses
associated with liquid effluents are conservatively combined without regard to any single
location but are assumed to be associated with the maximum exposure of an individual.
February 2023
3-117
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
A number of possible exposure pathways to humans are evaluated to determine the impact of
routine releases from each nuclear facility on members of the general public living and working
outside the site boundaries. A listing of these exposure pathways include external radiation
exposure from gaseous effluents, inhalation of iodines and particulate contaminants in the air,
consuming milk from dairy animals or eating meat from an animal that grazes on open pasture
near the site on which iodines or particulates may be deposited, eating vegetables from a garden
near the site (that may be contaminated by similar deposits), and drinking water or eating fish or
invertebrates caught near the point of liquid effluent discharge. Other exposure pathways may
include external irradiation from surface deposition; eating of animals and crops grown near the
site and irrigated with water contaminated by liquid effluents; shoreline, boating, and swimming
activities; drinking potentially contaminated water; and direct radiation being emitted from the
plant itself. Calculations for most pathways are limited to a radius of 50 mi (80 km). For this
study, effluent and MEI dose information was collected from a series of publicly available annual
radioactive effluent release reports that licensees submit to the NRC every year.
15
3.9.1.3.2 Radiological Monitoring
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Background radiation measurements at all reactor sites were obtained prior to operation of the
nuclear reactor. Thus, each facility has characterized the natural background levels of
radioactivity and radiation and their variations among the anticipated important exposure
pathways in the areas surrounding the facilities. The operational, Radiological Environmental
Monitoring Program (REMP) is conducted at each site to provide data on measurable levels of
radiation and radioactive materials in the site environs in accordance with 10 CFR Parts 20
and 50. The REMP quantifies the environmental impacts associated with radioactive effluent
releases from the plant. The REMP monitors the environment throughout the plant’s operating
lifetime to monitor radioactivity in the local environment. The REMP provides a mechanism for
determining the levels of radioactivity in the environment to ensure that any accumulation of
radionuclides released into the environment will not become significant as a result of plant
operations. The REMP also measures radioactivity from other nuclear facilities that may be in
the area (i.e., other nuclear power plants, hospitals using radioactive material, research
facilities, or any other facility licensed to use radioactive material). Thus, the REMP monitors
the cumulative impacts from all sources of radioactivity in the vicinity of the power plant. To
obtain information on radioactivity around the plant, samples of environmental media
(e.g., surface water; groundwater; drinking water; air; milk; locally grown crops; locally produced
food products; river, ocean, or lake sediment; and fish and other aquatic biota) are collected
from areas surrounding the plant for analysis to measure the amount of radioactivity, if any, in
the samples. The media samples reflect the radiation exposure pathways (i.e., inhalation,
ingestion, and physical location near the plant) to the public from radioactive effluents released
by the nuclear power plant and from background radiation (i.e., cosmic sources, naturally
occurring radioactive material, including radon, and global fallout). The NRC has standards for
the amount of radioactivity in the sample media, which if exceeded, must be reported to the
NRC, and the licensee must conduct an investigation. The REMP supplements the radioactive
effluent monitoring program by verifying that measurable concentrations of radioactive materials
and levels of radiation in the environment are not higher than expected when compared against
data on the amount of radioactive effluent discharged.
44
45
46
47
48
The REMP can also identify the existence of effluents from unmonitored release points. A
periodic land use survey identifies changes in the use of unrestricted areas to provide a basis
for modifying the monitoring programs to reflect a new exposure pathway or a different plantspecific dose calculation parameter. The results of the REMP are documented by each
licensee in the annual radiological environmental monitoring reports and submitted to NRC
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-118
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
every year and are publicly available in NRC’s ADAMS document system. The radiological
environmental monitoring reports can also be accessed by navigating the reactor webpage for
each site on the NRC website; effluent reports and environmental reports are available through
the “Plant Environmental Report” section of the key documents.
5
3.9.1.3.3 Public Radiation Doses
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Table 3.9-21 and Table 3.9-22 show the total body dose to the public, ground-level air dose,
and dose to a critical organ for 3 years (2018 through 2020) from gaseous effluent releases for
several PWRs and BWRs. The dose varies from year to year and also from reactor to reactor.
The maximum total body dose is 0.47 mrem, maximum dose to a critical organ is 1.17 mrem,
maximum ground-level air dose from gamma radiation is 0.99 mrad, and maximum ground-level
dose from beta radiation is 0.011 mrad. All doses are much less than the design objectives of
Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 provided in Table 3.9-2.
13
14
15
16
Table 3.9-23 and Table 3.9-24 show the total body dose to the public and dose to a critical
organ for 3 years (2018 through 2020) from liquid effluent releases for the same PWRs and
BWRs. The total body dose and dose to critical organ of the MEI from liquid effluent releases
varies from year to year and also from reactor to reactor.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The doses from both gaseous and liquid effluents are much less than the design objectives of
Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 provided in Table 3.9-2 and the EPA standards in 40 CFR 190,
Subpart B provided in Table 3.9-3. Calculated MEI doses are also reported in annual effluent
release reports based on the gaseous and liquid effluent releases for each plant. Under most
circumstances, the dose calculations to the MEI, which are made by the plants, overestimate
the calculated dose because of conservative assumptions. For most reactors, the annual MEI
doses are a few millirem or less.
24
25
Table 3.9-21
Year
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
Doses from Gaseous Effluent Releases by Select Pressurized Water
Reactors from 2018 through 2020
No. of
PWR
Reactors
Comanche Peak
2
D.C. Cook
2
Palo Verde 1
1
Palo Verde 2
1
Palo Verde 3
1
Robinson
1
Salem 1
1
Salem 2
1
Seabrook
1
Surry
2
Comanche Peak
2
D.C. Cook
2
Palo Verde 1
1
Palo Verde 2
1
Palo Verde 3
1
Robinson
1
Salem 1
1
Salem 2
1
February 2023
Total Body
(mrem)(a)
9.00E-02
2.14E-03
NR
NR
NR
3.31E-01
2.49E-02
2.17E-02
NR
NR
8.00E-02
1.33E-03
NR
NR
NR
4.74E-01
2.13E-02
2.52E-02
3-119
Gamma
(mrad)(a)
3.69E-04
4.01E-03
4.56E-04
1.53E-03
1.38E-04
3.29E-03
9.89E-05
9.96E-05
1.40E-04
6.12E-04
3.12E-04
2.78E-03
5.02E-04
3.99E-04
1.46E-03
3.12E-03
1.01E-04
1.33E-04
Beta
(mrad)(a)
1.38E-04
3.34E-03
1.62E-04
7.79E-04
4.87E-04
1.67E-03
4.14E-05
5.20E-05
7.97E-05
1.81E-03
1.14E-04
2.06E-03
2.86E-04
1.41E-04
5.89E-04
1.18E-03
4.70E-05
4.83E-05
Critical Organ
(mrem)(a)
5.17E-04
9.57E-02
1.93E-01
NR
3.20E-01
4.90E-01
1.20E-01
1.03E-01
3.49E-01
1.42E-01
4.35E-04
1.28E-01
1.69E-01
1.40E-01
3.12E-01
5.79E-01
9.35E-02
1.17E-01
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
Year
2019
2019
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
No. of
PWR
Reactors
Seabrook
1
Surry
2
Comanche Peak
2
D.C. Cook
2
Palo Verde 1
1
Palo Verde 2
1
Palo Verde 3
1
Robinson
1
Salem 1
1
Salem 2
1
Seabrook
1
Surry
2
Total Body
(mrem)(a)
NR
NR
8.00E-02
1.23E-03
NR
NR
NR
2.57E-01
NR
NR
NR
NR
Gamma
(mrad)(a)
4.87E-05
7.14E-06
4.51E-04
2.26E-03
6.23E-04
9.90E-01
8.50E-04
7.90E-03
1.00E-04
1.43E-04
5.61E-01
9.84E-05
Beta
(mrad)(a)
3.17E-05
9.04E-06
1.65E-04
8.92E-04
2.49E-04
3.64E-04
3.13E-04
2.90E-03
4.61E-05
5.31E-05
2.89E-04
3.68E-05
Critical Organ
(mrem)(a)
3.44E-01
9.40E-02
6.30E-04
1.02E-01
3.11E-03
1.95E-01
2.32E-01
5.18E-01
7.97E-02
1.01E-01
3.29E-01
1.05E-01
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PWR = pressurized water reactor; mrem = millirem; mrad = millirad; NR = not reported.
(a) Compare the values presented in this table with the design objectives presented in Table 3.9-2, Appendix I to 10
CFR 50 and Table 3.9-3, 40 CFR Part 190, Subpart B.
Note: To convert mrem to mSv, multiply by 0.01.
Sources: Annual effluent release reports. The radiological environmental monitoring reports can also be accessed
by navigating the reactor webpage for each site on the NRC website; effluent reports and environmental reports are
available through the “Plant Environmental Report” section of the key documents.
8
9
Table 3.9-22
Year
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Doses from Gaseous Effluent Releases by Select Boiling Water Reactors
from 2018 through 2020
BWR
Fermi 2
Hatch 1
Hatch 2
Hope Creek
Limerick
Columbia
Fermi 2
Hatch 1
Hatch 2
Hope Creek
Limerick
Columbia
Fermi 2
Hatch 1
Hatch 2
Hope Creek
Limerick
Columbia
No. of
Reactors
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
Total Body
(mrem)(a)
1.28E-01
5.07E-03
9.68E-03
4.52E-02
3.25E-03
NR
1.40E-01
1.19E-02
1.39E-02
4.11E-02
9.79E-04
NR
1.10E-01
2.09E-02
1.99E-02
NR
2.52E-03
NR
Gamma
(mrad)(a)
6.72E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
4.78E-05
3.45E-03
3.13E-02
3.13E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.90E-03
1.03E-03
2.96E-02
1.15E-05
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.90E-03
2.66E-03
2.85E-02
Beta
(mrad)(a)
4.75E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
1.42E-04
2.13E-03
1.11E-02
1.23E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.21E-03
6.12E-04
1.04E-02
4.51E-06
0.00E+00
0.00E+00
3.20E-03
2.13E-03
1.00E-02
Critical Organ
(mrem)(a)
1.17E+00
5.08E-03
9.85E-03
1.69E-01
5.35E-03
2.97E-01
1.50E-01
1.19E-02
1.40E-02
4.03E-02
1.62E-03
2.10E-01
4.14E-01
2.09E-02
2.02E-02
2.37E-01
4.39E-03
1.67E-01
BWR = boiling water reactor; mrem = millirem; mrad = millirad; NR = not reported.
(a) Compare the values presented in this table with the design objectives presented in Table 3.9-2, Appendix I to 10
CFR 50 and Table 3.9-3, 40 CFR Part 190, Subpart B.
Note: To convert mrem to mSv, multiply by 0.01.
Sources: Annual effluent release reports. The radiological environmental monitoring reports can also be accessed
by navigating the reactor webpage for each site on the NRC website; effluent reports and environmental reports are
available through the “Plant Environmental Report” section of the key documents.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-120
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
Table 3.9-23 Dose from Liquid Effluent Releases by Select Pressurized Water Reactor
Nuclear Power Plants for 2018 through 2020
Year
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2019
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
PWR Name
Comanche Peak
D.C. Cook
Palo Verde 1-3
Robinson
Salem 1
Salem 2
Seabrook
Surry
Comanche Peak
D.C. Cook
Palo Verde 1-3
Robinson
Salem 1
Salem 2
Seabrook
Surry
Comanche Peak
D.C. Cook
Palo Verde 1-3
Robinson
Salem 1
Salem 2
Seabrook
Surry
No. of
Reactors
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
Total Body (mrem)(a)
1.14E-01
8.87E-02
No Release
1.43E-04
1.06E-05
4.33E-05
6.58E-04
5.61E-04
1.27E-01
8.43E-02
No Release
1.75E-06
1.35E-02
3.99E-03
1.86E-04
3.44E-04
1.14E-01
8.87E-02
No Release
2.01E-03
1.36E-02
4.67E-03
5.15E-04
1.77E-04
Critical Organ (mrem)(a)
1.14E-01
4.80E-02
No Release
3.64E-04
1.41E-04
1.46E-04
1.62E-03
8.72E-04
1.27E-01
8.46E-02
No Release
1.83E-05
1.67E-02
2.60E-02
2.33E-04
4.08E-04
1.14E-01
4.80E-02
No Release
5.63E-03
2.93E-02
3.40E-02
8.42E-04
2.33E-04
PWR = pressurized water reactor; mrem = millirem.
(a) Compare the values presented in this table with the design objectives from Table 3.9-2, Appendix I to 10
CFR 50.
Note: To convert mrem to mSv, multiply by 0.01.
Sources: Annual effluent release reports. The radiological environmental monitoring reports can also be accessed
by navigating the reactor webpage for each site on the NRC website; effluent reports and environmental reports are
available through the “Plant Environmental Report” section of the key documents.
Table 3.9-24 Dose from Liquid Effluent Releases from Select Boiling Water Reactor
Nuclear Power Plants for 2018 through 2020
Year
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2018
2019
2019
2019
2019
BWR Name
Fermi 2
Hatch 1
Hatch 2
Hope Creek
Limerick
Columbia
Fermi 2
Hatch 1
Hatch 2
Hope Creek
February 2023
No. of
Reactors
Total Body (mrem)(a)
Critical Organ (mrem)(a)
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
No Release
3.53E-04
2.55E-04
7.53E-03
4.90E-04
No Release
No Release
9.85E-04
3.88E-04
7.92E-04
No Release
4.40E-04
3.33E-04
2.07E-02
6.59E-04
No Release
No Release
8.01E-04
1.01E-03
2.41E-03
3-121
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
Year
2019
2019
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
2020
BWR Name
Limerick
Columbia
Fermi 2
Hatch 1
Hatch 2
Hope Creek
Limerick
Columbia
No. of
Reactors
Total Body (mrem)(a)
Critical Organ (mrem)(a)
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
9.63E-03
No Release
No Release
5.83E-04
6.99E-04
1.65E-02
2.83E-04
No Release
1.23E-02
No Release
No Release
7.56E-04
7.66E-04
5.13E-02
2.34E-03
No Release
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
BWR = boiling water reactor; mrem = millirem.
(a) Compare the values presented in this table with the design objectives from Table 3.9-2, Appendix I to 10 CFR
50.
Note: To convert mrem to mSv, multiply by 0.01.
Sources: Annual effluent release reports. The radiological environmental monitoring reports can also be accessed
by navigating the reactor webpage for each site on the NRC website; effluent reports and environmental reports are
available through the “Plant Environmental Report” section of the key documents.
8
3.9.1.3.4 Radiological Exposure from Naturally Occurring and Artificial Sources
9
10
11
12
13
14
Table 3.9-25 identifies background doses to a typical member of the U.S. population as
summarized in National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report 160 (2009)
and National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Report 180 (2019). In the
table, the annual values are rounded to the nearest 1 percent. A total average annual effective
dose equivalent of 554 mrem/yr to members of the U.S. population is contributed by two primary
sources: naturally occurring background radiation and medical exposure to patients.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Natural radiation sources other than radon result in 15 percent of the typical radiation dose
received. The larger source of radiation dose in ubiquitous background (41 %) is from radon,
particularly because of homes and other buildings that trap radon and significantly enhance its
dose contribution over open-air living. The remaining 44 percent of the average annual effective
dose equivalent consists of radiation mostly from medical procedures (computed tomography,
25 %; nuclear medicine, 7 %; interventional fluoroscopy, 5 percent; and conventional
radiography and fluoroscopy, 4 %) and a small fraction from consumer products (2 %). The
consumer product exposure category includes exposure to members of the public from building
materials, commercial air travel, cigarette smoking, mining and agriculture products, combustion
of fossil fuels, highway and road construction materials, and glass and ceramic. The industrial,
security, medical, education, and research exposure category includes exposure to the
members of the public from nuclear power generation; DOE installation; decommissioning and
radioactive waste; industrial, medical, education, and research activities; contact with nuclear
medicine patients; and security inspection systems. The occupational exposure category
includes exposure to workers from medical, aviation, commercial nuclear power, industry and
commerce, education and research, government, the DOE, and military installations. Radiation
exposures from occupational activities, industrial, security, medical, educational and research
contribute insignificantly to the total average effective dose equivalent.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-122
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
Table 3.9-25 Average Annual Effective Dose Equivalent of Ionizing Radiation to
a Member of the U.S. Population for 2016
Source
Background (Total)
Ubiquitous background(a)
Radon and thoron
Natural(a)
Cosmic
Terrestrial
Internal
Medical(b)(Total)
Computed tomography
Nuclear medicine
Interventional fluoroscopy
Conventional radiography and fluoroscopy
Industrial, security, medical, educational
and research(a)
Occupational(a)
Consumer products(a)
Total(c)
EDE (mrem)
311
EDE Percent of Total
56
228
41
33
21
29
229
6
4
5
41
140
41
26
22
0.3
25
7
5
4
0.05
0.5
13
553.8
0.09
2
100
3
4
5
6
7
8
EDE = effective dose equivalent; mrem = millirem.
(a) NCRP 2009
(b) NCRP 2019. This NCRP updates the contribution from medical exposure due to changes in how procedures are
conducted through the Image Wisely and Image Gently campaigns.
(c) Total includes background, medical, industrial, security, medical, and education research, occupational, and
consumer products sources.
9
3.9.1.3.5 Inadvertent Liquid Radioactive Releases
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
As mentioned before, all commercial nuclear power plants routinely release radioactive material
to the environment in the form of liquids and gases in accordance with regulations (Table 3.9-2).
Each year, plant operators submit an effluent release report that documents the amount of
radioactive material released to the environment during the year. This report also includes the
public dose impact from the releases. Plant operators also conduct environmental monitoring in
the vicinity and submit an environmental monitoring report every year to the NRC. All licensees
must comply with the existing requirements to monitor and report effluents that are discharged,
including abnormal discharges that may migrate offsite. A discussion of the historical
inadvertent (unplanned) releases and the findings of the task force designated to conduct a
lessons learned review following the inadvertent releases of tritium at the Braidwood, Indian
Point, Byron, and Dresden sites is presented in Section 3.5.2.
21
3.9.1.4
22
23
24
Radiation health effects have been the subject of published studies and a discussion of some of
these studies and has been presented in the 2013 LR GEIS in Section 3.9.1.3.6 and is
incorporated here by reference.
Radiation Health Effects Studies
February 2023
3-123
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
3.9.1.4.1 Risk Estimates from Radiation Exposure
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
In estimating the health effects resulting from both occupational and offsite radiation exposures
as a result of operating nuclear power facilities, the normal probability coefficients for stochastic
effects recommended by the ICRP (ICRP 1991) were used. The coefficients consider the most
recent radiobiological and epidemiological information available and are consistent with the
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. The coefficients used
(Table 3.9-26) are the same as those published by ICRP in connection with a revision of its
recommendations (ICRP 1991). Excess hereditary effects are listed separately because
radiation-induced effects of this type have not been observed in any human population, as
opposed to excess malignancies that have been identified among populations receiving
instantaneous and near-uniform exposures in excess of 10 rem.
12
Table 3.9-26 Nominal Probability Coefficients Used in ICRP (1991)(a)
Health Effect
Occupational
Public
4
5
0.8
1.3
Fatal cancer
Hereditary
13
14
15
(a) Estimated number of excess effects among 10,000 people receiving 10,000 person-rem. Coefficients are based
on “central” or “best” estimates.
Source: ICRP 1991.
16
17
18
In 2006, the National Research Council’s Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) published BEIR VII, entitled Health Risks from Exposure to Low
Levels of Ionizing Radiation (National Research Council 2006).
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEIR VII provides estimates of the risk of incidence and mortality for males and females. If the
total fatal cancer risk is the sum of cancer deaths from all solid cancers and leukemia, then the
fatal cancer risk coefficient for the general public would be 6 10-4/person-rem. The fatal
cancer risk for the general public based on ICRP is 5 10-4/person-rem (Table 3.9-26). There is
a difference of approximately 20 percent in the fatal cancer risk coefficient based on ICRP
recommendation and the BEIR VII report. The difference of 20 percent is within the margin of
uncertainty associated with these estimates.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The NRC completed a review of the BEIR VII report and documented its findings in the
Commission paper SECY-05-0202, Staff Review of the National Academies Study of the Health
Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII), dated October 29, 2005
(NRC 2005g). In this paper, the NRC concluded that the findings presented in the BEIR VII
report agree with the NRC’s current understanding of the health risks from exposure to ionizing
radiation. The NRC agreed with the BEIR VII report’s major conclusion that current scientific
evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose response
relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans.
In addition to the BEIR VII paper, NCRP also published Commentary No. 27 in May 2018
providing a critical review of epidemiologic studies mostly published within the past ten years.
NCRP concluded that the recent epidemiologic studies, along with judgements by other national
and international scientific committees, support the continued use of the linear-non threshold
model for radiation protection (NCRP 2018). The NRC has determined that the linear, nothreshold model continues to provide a sound regulatory basis for minimizing the risk to
unnecessary radiation exposure to both members of the public and radiation workers; three
petitions to move away from the linear, no-threshold model were denied in 2021 (86 FR 45923).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-124
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
This conclusion is consistent with the process the NRC uses to develop its standards of
radiological protection. Therefore, the NRC’s regulations continue to be adequately protective
of public health and safety and the environment.
4
5
6
7
8
9
If an occupational worker is exposed at 10 CFR Part 20 dose limits for 1 year, the probability of
developing fatal cancer (on the basis of ICRP recommendations) from exposure due to an
operating nuclear reactor is equal to 2 10-3 on the basis of ICRP recommendations. However,
the average individual worker doses are much less than the dose limits (see Table 3.9-5), and,
at the doses observed between 2006 and 2018, the probability of developing fatal cancer would
be in the range of 2.8 10-5 to 6.0 10-5.
10
11
12
13
14
If a member of the public is exposed at 40 CFR Part 190 dose limits, the probability of
developing fatal cancer (on the basis of ICRP recommendations) from exposure resulting from
operating a nuclear reactor is equal to 1.25 10-5. However, the MEI doses are much less than
the dose limits, and, at the doses observed between 2018 and 2020, the probability of
developing fatal cancer would be in the range of 2.40 10-10 to 1.3 10-6.
15
3.9.1.5
16
17
18
Radiation doses to nuclear power plant workers and members of the public from the current
operation of nuclear power plants have been examined, and the radiation doses were found to
be well within design objectives and regulations in each instance.
19
3.9.2
20
21
22
23
Nonradiological hazards, such as chemical, biological, EMFs, and physical hazards, are not
unique to nuclear power plants and can occur in many types of industrial facilities. However,
certain nonradiological hazards can be enhanced by physical plant elements or characteristics
of nuclear power plants, which this section will discuss.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
While nonradiological hazards can be minimized when workers adhere to safety standards and
use appropriate protective equipment, fatalities and injuries from accidents can still occur. Risk
to members of the public can also be minimized when adhering to safety standards. See
Section 3.3 for information on meteorology, air quality, and noise, Section 3.5 for information on
water resources, Section 3.11 for information on waste management and Appendix E for
postulated accidents. The overall well-being of these resource areas is important to maintaining
nonradiological public and occupational health.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for developing and
enforcing workplace safety regulations. OSHA’s mission is to ensure safe and healthful working
conditions. OSHA was created by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
(29 USC 651 et seq.). With specific regard to nuclear power plants, hazards which result in an
occupational risk, but do not affect the safety of licensed radioactive materials, are under the
statutory authority of OSHA rather than the NRC as set forth in a Memorandum of
Understanding (OSHA/NRC 2013) between the NRC and the OSHA. Additionally, the EPA,
through multiple statutes, is responsible for the regulation of hazardous chemicals that can enter
the environment and impact members of the public. As such, nuclear power plants have
developed various programs and processes to show compliance with OSHA’s regulations,
including Chemical Safety Programs, Hazard Communication Programs, and/or an International
Organization for Standardizations 9001 Certification of Approval. The approval is not required
by OSHA or NRC but is a common industrial process that implements quality assurance by
Conclusion
Nonradiological Hazards
February 2023
3-125
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
which safety requirements are met, hazards are identified, and risks are reduced. Additionally,
nuclear power plants are required to have Federal, State, and/or local permits for releases to air
(e.g., a Title V permit), surface or groundwater water (e.g., a NPDES permit), and other local
permits and ordinances depending on the municipality.
5
3.9.2.1
Chemical Hazards
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Chemical exposure can exist in the form of dust, fumes, fibers (solids), liquids, mists, gases, or
vapors. Chemical exposure produces different effects on the body depending on the chemical
and the amount of exposure. Chemicals can cause cancer, affect reproductive capability,
disrupt the endocrine system, or have other health effects. Acute effects from chemical
exposure occur immediately (e.g., when somebody inhales or ingests a poisonous substance
such as cyanide). Chronic or delayed effects result in symptoms such as skin rashes,
headaches, breathing difficulties, and nausea. There are multiple pathways by which humans
can be exposed to chemicals. For example, a direct pathway would be a human breathing in a
gaseous effluent or swimming in water that was contaminated by a liquid effluent. An indirect
pathway would be a human eating a fish that had absorbed a pollutant into its body or eating
crops that had been irrigated with water contaminated by a liquid effluent. In nuclear power
plants, chemical exposure can result from discharges of chlorine or other biocides, smallvolume discharges of sanitary and other liquid wastes, chemical spills, and heavy metals
leached from cooling system piping and condenser tubing. Nuclear power plant backup diesel
generators, boilers, fire pump engines, and cooling towers can also result in chemical exposure,
but are generally low emitters of criteria air pollutants (e.g., SO2, NOX, and CO) and VOCs (e.g.,
such as components of petroleum fuels and hydraulic fluids [EPA 2022h]).
23
24
25
26
27
OSHA regulations in 29 CFR Part 1910 set enforceable permissible exposure limits for about
500 hazardous chemicals to protect workers against the health effects of exposure to hazardous
substances, including limits on the airborne concentrations of hazardous chemicals in the air
and skin contact. Most permissible exposure limits are 8-hour time-weighted averages,
although there are also ceiling and peak limits.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The EPA is responsible for the regulation of hazardous chemicals that can enter the
environment and impact members of the public. The EPA administers the following Federal
acts related to chemical contamination: the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.); Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.); RCRA (42
U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.); CWA (codified as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972;
33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.); Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA; 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq.); Clean Air
Act (CAA; 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.); and Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation, and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.). These Acts regulate the treatment,
storage, disposal, and release of hazardous chemicals. Heavy metals (e.g., copper, zinc, and
chromium) may be leached from condenser tubing and other heat exchangers and discharged
by power plants as small-volume waste streams or corrosion products. Although all are found in
small quantities in natural waters (and many are essential micronutrients), concentrations in the
power plant discharge are controlled in the NPDES permit because excessive concentrations of
heavy metals can be toxic to aquatic organisms (see Section 3.6). The ability of aquatic
organisms to bioaccumulate heavy metals, even at low concentrations, has led to concerns
about toxicity to both the humans and the biota that consume contaminated fish and shellfish.
For example, the bioconcentration of copper discharged from the Chalk Point plant (a fossil fuel
power plant on Chesapeake Bay) resulted in oyster “greening” (Roosenburg 1969). The
bioaccumulation of copper released from the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (Robinson)
resulted in malformations and decreased reproductive capacity among bluegill in the cooling
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-126
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
reservoir (Harrison 1985). At the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, it was observed that the
concentration of soluble copper in effluent water was high during the startup of water circulation
through the condenser system after a shutdown (Harrison 1985). In all three examples of
excessive accumulation of copper (Diablo Canyon, Chalk Point, and Robinson), replacement of
the copper alloy condenser tubes with another material (e.g., titanium) eliminated the problem.
6
3.9.2.2
Microbiological Hazards
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Microbiological hazards occur when workers or members of the public come into contact with
disease causing microorganisms, also known as etiological agents. Microbiological organisms
of concern for public and occupational health, include enteric pathogens (bacteria that typically
exists in the intestines of animals and humans (e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa), thermophilic
fungi, bacteria (e.g., Legionella spp. and Vibrio spp.), free-living amoebae (e.g., Naegleria
fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp.), as well as organisms that produce toxins that affect human
health (e.g., dinoflagellates (Karenia brevis) and blue-green algae). Some of these disease
causing organisms have been associated with the operation of nuclear power plant cooling
systems (see Section 3.9.2.2.2). Etiological agents have been referred to as “thermophilic
microorganisms” in previous NRC documents (e.g., NUREG-1555 [NRC 1999a]). Thermophilic
microorganisms have an optimum growth at temperatures of 122 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (50
degree Celsius [°C]) or more, a maximum temperature tolerance of up to 158 °F (70 °C), and a
minimum tolerance of about 68 °F (20 °C) (Deacon 2006), which means improperly maintained
cooling towers, hot water tanks, and thermal discharges could be optimal environments for
microorganisms. Etiological agents associated with nuclear power stations also include more
than just thermophilic microorganisms and may be present in elevated numbers in unheated
and heated water systems as well as in cooling systems, receiving and source waterbodies, and
site sewage treatment facilities.
25
26
27
Members of the public could be exposed to microorganisms in thermal effluents at nuclear
plants that use cooling ponds, lakes, or canals that discharge to waters of the United States
accessible to the public.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
For this update of the LR GEIS, the SEISs published since 2013 were reviewed to determine
the level of thermophilic microbiological organism enhancement. The SEISs note that health
departments were contacted and that the health departments did not have any concerns. In all
occurrences, with the exception of Turkey Point, the NRC staff concluded that impacts to the
public from microbiological organism were SMALL. For Turkey Point, microbiological organisms
impacts to members of the public was not discussed because Turkey Point discharges to a
canal cooling system not accessible by the public with discharge to groundwater in a salinewater environment instead of a freshwater environment. See the 2013 LR GEIS for an
additional discussion of reactor sites that were reviewed to predict the level of thermophilic
microbiological organism enhancement. The 2013 LR GEIS review did not identify hazards to
the public from enhancement of thermophilic microbiological organisms.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
OSHA has information and guidance regarding how improperly maintained human-made water
systems can serve as sources for a microbiological hazard, such as Legionella spp (OSHA
Undated). Legionella causes Legionnaires’ disease, which is an infection of the lungs.
Legionella also causes Pontiac fever, which is a milder infection than Legionnaires’ disease and
includes fever and muscle aches but not an infection of the lungs. People get these diseases
by breathing in droplets of water in the air that contain the hazard or by drinking contaminated
water that accidentally goes into the lungs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) also has general guidelines for preventing occupational exposure to Legionella and best
February 2023
3-127
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
practices for the control of Legionella (CDC 2021c). The American National Standards
Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers Standard
188-2018 documents a standard for Legionellosis and risk management for building water
systems (ASHRAE 2021). A temperature range of 77–113 °F (25–45 °C) is best for
Legionella spp. growth (CDC 2018).
6
7
8
9
10
11
Acanthamoeba and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are single-cell living organisms and much like
Legionella, thrive in stagnant or untreated water and can enter the body through the eye, skin,
or inhalation (OSHA 2015). Pseudomonas aeruginosa has an optimal growth temperature of
98.6 °F (37 °C) and can tolerate a temperature as high as 107.6 °F (42 °C) (Todar 2004).
Pseudomonas aeruginosa can cause infections in the eye, blood, or lungs (CDC 2019a).
Acanthamoeba can also cause infections of the eye, skin, and central nervous system.
12
13
14
15
16
17
Naegleria fowleri, is a single-celled living organism commonly found in warm freshwater. It
thrives in warmer temperatures (up to 115 °F [46 °C]). Naegleria fowleri infections occur when
people go swimming or diving in warm freshwater and the amoeba travels up the nose, across
the blood-brain barrier, into the brain and destroys brain tissue. The disease is called primary
amoebic meningoencephalitis. Infections do not occur by drinking contaminated water, nor
through water vapor or aerosol droplets (CDC 2021d).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Toxins produced by some species of algae and cyanobacteria can cause harm to human health
when they grow rapidly and create blooms. In low amounts, the cyanobacteria toxin is not a
human health risk, but when the organisms cause a bloom, the toxin is harmful. Blooms occur
when water is warm (e.g., like a thermal discharge from a nuclear power plant), slow-moving,
and full of nutrients, such as phosphorus or nitrogen. An algae bloom can occur in freshwater
or saltwater (CDC 2021a). Cyanobacteria, also called blue-green algae, are a kind of singlecelled organism called phytoplankton. Exposure can be through skin contact, drinking water
containing the cyanobacteria, breathing in droplets in the air that contain the algae, or eating
shellfish or fish that are contaminated with the cyanobacteria. Symptoms of cyanobacteria
exposure include stomach pain, headache, muscle weakness, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea,
and liver damage (CDC 2022). In saltwater, algal blooms are commonly caused by diatoms and
dinoflagellates, which are another kind of phytoplankton. Breathing in sea spray or getting the
contaminated seawater on skin can cause symptoms such as respiratory infection, shortness of
breath, throat irritation, eye irritation, skin irritation, and asthma attacks. Eating seafood
contaminated with the algae toxin can cause several illnesses, such as neurotoxic shellfish
poisoning (CDC 2021b). Based on a review of SEISs to the LR GEIS published since 2013, the
staff noted that the only occurrences of algal bloom occurred in Lake Anna in 2018, 2019, and
2020. In 2019, Dominion, the NRC-licensee for the North Anna Power Station, stated in a letter
to the Virginia Department of Health that the bloom was located in an upper arm many miles
from Outfall 001 (the primary discharge into Lake Anna) and outside the reach of the thermal
plume. Dominion did develop its own cyanobacteria sampling plan in 2018 (NRC 2021g). The
Fermi 2 SEIS (NRC 2016c) noted that the NRC received public comments regarding the role of
Fermi’s effluent on algal blooms. Fermi is located halfway between Toledo, Ohio, and Detroit,
Michigan, on the lake basin where the algal blooms have been most prevalent. The SEIS also
noted that the frequency and intensity of the blooms have been increasing and that the Fermi
discharge is warmer and contains somewhat higher concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus,
than the ambient intake water of Lake Erie. The SEIS did conclude that the information did not
contradict the conclusion of the LR GEIS which states, “Impacts of thermal discharge on the
geographic distribution of aquatic organisms are considered to be of SMALL significance if
populations in the overall region are not reduced. This is because heat is usually dissipated
rapidly from power plant discharge plumes, and heated plumes are often small relative to the
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-128
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
size of the receiving water body.” Occupational worker exposure to biological hazards can be
limited through proper maintenance of systems, processes, and machinery and through the use
of personal protective equipment. Exposure of members of the public can also be limited
through proper maintenance of systems, processes, and equipment and separation from
thermal discharges.
6
3.9.2.2.1 Studies of Microorganisms in Spent Fuel Pools
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
During the scoping meeting for the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (Calvert Cliffs) license
renewal SEIS in 1998, one member of the public raised an issue about the microorganisms that
live in high radiation and extreme heat conditions (such as within the spent fuel pool) based on
the article “Something’s Bugging Nuclear Fuel” published in Science News (Raloff 1998). The
commenter asked that consideration be given to these types of organisms, the possibility of
their mutation, and consequences if they escaped from the plant into the natural aquatic
environment. The NRC consulted specialists in the field; the following is a summary of their
conclusions as presented in the SEIS (NRC 1999c):
15
16
•
Many types of organisms can live in the temperature range of the spent fuel pools (100–
150 °F [38–66 °C]).
17
18
•
There is a potential for mutation in all living organisms, but microbes that have high levels of
radiation resistance have also developed extremely efficient repair systems.
19
20
21
22
23
•
Organisms that are associated with thermal waters of the spent fuel pool are likely to die if
they are transferred into the relatively much lower water temperatures typical of surface
waters. If the organisms are truly adapted to the high temperatures typical of the spent fuel
pool, they probably would not be able to survive and compete with the indigenous
microorganisms of the relatively cold waters of the natural water sources.
24
25
26
The NRC concluded that microorganisms that live in high radiation and extreme heat conditions
typical of the spent fuel pool do not pose a risk to humans or the environment as discussed in
the 2013 LR GEIS.
27
3.9.2.2.2 Studies of Microorganisms In and Around Cooling Towers
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
In 1981, cooling water systems at 11 nuclear power plants and associated control source waters
were studied for the presence of thermophilic free-living amoebae, including Naegleria fowleri.
The presence of pathogenic Naegleria fowleri in these waters was tested, and while all but one
test site was positive for thermophilic free-living amoebae, only two test sites were positive for
pathogenic Naegleria fowleri. Pathogenic Naegleria fowleri were not found in any control source
waters (Tyndall 1982). In addition to testing for pathogenic amoebae in cooling water, testing for
the presence of Legionella spp. was also done (Tyndall 1982). The concentrations of
Legionella spp. in these waters were determined. In general, the artificially heated waters
showed only a slight increase (i.e., no more than tenfold) in concentrations of Legionella spp.
relative to source water. In a few cases, source waters had higher levels than did heated waters.
Infectious Legionella spp. were found in 7 of 11 test waters and 5 of 11 control source waters.
39
40
41
42
43
Subsequently, a more detailed study of Legionella spp. in the environs of coal-fired power plants
was undertaken to determine the distribution, abundance, infectivity, and aerosolization of
Legionella spp. in power plant cooling systems (Tyndall 1983; Christensen et al. 1983; Tyndall
1985). This study found that positive air samples did not occur often at locations that were not
next to cleaning operations, which suggests that aerosolized Legionella spp. associated with
February 2023
3-129
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
downtime procedures have minimal impact beyond these locations. Even within plant
boundaries, detectable airborne Legionella spp. appear to be confined to very limited areas. In
these areas, however, the more contact individuals have with the most concentrated Legionella
spp. populations, particularly if they become aerosolized (as they do in some downtime
operations), the more likely it is that workers are exposed.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Another study suggested that Legionella-like amoebal pathogens may be an unrecognized
significant cause of respiratory disease (Berk et al. 2006). In this study, the occurrence of
infected amoebae in water, biofilm, and sediment samples from 40 cooling towers (non-nuclear
sites) and 40 natural aquatic environments were compared. The natural samples were
collected from rivers, creeks, lakes, and ponds from Tennessee, Kentucky, New Jersey, Florida,
and Texas. The cooling tower samples were collected from industries, hospitals, municipal
buildings, universities, and other public sites from Tennessee, Kentucky, and Texas. The
infected amoebae were found in 22 cooling tower samples and 3 natural samples. According to
this study, the probability of infected amoebae occurring in cooling towers is 16 times higher
than in natural environments.
16
3.9.2.3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
EMFs are generated by any electrical equipment. All nuclear power plants have electrical
equipment and power transmission systems associated with them. Power transmission
systems consist of switching stations (or substations) located on the plant site and the
transmission lines needed to connect the plant to the regional electrical distribution grid.
Transmission lines operate at a frequency of 60 Hz (60 cycles per second), which is low
compared with the frequencies of 55 to 890 MHz for television transmitters and 1,000 MHz and
greater for microwaves.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Electric and magnetic fields, collectively referred to as the EMF, are produced by operating
transmission lines. Electric fields are produced by voltage, and their strength increases with
increases in voltage. An electric field is present as long as equipment is connected to the
source of electric power. The unit of electric field strength is V/m or kV/m (1 kV/m = 1,000 V/m).
A magnetic field is produced from the flow of current through wires or electrical devices, and its
strength increases as the current increases. The unit of magnetic field strength is gauss (G),
milligauss (mG), or tesla (T). One tesla equals 10,000 G and 1 G equals 1,000 mG.
31
32
33
34
35
36
Occupational workers or members of the public near transmission lines may be exposed to the
EMFs produced by the transmission lines. The EMF varies in time as the current and voltage
change, so that the frequency of the EMF is the same (e.g., 60 Hz for standard alternating
current, or AC). Electrical fields can be shielded by objects such as trees, buildings, and
vehicles. Magnetic fields, however, penetrate most materials, but their strength decreases with
increasing distance from the source.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Power lines associated with nuclear plants usually have voltages of 230 kV, 345 kV, 500 kV, or
765 kV (a voltage occurring primarily in the eastern United States). EMF strength at groundlevel varies greatly under these lines, generally being stronger for higher-voltage lines, a flat
configuration of conductors, relatively flat terrain, terrain with no shielding obstructions
(e.g., trees or shrubs), and a closer approach of the lines to the ground. At locations where the
field strength is at a maximum, the measured values under 500-kV lines often average about
4 kV/m but sometimes exceed 6 kV/m. Maximum electric field strengths at ground-level are
9 kV/m for 500-kV lines and 12 kV/m for 765-kV lines (Lee et al. 1989).
Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-130
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
Measured magnetic field strengths at the location of maximum values beneath 500-kV lines
often average about 70 mG. During peak electricity use, when line current is high, the field
strength may peak at 140 mG (about 1 percent or less of the time) (Lee et al. 1989).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The EMFs resulting from 60-Hz power transmission lines fall under the category of non-ionizing
radiation. Much of the general population has been exposed to power line fields since near the
turn of the 20th century. There was little concern about health effects from such exposures until
the 1960s. A series of events during the 1960s and 1970s heightened public interest in the
possibility of health effects from non-ionizing radiation exposures and resulted in increased
scientific investigation in this area (NRC 1996). Then, in 1979, results of an epidemiological
study suggested a correlation between proximity to high-current wiring configurations and
incidence of childhood leukemia (Wertheimer and Leeper 1979). This report resulted in
additional interest and scientific research; however, no consistent evidence linking harmful
effects with 60-Hz exposures has been presented. Additionally, many subsequent studies have
been conducted on the exposure to EMF sources, and have concluded that current evidence
does not support the existence of any health consequences from EMFs resulting from 60-Hz
power transmission lines (WHO 2020, NIOSH 1996, NIEHS 2002).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
There are no U.S. Federal standards limiting residential or occupational exposure to EMFs from
power lines, but some States, such as Florida, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York,
and Oregon, have set electric field and magnetic field standards for transmission lines (NIEHS
2002). A voluntary occupational standard has been set for EMFs by the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. For occupational workers who are exposed
to 60 Hz (power lines), the electric field standard is 8.3 kV/m and the magnetic field standard is
4,200 mG, while for the general public who are exposed to 60 Hz, the electrical field standard is
4.2 kV/m and the magnetic field standard is 833 mG (ICNIRP 1998). The National Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health does not consider EMFs to be a proven health hazard (NIOSH
1996).
27
3.9.2.4
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
A physical hazard is an action, agent or condition that can cause harm upon contact. Physical
actions could include slips, trips, and falls from height. Physical agents could include noise,
vibration, and ionizing radiation. Physical conditions could include high heat, cold, pressure,
confined space, or psychosocial issues, such as work-related stress. Power plant and
maintenance workers could be working under potentially hazardous physical conditions
(e.g., excessive heat, cold, and pressure), including electrical work, power line maintenance,
and repair work.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Table 3.9-27 lists the total number of fatal occupational injuries that occurred in 2020 in different
industry sectors. For the utility sector, of which the nuclear industry is a part, 19 workers
suffered fatal occupational injuries. The rate of fatal injuries in the utility sector was less than
the rate in the construction; transportation and warehousing; agriculture, forestry, fishing, and
hunting; wholesale trade; and mining sectors. Table 3.9-28 lists the incidence rates of nonfatal
occupational injuries and illnesses in different utilities for 2020. The incidence rate of nonfatal
occupational injuries and illnesses is lowest for electric power generation, followed by electric
power transmission control and distribution.
Physical Hazards
February 2023
3-131
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
Table 3.9-27 Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries by Industry Sector in 2020
Industry Sector
Number
Rate (per 100,000 employees)
1,008
10.2
Transportation and warehousing
805
13.4
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting
511
21.5
Government
415
1.8
Manufacturing
340
2.3
Retail trade
275
2.0
Leisure and hospitality
219
2.5
Other services (excluding Public
Administration)
188
3.3
Wholesale trade
155
4.6
Educational and health services
145
0.7
Mining, quarrying, oil and gas extraction
78
N/A(d)
Financial activities
93
N/A
Information
31
N/A
19
N/A
Construction
Utilities
(a)
Electric power generation,
transmission, and distribution(b)
14
Electric power generation(c)
4
Electric power transmission, control,
and distribution
10
Natural gas distribution
1
N/A
Water sewage and other system
4
N/A
4,764
3.4
All sectors
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
(a) The numbers of fatalities from transportation, falls, and exposure to harmful substances or the environment were
10, 1, and 6, respectively.
(b) The numbers of fatalities from transportation, falls, and exposure to harmful substances or the environment were
7, 1, and 6, respectively.
(c) The numbers of fatalities from falls was 1.
(d) N/A = not available.
Sources: BLS 2021a; BLS 2020, BLS 2021d.
Table 3.9-28
Incidence Rate of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in Different
Utilities in 2020
Utility
Rate (per 100 Employees)
Utilities
8.4
Electric power generation, transmission, and distribution
5.7
Electric power generation
1.6
Fossil Fuel electric power generation
1.2
Nuclear electric power generation
0.1
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-132
February 2023
Affected Environment
Utility
Rate (per 100 Employees)
Electric power transmission, control, and distribution
6.0
Natural gas distribution
1.7
Water, sewage, and other system
1
Overall
2.7
1
Sources: BLS 2021b, BLS 2021c.
2
3
4
5
Table 3.9-29 lists the number and rate of fatal occupational injuries that occurred in 2020 for
listed occupations. The occupational safety and health hazards issue is generic to all types of
electrical generating stations, including nuclear power plants, and is of small significance if the
workers adhere to safety standards and use protective equipment.
6
7
Table 3.9-29 Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries for Selected Occupations
in 2020
Occupation
Fishers and hunting workers
Aircraft pilots and flight engineers
Logging workers
Structural iron and steel workers
Refuse and recyclable material collectors
Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
Helpers, construction trades
8
Source: BLS 2022.
9
3.9.2.4.1 Electric Shock Hazards
Number
Rate per 100,000 FullTime Equivalent Workers
42
50
42
16
30
207
887
19
132.14
34.3
91.7
32.5
33.1
20.9
25.8
43.3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
In-scope transmission lines are those lines that connect the plant to the first substation of the
regional electric grid. This substation is frequently, but not always, located on the plant
property. The greatest hazard from a transmission line is direct electrical contact with the
conductors. The electrical contact can occur without physical contact between a grounded
object and the conductor (e.g., when arcing occurs across an air gap) (BPA 2007). The electric
field created by a high-voltage line extends from the energized conductors to other conducting
objects, such as the ground, vegetation, buildings, vehicles, and persons. Potential field effects
can include induced currents, steady-state current shocks, spark-discharge shocks, and, in
some cases, field perception and neurobehavioral responses.
19
20
21
22
23
The shock hazard issue is evaluated by referring to the National Electric Safety Code (NESC).
The purpose of the NESC is the practical safeguarding of persons during the installation,
operation, or maintenance of electric supply and communication lines and associated
equipment. The NESC contains the basic provisions that are considered necessary for the
safety of employees and the public under the specified conditions (IEEE SA 2017).
24
25
26
Primary shock currents are produced mainly through direct contact with conductors and have
effects ranging from a mild tingling sensation to death by electrocution. Tower designs preclude
direct public access to the conductors. Secondary shock currents are produced when humans
February 2023
3-133
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
make contact with (1) capacitively charged bodies, such as a vehicle parked near a
transmission line, or (2) magnetically linked metallic structures, such as fences near
transmission lines. A person who contacts such an object could receive a shock and
experience a painful sensation at the point of contact. The intensity of the shock depends on
the EMF strength, the size of the object, and how well the object and the person are insulated
from ground.
7
8
9
10
Design criteria that limit hazards from steady-state currents are based on the NESC, which
requires that utility companies design transmission lines so that the short-circuit current to
ground, produced from the largest anticipated vehicle or object, is limited to less than
5 milliamperes (mA) (IEEE SA 2017).
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Historically, in the licensing process for the earlier licensed nuclear power plants, the issue of
electrical shock safety was not addressed. Additionally, some nuclear power plants that
received operating licenses with a stated transmission line voltage may have chosen to upgrade
the line voltage for reasons of efficiency, possibly without reanalysis of induction effects. Also,
since the initial NEPA review for those utilities that evaluated potential shock situations under
the provision of the NESC, land use may have changed, resulting in the need for a reevaluation
of this issue. Electrical shock potential is minimized for transmission lines that are operated in
adherence with the NESC.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A review of the SEISs to the LR GEIS published since 2013, found that 3 transmission lines at
South Texas did not meet the criteria defined by NESC (NRC 2013b), nor did nine transmission
line spans at Sequoyah (NRC 2015f). Regarding South Texas, the staff concluded that the
three transmission lines exceeded the NESC criterion by a small percentage. The locations
where the lines exceed the standard are in remote locations or are on private property, and the
applicant considered potential mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse impacts from
electric shock. In the case of Sequoyah, TVA committed to upgrades to correct the deficiencies
in transmission lines that did not meet the NESC criteria for induced current. The transmission
lines discussed in South Texas and Sequoyah span areas beyond what was termed in the 2013
LR GEIS as in-scope transmission lines.
29
3.10 Environmental Justice
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Under Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health
and environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income
populations. Although independent agencies, like the NRC, were only requested, rather than
directed, to comply with Executive Order 12898, the NRC Chairman, in a March 1994 letter to
the President, committed the NRC to endeavoring to carry out its measures “ … as part of
NRC’s efforts to comply with the requirements of NEPA” (NRC 1994). In 2004, the Commission
issued its Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC
Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states, “The Commission is committed
to the general goals set forth in E.O. 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA
review process.”
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-134
February 2023
Affected Environment
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations
“Each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and
analyze information assessing and comparing environmental and human health risks borne
by populations identified by race, national origin, or income. To the extent practical and
appropriate, Federal agencies shall use this information to determine whether their programs,
policies, and activities have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations.”
1
2
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) provides the following information in
Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997b):
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
•
Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects. In determining whether
human health effects are disproportionately high and adverse, agencies should consider to
the extent practicable: “(a) Whether the health effects, which may be measured in risks and
rates, are significant (as employed by NEPA), or above generally accepted norms. Adverse
health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death; and (b) Whether the
risk or rate of hazard exposure by a minority population, low-income population, or Indian
Tribe to an environmental hazard is significant (as employed by NEPA) and appreciably
exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or other
appropriate comparison group; and (c) Whether health effects occur in a minority population,
low-income population, or Indian Tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures
from environmental hazards.”
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
•
Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects. In determining whether
environmental effects are disproportionately high and adverse, agencies should consider to
the extent practicable: “(a) Whether there is or will be an impact on the natural or physical
environment that significantly (as employed by NEPA) and adversely affects a minority
population, low-income population, or Indian Tribe. Such effects may include ecological,
cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts on minority communities, low-income
communities, or Indian Tribes when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural
or physical environment; and (b) Whether environmental effects are significant (as employed
by NEPA) and are or may be having an adverse impact on minority populations, low-income
populations, or Indian Tribes that appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed
those on the general population or other appropriate comparison group; and (c) Whether the
environmental effects occur or would occur in a minority population, low-income population,
or Indian Tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental
hazards.”
28
29
30
31
The environmental justice analysis identifies minority populations, low-income populations, and
Indian Tribes that could be affected by continued reactor operations and refurbishment activities
at a nuclear power plant. The following CEQ definitions of minority individuals and populations
and low-income populations are used:
32
33
34
35
36
•
Minority. Individual(s) who identify themselves as members of the following population
groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African
American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races meaning
individuals who identified themselves as being a member of two or more races, for example,
Hispanic and Asian.
February 2023
3-135
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
•
Minority population. Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority population of
an affected area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage of the
affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general
population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. Minority populations may be
communities of individuals living in close geographic proximity to one another or they may
be a geographically dispersed or transient set of individuals, such as migrant workers or
Native Americans, who, as a group, experience common conditions with regard to
environmental exposure or environmental effects. The appropriate geographic unit of
analysis may be a political jurisdiction, county, region, or State, or some other similar unit
that is chosen so as not to artificially dilute or inflate the affected minority population.
11
12
13
14
15
16
•
Low-income population. Low-income population is defined as individuals or families living
below the annual statistical poverty threshold as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau’s
Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty (CEQ 1997b). Low-income
populations may be communities of individuals living in close geographic proximity to one
another, or they may be a set of individuals, such as migrant workers or Native Americans,
who, as a group, experience common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.
17
18
19
20
Consistent with the definitions used in the public and occupational health and safety analysis,
affected populations are defined as minority and low-income populations who reside within a
50 mi (80 km) radius of a nuclear plant. Data on minority and low-income individuals are
collected and analyzed at the census block group or tract level.14
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The presence of minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes within 50 mi
(80 km) of each nuclear power plant varies considerably depending on the location of Tribal
lands, population trends, and regional economic activity. Nuclear power plants in southern and
southwestern States have been found to have larger minority populations, including Browns
Ferry, Brunswick, Catawba, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant (Farley), North Anna, Robinson,
Summer, and Surry nuclear plants. Nuclear power plants near metropolitan areas generally
have larger minority and low-income populations, including Dresden and Ginna nuclear plants.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Section 4–4 of EO 12898 directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and appropriate, to
collect and analyze information on the consumption patterns of populations who rely principally
on fish and/or wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these consumption
patterns to the public. Consideration is given to determine the means by which these
populations could be disproportionately affected by the continued operation of a nuclear power
plant. Consumption patterns (e.g., subsistence agriculture, hunting, and fishing) and certain
resource dependencies often reflect the traditional or cultural practices of minority populations,
low-income populations, and Indian Tribes.
36
37
38
39
In assessing human health effects, the NRC examines radiological risk from consumption of
fish, wildlife, and local produce; exposure to radioactive material in water, soils, and vegetation;
and the inhalation of airborne radioactive material during nuclear power plant operation. To
assess the effect of nuclear reactor operations, licensees are required to collect samples from
14
A census block group is a combination of census blocks, which are statistical subdivisions of a census
tract. A census block is the smallest geographic entity for which the U.S. Census Bureau collects and
tabulates decennial census information. A census tract is a small, relatively permanent statistical
subdivision of counties delineated by local committees of census data users in accordance with U.S.
Census Bureau guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data. Census
block groups are subsets of census tracts (USCB Undated).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-136
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
the environment, as part of their REMP. These samples are analyzed annually for radioactivity
to assess the impact of nuclear power plant operations.
3
3.11 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
As part of their normal operations and as a result of equipment repairs and replacements due to
normal maintenance activities, nuclear power plants routinely generate both radioactive and
nonradioactive wastes. Nonradioactive wastes include hazardous and nonhazardous wastes.
There is also a class of waste, called mixed waste, that is both radioactive and hazardous. The
systems used to manage (i.e., treat, store, and dispose of) these wastes are described in
Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5. The basic characteristics and current disposition paths for these
waste streams are discussed in Section 3.11.1 for radioactive waste, 3.11.2 for hazardous
waste, 3.11.3 for mixed waste, and 3.11.4 for nonradioactive nonhazardous waste. Waste
minimization and pollution prevention measures commonly employed at nuclear power plants
are reviewed in Section 3.11.5.
14
3.11.1
15
16
17
18
19
There are two types of radiological wastes that could be associated with a commercial reactor:
LLW and spent nuclear fuel. Regulations regarding how a licensee shall dispose of licensed
materials is regulated in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20 Subpart K. The NRC requires that all
licensees implement measures to minimize, to the extent practicable, the generation of
radioactive waste (10 CFR 20.1406). These wastes are described in the sections below.
20
3.11.1.1
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
The Commission's licensing requirements for the land disposal of LLW are set forth in 10 CFR
Part 61, “Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste.” Part 61 defines
LLW as “radioactive waste not classified as high-level radioactive waste [HLRW], transuranic
[TRU] waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-product material as defined in paragraphs (2), (3), and
(4) of the definition of by-product material set forth in § 20.1003 of this chapter.”15 The NRC’s
definition of LLW is included in 10 CFR 61.55. Depending on the types and concentrations of
radionuclides in the waste, the NRC classifies LLW as belonging to Class A, Class B, Class C,
or greater-than-Class C (GTCC). Class A wastes generally contain short-lived radionuclides at
relatively low concentrations, whereas the half-lives and concentrations of radionuclides in the
Class B and C wastes are progressively higher. In addition, Class B wastes must meet more
rigorous requirements with regard to their form to ensure they remain stable after disposal
(e.g., by adding chemical stabilizing agents such as cement to the waste or placing the waste in
a disposal container or structure that provides stability after disposal). Class C wastes must not
only meet the more rigorous requirements above but also require the implementation of
additional measures at the disposal facility to protect against inadvertent intrusion (e.g., by
increasing the thickness and hardness of the cover over the waste disposal cell). Wastes
containing radionuclides at concentrations that are higher than what is allowed for Class C
wastes are classified as GTCC. GTCC is LLW with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed
the limits established by the Commission for Class C LLW (NRC 2019e). Under the NRC’s
regulations, GTCC waste is considered to be generally unacceptable for near-surface disposal
and must be disposed of in a geologic repository unless the Commission approves, on a caseby-case basis, disposal of such waste in a disposal site licensed pursuant to 10 CFR
61.55(a)(2)(iv). Disposal of GTCC waste is the responsibility of the DOE (Public Law 99-240).
15
Radioactive Waste
Low-Level Radioactive Waste
10 CFR 61.2 (definition of “waste”).
February 2023
3-137
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
DOE prepared an EIS to evaluate the various alternatives for disposing of these wastes (DOE
2016) and presented the alternatives for disposal of GTCC LLW and GTCC-like waste (DOE
2017).
Definitions of Radioactive Wastes Associated with Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
•
Low-level waste: Radioactive material that (1) is not high-level radioactive waste, spent
nuclear fuel, or by-product material (as defined in Section 11e(2) of the AEA of 1954 [42
U.S.C. 2014(e)(2)]) and (2) is classified by the NRC, consistent with existing law, as lowlevel radioactive waste (as defined in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as
amended, Public Law 99 240; 42 U.S.C. § 2021b et seq.).
•
Spent nuclear fuel: Fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following
irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been separated by reprocessing
(as included in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, Public Law 97-425 [42
U.S.C. § 10101 et seq.]).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
LLW generated at nuclear power plants generally consists of air filters, cleaning rags, protective
tape, paper and plastic coverings, discarded contaminated clothing, tools, equipment parts, and
solid laboratory wastes (all of these are collectively known as dry active waste) and wet wastes
that result during the processing and recycling of contaminated liquids at the plants. Wet
wastes generally consist of evaporator bottoms, spent demineralizer or ion exchange resins,
and spent filter material from the equipment drain, floor drain, and water cleanup systems. The
wet wastes are generally solidified, dried, or dewatered to make them acceptable at a disposal
site. Some plants perform these operations onsite, while others ship their waste to a third-party
vendor offsite for processing before it is sent to a disposal facility. The radioactivity can range
from just above the background levels found in nature to very highly radioactive. LLW that
contains radionuclides that have shorter decay times can be stored onsite by licensees until it
can be released in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart K. LLW that contains
radionuclides that have longer decay times can be stored onsite until material inventory
amounts are large enough for shipment to a LLW disposal site. The transportation and disposal
of solid radioactive wastes are performed in accordance with the applicable requirements of
10 CFR Part 71 and 10 CFR Part 61, respectively.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
LLW shipments from nuclear power plants to disposal facilities or waste processing centers and
from waste processing centers to disposal facilities are generally made by trucks. Wastes are
segregated and packaged by class. For load-leveling purposes, the wastes may be stored
onsite at the plant temporarily before shipment offsite. Construction and operation of any LLW
storage areas and any activities related to storage and processing of LLW onsite, including the
preparation of waste for shipment and loading on vehicles before shipment, are carried out in
accordance with the licensing requirements imposed by the NRC. All such operations are
accounted for when the applicants prepare their annual radioactive effluent release reports to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable Federal standards and requirements. The primary
standards applicable to all the power plants are contained in 10 CFR Part 20, 40 CFR Part 190,
and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
31
32
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-240)16 gave
States the responsibility for disposal of the LLW generated at commercial facilities within their
16
The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act superseded, in its entirety, an earlier law,
the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-573).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-138
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
states. As an incentive for States to manage waste on a regional basis, Congress consented to
the formation of interstate agreements known as compacts, and it granted compact member
States the authority to exclude LLW from States that are members of other compacts or
unaffiliated with a compact. There are currently four operating disposal facilities in the United
States that are licensed to accept LLW from commercial facilities (including nuclear power
plants) (NRC 2020h). They are located in Clive, Utah; Andrews County, Texas; Barnwell, South
Carolina; and near Richland, Washington. The EnergySolutions disposal facility in Clive, Utah,
is licensed by the State of Utah to accept Class A LLW from all regions of the United States.
The Waste Control Specialists, LLC site in Andrews County, Texas, is licensed by the State of
Texas to accept Class A, B, and C LLW from the Texas Compact generators (Texas and
Vermont) and from outside generators with permission from the Texas Compact.
EnergySolutions Barnwell Operations located near Barnwell, South Carolina, accepts waste
from the Atlantic Compact States (Connecticut, New Jersey, and South Carolina) and is
licensed by the State of South Carolina to dispose of Class A, B, and C LLW. U.S. Ecology,
located near Richland, Washington, accepts LLW from the Northwest and Rocky Mountain
Compact States (Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming,
Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico) and is licensed by the State of Washington to dispose of
Class A, B, and C waste.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Annual quantities of LLW generated at the nuclear power plants vary from year to year
depending on the number of maintenance activities undertaken and the number of unusual
occurrences taking place in that year. However, on average, the volume and radioactivity of
LLW generated at a PWR was approximately 10,600 ft3 (300 m3) and 1,000 Ci (3.7 1013 Bq)
per year, respectively, according to the 1996 LR GEIS (Table 6.6 in NRC 1996). The annual
volume and activity of LLW generated at a BWR are approximately twice the values indicated
for a PWR. The total volume and activity of LLW generated at all the LWRs in the United States
was approximately 706,000 ft3 (20,000 m3) and 60,000 Ci (2.2 1015 Bq), respectively,
according to the 1996 LR GEIS (Table 6.6 in NRC 1996). Approximately 95 percent of this
waste is Class A (NEI 2007b in the 2013 LR GEIS). Table 3.11-1 and Table 3.11-2 show the
volume and activity of LLW shipped offsite per operating reactor unit from 11 power plant sites
in 2020. For example, there are two operating units at the Comanche Peak site, and the
volume and activity of LLW shipped from the Comanche Peak site in 2020 were 4,167 ft3
(118 m3) and 394 Ci (1.46 1013 Bq). The numbers in Table 3.11-1 and Table 3.11-2 were
obtained from the annual radioactive effluent release reports issued by each plant for 2020.
34
35
36
37
38
Almost all of the LLW generated at the reactor sites is shipped offsite, either directly to a
disposal facility or to a processing center for volume reduction or another type of treatment
before being sent to a disposal site. The number of shipments leaving each reactor site varies
but generally ranges from a few to about 100 per year. 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart K, discusses
the various means by which the licensees may dispose of their radioactive waste.
39
40
Table 3.11-1 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shipped Offsite per Reactor from Select
Pressurized Water Reactor Power Plant Sites in 2020(a)
Nuclear Power Plant
Volume (m3)
Activity (Ci)
Comanche Peak
118
394
D.C. Cook
382.5
Palo Verde 1-3
850
February 2023
Number of
Shipments
Number of
Reactors
5
2
194.226
16
1
150
40
3
3-139
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
Nuclear Power Plant
Robinson
Volume (m3)
1,440
Seabrook
44.35
Surry
261.76
Activity (Ci)
17,800
124.497
170.93075
Number of
Shipments
Number of
Reactors
45
2
5
1
13
2
1
2
3
4
Ci = curies; m3= cubic meter.
(a) Annual effluent release reports. The radiological environmental monitoring reports can also be accessed by
navigating the reactor webpage for each site on the NRC website; effluent reports and environmental reports are
available through the “Plant Environmental Report” section of the key documents.
5
6
Table 3.11-2
Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shipped Offsite per Reactor from
Select Boiling Water Reactor Power Plant Sites in 2020(a)
Nuclear Power Plant
Fermi 2
Volume (m3)
2,719.616
Hatch
Activity (Ci)
2,490.1
Number of
Shipments
Number of
Reactors
82
1
625.1
534.351
67
2
770
180.8
37
3
Limerick
739.8
494
35
1
Columbia
303.9
892
48
1
Hope Creek and Salem
(b)
7
8
9
10
11
12
Ci = curies; m3= cubic meter.
(a) Annual effluent release reports. The radiological environmental monitoring reports can also be accessed by
navigating the reactor webpage for each site on the NRC website; effluent reports and environmental reports are
available through the “Plant Environmental Report” section of the key documents.
(b) Hope Creek is a BWR but is reported with the Salem Generating Station as a joint site, so it is included in this
table.
13
3.11.1.2
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Spent nuclear fuel is fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following irradiation,
the constituent elements of which have not been separated. When spent nuclear fuel is
removed from a reactor, it is stored in racks placed in a pool (called the spent fuel pool) to
isolate it from the environment and to allow the fuel rods to cool. Licensing plans contemplate
disposal of spent fuel in a deep geological permanent repository. Siting and developing a
permanent repository is required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Delays in siting a
permanent repository, coupled with rapidly filling spent fuel pools at some plants, have led
utilities to seek means of continued onsite storage. These include (1) expanded pool storage,
(2) aboveground dry storage, (3) longer fuel burnup to reduce the amount of spent nuclear fuel
requiring interim storage, and (4) shipment of spent nuclear fuel to other plants. Any
modification to the spent nuclear fuel storage configuration at a nuclear power plant is subject to
NRC review and approval. Each review consists of a safety and environmental review. As
part of the environmental review for such a modification, the NRC generally prepares an
environmental assessment.
28
29
30
31
Expanded pool storage options include (1) enlarging the capacity of spent fuel racks, (2) adding
racks to existing pool arrays (“dense-racking”), (3) reconfiguring spent fuel racks with neutronabsorbing racks, and (4) employing double-tiered storage (installing a second tier of racks
above those on the spent fuel pool floor).
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-140
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Aboveground dry storage involves moving the spent fuel assemblies, which have been stored in
the spent fuel pool for a certain period of time, to aboveground, shielded enclosures that are air
cooled (also known as dry storage). The spent nuclear fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool to
cool, typically for several years, before it may be moved to a dry cask storage facility. In the late
1970s and early 1980s, the need for alternative storage grew when pools at many nuclear
reactors filled with stored spent fuel. Utilities looked at options such as dry cask storage for
increasing their storage capacity for spent nuclear fuel.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Dry cask storage allows spent nuclear fuel to be surrounded by inert gas inside a container
called a cask. The casks are typically steel cylinders that are either welded or bolted closed.
The steel cylinder provides a leak-proof containment for the spent nuclear fuel. Each cylinder is
surrounded by additional steel, concrete, or other material to provide radiation shielding to
workers and members of the public. Some of the cask designs can be used for both storage
and transportation.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There are various dry storage cask system designs. With some designs, the steel cylinders
containing the spent nuclear fuel are placed vertically in a concrete vault; other designs orient
the cylinders horizontally. The concrete vaults provide the radiation shielding. Other cask
designs orient the steel cylinder vertically on a concrete pad at a dry cask storage site and use
both metal and concrete outer cylinders for radiation shielding. Figure 3.11-1 shows two of the
typical dry cask storage designs. The location of the dry casks is in a facility known as an
ISFSI. This is a facility designed and constructed for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel,
solid reactor-related GTCC, and other radioactive materials associated with spent nuclear fuel
and reactor-related GTCC storage. The ISFSI is generally located within the same site where
the nuclear fuel is used and are licensed by the NRC under either a general license or a sitespecific license (see 10 CFR Part 72). Figure 3.11-2 shows the locations of currently licensed
ISFSIs.
26
27
28
Longer-burnup fuel is fuel from which more energy can be obtained before it is taken out of the
reactor and declared spent. As a result of using this fuel, less spent fuel is generated for the
same amount of energy produced in a reactor.
29
30
Figure 3.11-1
February 2023
Typical Dry Cask Storage Systems. Source: NRC 2020k.
3-141
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
Definitions of Other Wastes Associated with Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
•
Hazardous Waste: A solid waste or combination of solid wastes that, because of its
quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may (1) cause
or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible
or incapacitating reversible illness, or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed
of, or otherwise managed (as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as
amended, Public Law 94-580 [42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.]).
•
Mixed Waste: Waste that is both hazardous and radioactive.
•
Nonradioactive Nonhazardous Waste: Waste that is neither radioactive nor hazardous.
1
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-142
February 2023
February 2023
3-143
Figure 3.11-2
Locations of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations Licensed by the NRC. Source: NRC 2021i.
Affected Environment
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1
2
Affected Environment
1
3.11.2
Hazardous Waste
2
3
4
5
Hazardous waste is defined by the EPA in 40 CFR Part 261, “Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste” as solid waste that (1) is listed by the EPA as being hazardous; (2) exhibits
one of the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity; or (3) is not excluded by
the EPA from regulation as being hazardous.
6
7
8
All aspects of hazardous waste generation, treatment, transportation, and disposal are strictly
regulated by the EPA or by the States under agreement with the EPA per the regulations
promulgated under RCRA (Public Law 94-580 [42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.]).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The types of hazardous waste that nuclear power plants typically generate include waste paints,
lab packs, and solvents. The quantities of these wastes generated at individual plants are
highly variable but, generally, are relatively small compared to those at most other industrial
facilities that generate hazardous waste. Most nuclear power plants accumulate their
hazardous waste onsite as authorized under RCRA and transport it to a treatment facility for
processing. The remaining residues are sent to a permanent disposal facility. There are quite a
few RCRA-permitted treatment and disposal facilities throughout the United States that are used
by the owners of nuclear power plants.
17
18
19
20
21
22
A class of hazardous waste called universal waste is handled differently than hazardous waste
and includes batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, light bulbs, and aerosol cans.
Federal universal waste regulations can be found in 40 CFR Part 273. All aspects of hazardous
waste, such as generation, treatment, transportation, and disposal, are regulated by the EPA or
by States under agreements with the EPA per the regulations set forth under RCRA. RCRA
also defines categories of hazardous waste generators (EPA 2020a).
23
3.11.3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Mixed waste, regulated under RCRA and the AEA of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C.
§ 2011 et seq.), is waste that is both radioactive and hazardous (EPA 2019). Mixed waste is
subject to dual regulation: by the EPA or an authorized State for its hazardous component and
by the NRC or an agreement state for its radioactivity. The types of mixed wastes generated at
nuclear power plants include organics (e.g., liquid scintillation fluids, waste oils, halogenated
organics), metals (e.g., lead, mercury, chromium, and cadmium), solvents, paints, and cutting
fluids. The quantity of mixed waste generated varies considerably from plant to plant
(NRC 1996). Overall, the quantities generated during operations are generally relatively small,
but because of the added complexity of dual regulation, it is more problematic for plant owners
to manage and dispose of mixed wastes than the other types of wastes. Similar to hazardous
waste, mixed waste is generally accumulated onsite in designated areas as authorized under
RCRA then shipped offsite for treatment as appropriate and for disposal. The only disposal
facilities that are authorized to receive mixed LLW for disposal at present are the U.S. Ecology
and the Waste Control Specialists facilities discussed under Section 3.11.1.1.
38
39
40
Occupational exposures and any releases from onsite treatment of these and any other types of
wastes are considered when evaluating compliance with the applicable Federal standards and
regulations: for example, 10 CFR Part 20, 40 CFR Part 190, and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Mixed Waste
February 2023
3-144
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
3.11.4
Nonhazardous Waste
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Nonhazardous waste is waste that is not contaminated with either radionuclides or hazardous
chemicals. These wastes include office trash, paper, wood, oils not mixed with hazardous
waste or radiological waste, and sewage. Solid wastes defined as nonhazardous by 40 CFR
Part 261 are collected and disposed of in a landfill. Sanitary wastes defined as nonhazardous
by 40 CFR Part 261 are treated either at an onsite sewage treatment plant (as in the case of
many large-scale industrial facilities), discharged directly to a municipal sewage system for
treatment, or discharged to onsite septic tanks. The uncontaminated wastes and sewage are
tested for radionuclides before being sent offsite to make sure that there is no inadvertent
contamination. Any offsite releases from the onsite sewage treatment plants are conducted
under NPDES permits. Most plants also collect and test the stormwater runoff from their sites
before discharging it offsite. Large LWRs have nonradioactive waste management systems in
place that manage both hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. For example, boiler blowdown,
water treatment wastes, boiler metal cleaning wastes, laboratory and sampling wastes, floor and
yard drains, and stormwater runoff are all managed by these systems and are regulated by an
NPDES permit, with the exception of wastes in solid form (NRC 2013a).
17
3.11.5
18
19
20
21
Waste minimization and pollution prevention are important elements of operations at all nuclear
power plants. The licensees are required to consider pollution prevention measures as dictated
by the Pollution Prevention Act (Public Law 101-508 [42 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq.]) and RCRA
(Public Law 94-580 [42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.]).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
In addition, licensees have waste minimization programs in place that are aimed at minimizing
the quantities of waste sent offsite for treatment or disposal. Waste minimization techniques
employed by the licensees may include (1) source reduction, which includes (a) changes in
input materials (e.g., using materials that are not hazardous or are less hazardous), (b) changes
in technology, and (c) changes in operating practices and (2) recycling of materials either onsite
or offsite. For example, the licensees tend to reuse lead shielding components onsite until they
have no further use for them. The establishment of a waste minimization program is also a
requirement for managing hazardous wastes under RCRA.
30
3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
31
3.12.1
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Gases found in the Earth’s atmosphere that trap heat and play a role in the Earth’s climate are
collectively termed greenhouse gases (GHGs). These GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), water vapor (H2O), and fluorinated gases, such as
hydrofluorocarbons (HCFs), perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Operations at nuclear
power plants release GHGs from stationary combustion sources (e.g., diesel generators,
pumps, diesel engines, boilers), refrigeration systems, electrical transmission and distribution
systems, and mobile sources (worker vehicles and delivery vehicles).
39
40
41
42
43
The Earth’s climate responds to changes in concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere because
these gases affect the amount of energy absorbed and heat trapped by the atmosphere.
Increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere generally increase the Earth’s surface
temperature. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O have significantly increased
since 1750 (IPCC 2013, IPCC 2021). Long-lived GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, and fluorinated
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
February 2023
3-145
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
gases—are well mixed throughout the Earth’s atmosphere, and their impact on climate is longlasting and cumulative in nature as a result of their long atmospheric lifetimes (EPA 2016).
Therefore, the extent and nature of climate change is not specific to where GHGs are emitted.
Carbon dioxide is of primary concern for global climate change because it is the primary gas
emitted as a result of human activities. The most recent report from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that “[i]t is unequivocal that human influence has
warmed the global climate system since pre-industrial times” (IPCC 2021). The EPA has
determined that GHGs “may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to
endanger public welfare” (74 FR 66496).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
In 2009, the EPA issued a final rule requiring the reporting of GHG emissions from facilities that
directly emit 25,000 MT (27,557 tons) of CO2 equivalents (CO2eq17) or more per year (74 FR
56260). The 25,000 MT of CO2eq reporting threshold EPA established in the above final rule is
not an indication of what EPA considers to be a significant (or insignificant) level of GHG
emissions on a scientific basis, but a threshold chosen by EPA for policy evaluation purposes
(74 FR 56260). The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program captures approximately 90 percent of
total U.S. GHG emissions from more than 8,000 facilities, because facilities that fall below the
25,000 MT of CO2eq/yr are not required to report GHG emissions to the EPA. The EPA
publishes GHG emission data from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program via the Facility
Level Information on GreenHouse Gases Tool. The EPA also prepares an annual report,
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Inventory), that estimates total GHG
emissions across all sectors of the U.S. economy by using national statistics (e.g., energy data,
agricultural activities). EPA’s Inventory is an essential tool for addressing climate change and
participating in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to compare the
relative global contribution of different emission sources and GHGs to climate change. In 2020,
U.S. gross GHG emissions totaled 6,692 million tons (5,981 million MT) of CO2eq (EPA 2022a).
Carbon dioxide represented 78.8 percent of total emissions, and the largest source of GHG
emissions was fossil fuel combustion from transportation (e.g., passenger vehicles, freight
trucks, light-duty trucks), followed by fossil fuel electric power generation (EPA 2022a). In 2020,
the total amount of CO2eq emissions related to fossil fuel electricity generation was 1,586 million
tons (1,439 million MT) (EPA 2022a). Table 3.12-1 presents annual GHG emissions by State.
31
Table 3.12-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions by State, 2020
State
Total GHG Emissions (tons)
Alabama
Arkansas
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Delaware
81,529,926
36,576,479
48,145,971
101,817,155
44,252,447
12,067,762
331,144
6,511,631
17
Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2eq) is a metric used to compare the emissions of GHG based on their
global warming potential—a measure used to compare how much heat a GHG traps in the atmosphere.
The global warming potential is the total energy that a gas absorbs over a period of time, compared to
CO2. Carbon dioxide equivalent is obtained by multiplying the amount of the GHG by the associated
GWP. For example, the global warming potential of CH4 is estimated to be 21; therefore, one ton of CH4
emission is equivalent to 21 tons of CO2 emission.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-146
February 2023
Affected Environment
State
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Nevada
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
1
2
3
Total GHG Emissions (tons)
132,460,532
59,044,565
44,492,715
5,523,906
85,500,581
123,154,493
36,175,597
73,303,670
149,745,938
10,341,372
17,607,838
3,190,240
73,847,686
38,502,904
75,413,377
45,465,248
16,042,590
51,036,623
39,668,230
29,625,029
2,399,564
23,096,674
30,164,049
18,545,886
39,777,988
113,959,613
53,666,856
14,961,597
115,362,063
4,008,019
35,370,551
5,764,182
37,853,626
397,341,699
36,718,856
48,514,702
481,491
25,666,160
44,591,776
GHG = greenhouse gas.
To convert to MT multiply by 0.907
Source: EPA 2022d.
February 2023
3-147
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
GHG emissions from nuclear power plants are typically very minor because such plants, by their
very nature, do not normally burn fossil fuels to generate electricity. Sources include stationary
and mobile combustion sources, including diesel generators, pumps, diesel engines, boilers,
worker vehicles, or delivery vehicles. Other GHG sources from nuclear power plants may
include human-made fluorinated compounds. These include hydrofluorocarbons and
perfluorocarbons contained in refrigerants. Sulfur hexafluoride is used in electric power
transmission and distribution applications. Sulfur hexafluoride can be found in substations,
circuit breakers, and other switchgear. The gas has replaced flammable insulating oils in many
applications and allows for more compact substations. Fugitive emissions of sulfur hexafluoride
can escape from gas-insulated substations and switchgear through seals, especially those in
older equipment. The gas can also be released during equipment manufacturing, installation,
servicing, and disposal (EPA 2022a).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Operations at nuclear power plants release GHGs (primarily CO2) from stationary combustion
sources (e.g., diesel generators, pumps, diesel engines, boilers), refrigeration systems,
electrical transmission and distribution systems, and mobile sources (e.g., worker vehicles and
delivery vehicles). GHG emissions generated can be categorized into direct and indirect
emissions. The EPA has developed guidance to identify and scope sources to delineate,
inventory, and account for GHG emissions. Direct GHG emissions include those that are
owned or controlled by an organization (EPA 2021b). The EPA categorizes direct GHG
emissions as Scope 1 emissions. This includes GHG emissions associated with stationary and
mobile combustion sources at nuclear power plants, as well as fugitive emissions from
refrigeration equipment and transmission lines. Indirect emissions are those associated with an
organization’s activities but are emitted from sources owned by other entities. The EPA’s
guidance categorizes indirect GHG emissions as Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions. Scope 2
GHG emissions include emissions associated with the purchase of electricity consumed by the
organization (EPA 2020b). Scope 3 emissions includes those from upstream and downstream
activities such as transportation of purchased products, employee commuting, and end of-life
treatment of sold products (EPA 2022c).
29
30
In 2009, the Commission issued a memorandum and order in CLI-09-21 (NRC 2009d) that
stated the following:
31
32
33
34
35
36
[B]ecause the Staff is currently addressing the emerging issues surrounding
greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews required for the
licensing of nuclear facilities, we believe it is prudent to provide the following
guidance to the Staff. We expect the Staff to include consideration of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental reviews for
major licensing actions under the National Environmental Policy Act.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Following the issuance of CLI-09-21 (NRC 2009d), the NRC began to evaluate the effects of
GHG emissions and its implications for global climate change in its environmental reviews for
license renewal applications. For the 2013 LR GEIS, direct GHG emissions data for facilities
were not available to support an impact level determination for the license renewal term. Since
publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC has included within each SEIS a plant-specific
analysis of GHG emissions over the course of the license renewal term (initial and subsequent).
Table 3.12-2 presents direct and indirect GHG emissions from representative operating nuclear
power plants. The observed range and distribution of direct and indirect GHG emissions from
site to site is a result of different sources and contributors, as well as differences in GHG data
that nuclear power plant licensees inventory. Not all States have GHG emission reporting
requirements, and EPA requires reporting only if the 25,000 MT threshold is met. In the
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-148
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
absence of these reporting requirements, nuclear power plant licensees do not inventory GHG
data uniformly.
3
4
Table 3.12-2 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Operations at Nuclear Power
Plants
Nuclear Power Plant
Braidwood(b)
Byron(b)
Callaway(c)
Columbia(d)
Davis-Besse(e)
Fermi(f)
Indian Point(g)
LaSalle(h)
North Anna(i)
Peach Bottom(j)
Point Beach(k)
River Bend(l)
Seabrook(m)
Surry(n)
Turkey Point(o)
Waterford(p)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Direct Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (T/yr)(a)
3,562―14,778
4,761―7,638
845―5,042
650―856
5,173
6,411―11,897
540―7,188
2,500
430―690
29,705
660―1,110
360―820
7,893―47,778
340―4,630
500―790
716―3,087
Indirect Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (T/yr)(a)
16,459―24,380
6,307―7,638
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,166
4,928
36,066
4,490
10,090
3,460
2,900
N/A
4,730
3,400
3,307
N/A = Not Available; T/yr = ton per year.
(a) To convert to MT multiply by 0.907.
(b) Data available for 2008–2012. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources, refrigerants, and the CO2
purge and fire protection system. Indirect emissions are from purchased electricity. Sources: NRC 2015c, NRC
2015d, Exelon Generation Company 2013, Exelon Generation Company 2014.
(c) Data available for 2007–2011. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources. Source: NRC 2014f.
(d) Data available for 2006–2009. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources. Source: NRC 2012b.
(e) Data available for 2010. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources. Source: NRC 2015e.
(f) Data available for 2009–2013. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources and refrigerants. Indirect
emissions source include worker vehicles. Source: NRC 2016c.
(g) Data available for 2009–2013. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources and electrical equipment
related sources. Indirect emissions include worker vehicles. Source: NRC 2018e.
(h) Data available for 2010–2014. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources, refrigerants, and fugitive
emissions sources (from the CO2 injection system, fire protection system, and condensers). Indirect emissions
include purchased electricity. Source: NRC 2016d.
(i) Data available for 2013–2017. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources. Indirect emissions from
worker vehicles. Source: NRC 2021g.
(j) Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources. Direct emissions are based on maximum allowable fuel
usage and hours as prescribed in Peach Bottom’s air permit, rather than actual fuel usage and run time.
Therefore, the emissions are overestimates. Indirect emissions include worker vehicles. Source: NRC 2020g.
(k) Data available for 2014–2018. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources. Indirect emissions from
worker vehicles. Source: NRC 2021f.
(l) Data available for 2011–2015. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources. Indirect emissions from
worker vehicles. Source: NRC 2018c.
(m) Data available for 2005–2009. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources and transmission substation.
In 2007, higher than normal GHG emissions resulted from two equipment failures that contributed to 42,479 tons
of CO2eq (of the total 47, 778 total direct emissions). Sources: NRC 2015b and NextEra Energy 2010..
February 2023
3-149
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
(n) Data available for 2011–2015. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources. Indirect emissions from
worker vehicles. Source: NRC 2019d.
(o) Data available for 2012–2016. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources. Indirect emissions from
worker vehicles. Source: NRC 2019c.
(p) Data available for 2010–2014. Direct emissions include onsite combustion sources. Indirect emissions from
worker vehicles.
Source: NRC 2018d.
8
3.12.2
Observed Changes in Climate
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Climate change is the decades or longer change in climate measurements (e.g., temperature
and precipitation) that has been observed on a global, national, and regional level (IPCC 2007;
EPA 2016; USGCRP 2014). Climate change research indicates that the cause of the Earth’s
warming over the last 50 to 100 years is due to the buildup of GHGs in the atmosphere resulting
from human activities (IPCC 2013, IPCC 2021; USGCRP 2014, USGCRP 2017, USGCRP
2018). On a global level, from 1901 to 2016, the average temperature has increased by 1.8 °F
(1.0 degree Celsius [°C]) (USGCRP 2018). Since 1901, precipitation has increased at an
average rate of 0.1 in. (0.25 cm) per decade on a global level (EPA 2021a). The observed
global change in average surface temperature and precipitation has been accompanied by an
increase in sea surface temperatures, a decrease in global glacier ice, an increase in sea level,
and changes in extreme weather events. Such extreme events include an increase in the
frequency of heat waves, very heavy precipitation (defined as the heaviest 1 percent of all daily
events), and recorded maximum daily high temperatures (IPCC 2007; EPA 2016; USGCRP
2009, USGCRP 2014). From 1880 to 2013, the global average sea level has risen at a rate of
0.06 in (0.15 cm) per year and from 1880 to 2020 global sea surface temperature has increased
at a rate of 0.14 °F (0.07 °C) per decade (EPA 2021a).
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The 2013 LR GEIS summarized the findings of the Second Annual Climate Assessment
developed by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) (USGCRP 2009). The
USGCRP is a Federal program mandated by Congress to coordinate Federal research
conducted to better understand climate change. Since publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, Third
and Fourth Annual Climate Assessments have been published (USGCRP 2014 and USGCRP
2018). The Fourth Annual Climate Assessment (USGCRP 2018) builds on the work of the
previous assessments. The NRC uses consensus information from the USGCRP to evaluate
the effects of climate change in its SEISs for license renewal of nuclear power plants. The
USGCRP reports that from 1901 to 2016, average surface temperatures have increased by 1.8
°F (1.0 °C) across the contiguous United States (USGCRP 2018). Since 1901, average annual
precipitation has increased by 4 percent across the United States (USGCRP 2018). Observed
climate change indicators across the United States include increases in the frequency and
intensity of heavy precipitation, earlier onset of spring snowmelt and runoff, rise of sea level and
increased tidal flooding in coastal areas, an increased occurrence of heat waves, and a
decrease in the occurrence of cold waves. Since the 1980s, data show an increase in the
length of the frost-free season (i.e., the period between the last occurrence of 32 °F (0 °C) in the
spring and first occurrence of 32 °F (0 °C) in the fall), across the contiguous United States.
Over the period 1991 through 2011, the average frost-free season was 10 days longer (relative
to the 1901 through 1960 time period) (USGCRP 2014). Over just the past two decades, the
number of high-temperature records observed in the United States has far exceeded the
number of low-temperature records (USGCRP 2018). Since the 1980s, the intensity, frequency,
and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes have increased (USGCRP 2014).
47
48
Climate change and its impacts can vary regionally, spatially, and seasonally, depending on
local, regional, and global factors. Observed climate changes and impacts have not been
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-150
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
uniform across the United States. For instance, annual precipitation has increased across most
of the northern and eastern States and decreased across the southern and western States.
Sea level rise and coastal flooding have not been evenly distributed. Along the Atlantic coast,
the U.S. Northeast has experienced a faster-than-global increase in sea level rise since the
1970s (USGCRP 2017). To provide localized information and greater granularity, USGCRP’s
Annual Climate Assessments (USGCRP 2014, USGCRP 2018) describe observed and
projected changes in climate by U.S. geographic regions: Northeast, Southeast, Caribbean,
Midwest, Northern Great Plains, Southern Great Plains, Northwest, Southwest, Midwest,
Alaska, and Hawaii and U.S. Pacific Islands (see Figure 3.12-1). As can be seen in
Figure 3.12-1, U.S. operating nuclear power plants are primarily located in the Northeast,
Southeast, and Midwest regions. The discussions below provide a summary of the observed
climate changes by the contiguous U.S. region, with a focus on regions where operating nuclear
power plants are located.
14
3.12.2.1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
In the Northeast region of the United States, average annual air temperatures increased by
1.98 °F (1.1 °C) between 1895 and 2011 (USGCRP 2014). This observed warming has not
been uniform; average temperatures increased less than 1 °F (0.6 °C) in West Virginia and 3 °F
(1.6 °C) or more across New England (USGCRP 2018). The frost-free season has increased by
10 days across the Northeast during the 1986 to 2015 timeframe relative to 1901 to 1960
timeframe (USGCRP 2017). Between 1958 and 2016, the Northeast experienced a 55 percent
increase in heavy precipitation events (i.e., the amount of annual precipitation falling in the
heaviest 1 percent of events). This is the largest increase of any region in the United States
(USGCRP 2018). Heavy precipitation events can lead to an increase in flooding because of
greater runoff (USGCRP 2014, USGCRP 2018). Since the 1920s, the magnitude of river
flooding has been increasing across the Northeast region by up 12 percent per decade
(USGCRP 2014). Sea level rise along the Northeast coast has increased by 1 ft (0.3 m) since
1900, a rate that exceeds the global average of 8 in. (20 cm) (USGCRP 2014). From 1982 to
2006, sea surface temperatures in coastal waters of the Northeast warmed at almost twice the
global rate of warming during this period (USGCRP 2014). Surface ocean temperatures in the
Northeast have warmed faster than 99 percent of the global ocean since 2004, and a peak
temperature in 2012 was part of a large “ocean heat wave” in the northwest Atlantic that
persisted for nearly 18 months (USGCRP 2017). In the Indian Point initial LR SEIS, the NRC
staff noted that sea level rise along the New York State coastline is 1.2 in. (3 cm) per decade
since 1900, and a long-term warming trend in the Hudson River Estuary of 0.027 °F (0.015 °C)
per year over the course of 63 years (1946 to 2008) (NRC 2018e). As discussed in the Indian
Point and Seabrook license renewal SEISs, warming sea temperatures have shifted the
distribution and abundance of aquatic species northward (NRC 2018e, NRC 2015b).
Northeast
February 2023
3-151
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
Figure 3.12-1 Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Plants Relative to National Climate
Assessment Geographic Regions
4
3.12.2.2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Southeast
In the Southeast, ambient air temperature increases have generally been uneven across the
region. It is one of the few regions in the world where there has not been an overall increase in
surface temperatures (NOAA 2013a; USGCRP 2018). The overall lack of long-term warming in
the Southeast has been termed “the warming hole” (NOAA 2013a, NOAA 2013d; USGCRP
2017; Partridge et al. 2018). Nonetheless, since the 1970s, average annual temperatures have
steadily increased across the Southeast and have been accompanied by an increase in the
number of hot days with maximum temperatures above 95 °F (35 °C) in the daytime and above
75 °F (23.9 °C) in the nighttime (NOAA 2013a; USGCRP 2009, USGCRP 2014, USGCRP
2018). Annual average temperatures have warmed by 0.46 °F (0.28 °C) between 1986–2016
(relative to 1901–1960) (USGCRP 2014, USGCRP 2017). The average annual number of hot
days observed since the 1960s remains lower than the average number during the first half of
the 20th century. In contrast, the number of warm nights above 75 °F (23.9 °C) has doubled on
average in the Southeast region compared to the first half of the 20th century (USGCRP 2018).
Average annual precipitation data for the Southeast region do not exhibit an increasing or
decreasing trend overall for the long-term period (1895–2011) (NOAA 2013d). Precipitation in
the Southeast region varies considerably throughout the seasons, and average precipitation has
generally increased in the fall and decreased in the summer (NOAA 2013d; USGCRP 2009).
Across parts of the Southeast region, decreases in annual average precipitation of up to
10 percent have occurred over the period 1986–2015 (relative to 1901–1960 for the contiguous
United States) (USGCRP 2018). Between 1958 and 2016, heavy precipitation (i.e., the amount
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-152
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
of annual precipitation falling in the heaviest 1 percent of events) has increased by an average
of 27 percent across the Southeast region (USGCRP 2018).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Plant-specific environmental reviews of initial LR and SLR applications considered localized
observed changes in sea level rise. The variability of sea level rise along U.S. coasts becomes
apparent when comparing data presented in the NRC’s license renewal SEISs. For instance, in
the Waterford initial LR SEIS, the NRC noted that the relative sea level along the Louisiana
coast increased by more than 8 in. (20 cm) between 1960 and 2015 (NRC 2018d). Sea level
rise in coastal Louisiana is partially driven by land subsidence, both as a result of natural and
anthropogenic processes (Jones et al. 2016). The Turkey Point SLR SEIS found that the
relative sea level rise trend at Miami, Florida, is 0.09 in/yr (0.24 cm/yr), or about 9 in. (23 cm)
per century (NRC 2019c). The Surry SLR SEIS found that the relative sea level rise trend at
Sewells Point, Virginia, near the mouth of the James River, is 0.18 in./yr (0.46 cm/yr), or about
18 in. (46 cm) per century (NRC 2019d). Sea level rise is causing an increase in the frequency
of high tide flood events in coastal areas of the Southeast region and saline water migrating
upstream in estuaries (USGCRP 2018).
16
3.12.2.3
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Across the Midwest region, the annual average temperature from 1905–2012 has warmed by
1.5 °F (0.5 °C) (USGCRP 2014). The rate of warming over recent decades has accelerated,
with average temperatures increasing twice as quickly between 1950 and 2010 relative to 19002010 (USGCRP 2014; NOAA 2013b). The frost-free season has increased by 9 days across
the Midwest during the 1986 to 2015 timeframe relative to the 1901 to 1960 timeframe
(USGCRP 2017). Precipitation in the Midwest from 1895–2011 has increased 0.31 in.
(0.78 cm) per decade (NOAA 2013b). The Great Lakes have experienced increases in surface
temperatures, declining lake ice cover, increasing summer evaporation rates, and earlier
seasonal stratification of temperatures (USGCRP 2018). For instance, the NRC noted in the
Point Beach SLR SEIS that for the 1995–2019 period, the average rate of warming in Lake
Michigan has been 0.56–0.72 °F (0.31–0.40 °C), with the greatest warming occurring in October
(NRC 2021f). In the Fermi initial LR SEIS, the NRC staff obtained modeled monthly Lake Erie
surface water temperatures from the NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.
For the 1950 to 2012 period, Lake Erie annual surface water temperatures increased at a rate of
0.067 °F (0.037 °C) per decade (NRC 2016c).
32
3.12.2.4
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Temperature data for the northern Great Plains region between 1986–2016 exhibit an increase
of 1.69 °F (0.95 °C) (USGCRP 2017). The frost-free season has increased by 11 days across
the northern Great Plains during the 1986 to 2015 timeframe relative to the 1901 to 1960
timeframe (USGCRP 2017). Annual precipitation between 1986–2015 showed differences
featuring a general mixture of decreases in the western portion of the region and increases in
the eastern portion of the region. Between 1958 and 2016, the northern Great Plains
experienced a 29 percent increase in heavy precipitation events (USGCRP 2018).
40
3.12.2.5
41
42
43
44
Temperature data for the southern Great Plains region between 1986–2016 exhibit an increase
of 1.61 °F (0.9 °C) (USGCRP 2017). Long-term (1895 to 2012) average annual precipitation
data for the southern Great Plains also exhibit an increasing trend. Since 1991, precipitation
has increased by 8 percent in the southern Great Plains. Between 1958 and 2016, heavy
Midwest
Northern Great Plains
Southern Great Plains
February 2023
3-153
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
6
precipitation events have increased by 12 percent (USGCRP 2014, USGCRP 2018). The frostfree season has increased by 7 days across the southern Great Plains during the 1986 to 2015
timeframe relative to the 1901 to 1960 timeframe (USGCRP 2017). Sea level rise along the
Texas Gulf Coast is twice that of the global average (USGCRP 2018). The Gulf Coast of Texas
has experienced several record-breaking floods and tropical cyclones, including Hurricane
Harvey (USGCRP 2018).
7
3.12.2.6
Northwest
8
9
10
11
12
13
The Northwest region has warmed significantly. Temperature data for the Northwest region
since 1900 exhibit an increase of 2 °F (1.1 °C) (USGCRP 2018). Warmer winters have resulted
in a reduction in mountain snowpack and river streamflow. For instance, since 1950, the areaaveraged snowpack in the Cascade Mountains has decreased by approximately 20 percent.
The frost-free season has increased by 17 days across the Northwest during the 1986 to 2015
timeframe relative to the 1901–1960 timeframe (USGCRP 2017).
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Precipitation has generally increased, but the trends are small compared to natural variability
(USGCRP 2014). Between 1958 and 2016, the Northwest experienced an 8 percent increase in
heavy precipitation events. This is the smallest increase of any region in the United States
(USGCRP 2018). An increase in coastal and river water temperatures has been observed.
Surface ocean temperatures along the Northwest coast have increased by 1.2 °F (0.64 °C) per
century from 1900 to 2016 (USGCRP 2017). In July 2015, water temperature in the lower
Columbia River and tributaries were higher than any year on record (USGCRP 2018). As noted
in the Columbia initial LR SEIS, warmer water temperatures combined with less snowpack and
lower stream flows have changed the balance of aquatic resources in the Columbia River Basin
(NRC 2012b). The 2015 record temperatures led to a high rate of mortality for endangered
sockeye and threatened Chinook in the Columbia River (USGCRP 2018).
25
3.12.2.7
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Across the Southwest region, annual average temperature between 1901 and 2016 has
warmed by 1.6 °F (0.9 °C) (USGCRP 2017). Temperatures have increased across the entire
region from 1901 to 2016, with the greatest increases occurring in California and western
Colorado. Increased temperatures have decreased the snowpack and its water content and
ultimately the water cycle across this region. The frost-free season increased by 17 days
across the Southwest during the 1986 to 2015 timeframe relative to the 1901–1960 timeframe
(USGCRP 2017).
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
While temperature increases have been relatively uniform throughout the region, that has not
been the case for precipitation. For instance, precipitation since 1991 (relative to 1901–1960)
increased across western California, but decreased in Arizona (USGCRP 2014). Unlike other
regions of the United States, a trend in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in the
Southwest is not evident (NOAA 2013c; USGCRP 2014). The Southwest region experienced
the wettest conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, which coincide with El Niño-Southern Oscillation
events (NOAA 2013c). El Niño-Southern Oscillation events involve periodic warming in sea
surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean that influences global
and regional precipitation and is typically associated with heavy rainfall in the Southwest
(USGCRP 2014). Over the last 50 years, there have been reductions in snowpack as a result of
higher temperatures causing a shift from snow to rain, with early springtime warming resulting in
earlier snowmelt-fed streamflow and less runoff throughout the summer season (USGCRP
2014; Thorne et al. 2012). Surface ocean temperatures along the Southwest coast have
Southwest
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
3-154
February 2023
Affected Environment
1
2
3
4
5
increased by 1.3 °F (0.73 °C) per century from 1900 to 2016 (USGCRP 2017). Sea level
fluctuations along the California coast vary and result from a combination of factors, including
tides, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, and coastal winds (Bromirski et al. 2012). At the Golden
Gate Bridge in San Francisco, sea level rose 9 in. (22 cm) between 1854 and 2016 and in San
Diego, sea level rose 9.5 in. (24 cm) from 1906 to 2016 (USGCRP 2018).
February 2023
3-155
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) evaluated the environmental consequences of
the proposed action (i.e., license renewal) including the (1) impacts of continued reactor
operations and refurbishment activities associated with initial license renewal (initial LR) and
one term of subsequent license renewal (SLR); (2) impacts of various reasonable alternatives to
the proposed action; (3) impacts from the termination of nuclear power plant operations and
decommissioning after the license renewal term (with emphasis on the incremental effect
caused by an additional 20 years of subsequent operation); (4) impacts associated with the
uranium fuel cycle; (5) impacts of postulated accidents (design-basis accidents and severe
accidents); (6) cumulative impacts of the proposed action; and (7) resource commitments
associated with the proposed action, including unavoidable adverse impacts, the relationship
between short-term use and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of resources.
Contents of Chapter 4.0
•
Introduction (Section 4.1)
•
Land Use and Visual Resources (Section 4.2)
•
Air Quality and Noise (Section 4.3)
•
Geologic Environment (Section 4.4)
•
Water Resources (Section 4.5)
•
Ecological Resources (Section 4.6)
•
Historic and Cultural Resources (Section 4.7)
•
Socioeconomics (Section 4.8)
•
Human Health (Section 4.9)
•
Environmental Justice (Section 4.10)
•
Waste Management and Pollution Prevention (Section 4.11)
•
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change (Section 4.12)
•
Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action (Section 4.13)
•
Impacts Common to All Alternatives (Section 4.14)
•
Resource Commitments Associated with the Proposed Action (Section 4.15)
14
February 2023
4-1
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.1
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
2
4.1.1
3
4
5
6
7
8
When considering whether the effects of the proposed action are significant, the NRC analyzes
the potentially affected environment and degree of the effects of the proposed action (initial LR
or SLR). The NRC has established three significance levels—SMALL, MODERATE, and
LARGE—and uses these levels in nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called plant-specific)
supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) to the LR GEIS. As explained in
Section 1.5.2.3, the three significance levels are defined as follows:
Introduction
9
10
11
12
•
SMALL: 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.
13
14
•
MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,
important attributes of the resource.
15
16
•
LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize
important attributes of the resource.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
These levels are used for describing the environmental impacts of the proposed action as well
as the impacts of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Resource-specific
effects or impact definitions from applicable environmental laws and executive orders, other
than SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE, are provided where appropriate. In this Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (referred to in this
document as the LR GEIS), the NRC’s environmental impact levels are informed by Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) terminology and guidance including revisions in Part 1501—NEPA
and Agency Planning (see Title 40, Section 1501 in the Code of Federal Regulations [CEQ
2022]).
26
4.1.2
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
As described in Section 2.1, activities associated with the proposed action could have
environmental consequences at a nuclear power plant site. The proposed action includes
activities associated with the normal operation of a nuclear power plant during the license
renewal (initial LR or SLR) term, including (1) reactor operations; (2) surveillance, monitoring,
and maintenance activities related to systems, structures, and components; (3) waste
management; (4) refueling and other outages; (5) activities needed to support facility
infrastructure requirements as part of routine operations and maintenance (e.g., road
improvements and the installation or construction of new structures and other support facilities);
and (6) any refurbishment activities needed to replace and/or repair critical portions of reactor
systems.
37
38
39
40
41
The assessment includes a determination of the magnitude of the impact (SMALL,
MODERATE, or LARGE) and whether or not the analysis of the environmental issue could be
applied to all or a subset of nuclear plants, and whether plant-specific mitigation measures
would be warranted. Environmental issues are assigned a Category 1 or a Category 2
designation as follows:
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-2
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria:
2
3
4
•
The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either
to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other
specified plant or site characteristics.
5
6
7
8
•
A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the
impacts (except for “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
disposal and “Offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts from other than the disposal of
spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste”).
9
10
11
•
The mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the
analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are
not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
12
13
14
For environmental issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific
analysis is required in SEISs unless new and significant information is identified during the
review (see Section 1.5.2.3).
15
16
Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1 and for
which, therefore, an additional plant-specific review is required.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A total of 80 environmental issues related to the proposed action were identified (summarized in
Table 2.1-1). For each potential environmental issue identified, the NRC (1) describes the
nuclear power plant activity during the initial LR or SLR term that could affect the resource,
(2) identifies environmental resources that may be affected, (3) evaluates past license renewal
reviews and other available information, including information related to impacts during a SLR
term, (4) assesses the nature and magnitude of the environmental impact on the affected
resource, (5) characterizes the significance of the effect, (6) determines whether the results of
the analysis apply to all or a subset of nuclear power plants (i.e., whether the impact issue is
Category 1 or Category 2), and (7) describes mitigation measures for adverse impacts.
26
27
4.1.3
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Activities occurring during the initial LR or SLR term are the subject of this evaluation and are
described in Section 2.1. The environmental impacts during the construction of a nuclear power
plant and past operational impacts are not the focus of this evaluation. Construction impacts
and the impacts of past operations have affected and, in many cases, shaped current
environmental conditions at each nuclear plant and in its surroundings. These environmental
conditions serve as the baseline for the impact analyses of continued operations and
refurbishment activities during the license renewal term. Past environmental impacts are
addressed in Chapter 3.0, Affected Environment. The impacts of continued operations and any
refurbishment activities during the initial LR or SLR term are the same or similar to the impacts
already occurring during the current license term. In most cases, impacts would remain the
same and are SMALL. This is because initial LR or SLR would continue current operating
conditions and environmental stressors rather than introduce wholly new impacts. In other
cases, impacts could change and may be MODERATE or LARGE. Further, in reviewing and
updating the 2013 LR GEIS to account for SLR, the NRC also considered whether any feature
of the analysis in the 2013 LR GEIS would be incompatible with SLR.
Environmental Consequences of Continued Operations and Refurbishment
Activities During the License Renewal Term (Initial or Subsequent)
February 2023
4-3
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The NRC staff’s review considered lessons learned, knowledge gained, and new information
identified from license renewal environmental reviews performed since development of the 2013
LR GEIS (NRC 2013a). The environmental reviews included initial LR for the following 15
nuclear power plants: Seabrook Station (Seabrook; NRC 2015b), Columbia Generating Station
(Columbia; NRC 2012a, NRC 2012b), South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (South
Texas; NRC 2013b), Limerick Generating Station (Limerick; NRC 2014d), Grand Gulf Nuclear
Station (Grand Gulf; NRC 2014e), Callaway Plant (Callaway; NRC 2014f), Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station (Davis-Besse; NRC 2015e), Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (Sequoyah; NRC 2015f),
Byron Station (Byron; NRC 2015c), Braidwood Station (Braidwood; NRC 2015d), Enrico Fermi
Atomic Power Plant (Fermi; NRC 2016c), LaSalle County Station (LaSalle; NRC 2016d), Indian
Point Energy Center (Indian Point; NRC 2018e), River Bend Station (River Bend; NRC 2018c),
and Waterford Steam Electric Station (Waterford; NRC 2018d).
13
14
15
16
17
Additionally, the staff considered the results from SLR environmental reviews for the following
5 nuclear power plants: Turkey Point Nuclear Plant (Turkey Point; NRC 2019c), Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station (Peach Bottom; NRC 2020g), Surry Power Station (Surry; NRC 2020f),
North Anna Power Station (North Anna; NRC 2021g), and Point Beach Nuclear Plant (Point
Beach; NRC 2021f).
18
19
20
The NRC staff also considered new scientific research, public comments, changes in
environmental regulations and impacts methodology, and other new information in evaluating
the impacts associated with license renewal (initial LR or SLR).
21
22
23
24
25
26
Based on the NRC staff’s review, a total of 80 environmental issues for the initial LR or SLR of
nuclear power plants were identified and evaluated; they are summarized in Table 2.1-1. This
revised LR GEIS provides the technical basis for the summary of findings on environmental
issues in Table B-1 in Appendix B, Subpart A, of 10 CFR Part 51. The identified issues are
discussed by resource area in this chapter. The assessment approaches specific to each
resource area are described in Appendix D.
27
4.1.4
28
29
30
31
32
33
The no action alternative represents a decision where the NRC does not issue a renewed
operating license. The licensee would then have to terminate reactor operations at the end of
its current license and permanently shut down the nuclear power plant. At some point, all
licensees will terminate nuclear plant operations and undergo decommissioning. Under the no
action alternative, this would occur sooner than it would if the NRC issued a renewed operating
license.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Not renewing the operating license and ceasing nuclear plant operation under the no action
alternative would lead to a variety of potential outcomes. These outcomes would be the same
as those that would occur after license renewal (see Section 4.14.3 for a discussion of these
effects). Termination of reactor operations would result in a net reduction in power generating
capacity. Power not generated by the nuclear plant during license renewal would likely be
replaced by (1) replacement energy alternatives, (2) energy conservation and efficiency
(demand-side management), (3) delayed retirements, (4) purchased power, or (5) some
combination of these options. The consideration of the no action alternative does not involve
the determination of whether replacement energy is needed or should be generated. The
decision to generate electric power and the determination of how much power is needed are at
the discretion of State, Federal (non-NRC), and utility officials.
Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-4
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.1.5
Environmental Consequences of Alternative Energy Sources
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Chapter 4 also considers the potential environmental impacts from the construction and
operation of generating technologies using alternative energy sources (including fossil fuel, new
nuclear, and renewable energy) to replace the amount of electric power generated by an
existing nuclear power plant. For each resource area addressed in this chapter the range of
possible environmental effects of constructing and operating various replacement energy
alternatives is generically assessed. Alternatives were selected on the basis of energy
technologies that are either currently commercially viable on a utility scale and operational or
could become commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the
original or renewed operating license. Other replacement energy technologies holding promise
for becoming part of a bulk electricity portfolio sometime in the future are identified.
Replacement energy is likely to be provided by a combination of electrical energy-producing
technologies. The number of possible combinations of alternative energy sources that could
replace or offset the generating capacity of a nuclear power plant is potentially unlimited. Based
on this, the NRC has only evaluated individual energy sources rather than combinations of
energy sources in this LR GEIS. However, combinations of energy sources may be considered
during plant-specific license renewal reviews. The NRC does not engage in energy-planning
decisions and makes no judgment as to which of the replacement energy alternatives evaluated
in this LR GEIS would ultimately be chosen.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
In addition to alternative electrical energy-generating technologies, power needs could also be
offset by instituting demand-side management measures, delaying the scheduled retirement of
one or more existing plants, or purchasing an equivalent amount of power from other energy
suppliers. As summarized in Table 2.4-1 through Table 2.4-5, demand-side management
initiatives are anticipated to result in negligible to no incremental environmental impacts.
Delayed retirements and energy purchases would likely have characteristics similar to some of
the replacement energy alternatives considered and would be dependent on their availability at
the time they are needed. Historically, coal, natural gas, and nuclear-fueled power plants have
been the most-prevalent sources of baseload purchased power, though an increasing number
of renewable energy sources are emerging as viable options. As such, the effects of deploying
offsetting alternatives such as purchased power and delayed retirement are likely to be similar
to the effects of operating a combination of alternative electrical energy-generating
technologies, and are therefore more effectively considered in plant-specific license renewal
reviews.
34
35
4.1.6
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
All operating nuclear power plants will terminate operations and begin decommissioning either
at the end of their operating license or after a decision is made to cease reactor operations.
License renewal would delay this eventuality for up to an additional 20 years beyond the current
operating license period. The environmental impacts of decommissioning nuclear power plants
were evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning Nuclear
Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors
(NUREG-0586; NRC 2002c). The effects of renewing an operating license on the eventual
impacts of terminating a nuclear power reactor license and the ensuing decommissioning are
addressed as a single environmental issue. Because the impacts of license renewal on
terminating plant operations and decommissioning are expected to be SMALL at all nuclear
plants and for all environmental resources, it is considered a Category 1 issue. These impacts
are discussed in Section 4.14.3.
Environmental Consequences of Terminating Nuclear Power Plant Operations
and Decommissioning
February 2023
4-5
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.2
Land Use and Visual Resources
2
3
4.2.1
4
5
6
Industrial land use at nuclear plants is not expected to change appreciably until after
decommissioning is completed. Similarly, land use activity within transmission line right-of-ways
(ROWs) would continue with few, if any, changes in land use restrictions and easements.
7
8
9
In addition, the visual appearance of nuclear power plants and transmission lines have been
well established. These conditions are expected to remain unchanged during the initial LR or
SLR term regardless of the prior number of years of nuclear plant operation.
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued Operations
and Refurbishment Activities
10
4.2.1.1
Land Use
11
12
13
14
Environmental reviews have shown that license renewal and refurbishment have had little or no
effect on land use at or near nuclear power plants. Land use impact issues evaluated in this LR
GEIS revision include the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities on
(1) onsite land use, (2) offsite land use, and (3) offsite land use in transmission line ROWs.
15
4.2.1.1.1 Onsite Land Use
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Operational activities during both the initial LR or SLR term would be similar to those already
occurring at the nuclear plant. The industrial nature of onsite land use would remain
unchanged. However, additional spent nuclear fuel and low-level radioactive waste would be
generated during the license renewal term. This could require the construction of new or the
expansion of existing onsite storage facilities. Future expanded installations would likely be
located adjacent to existing storage facilities or otherwise in existing industrialized areas of the
plant sites. This action would be addressed in separate environmental reviews. The NRC has
not identified any information or situations during license renewal environmental reviews that
would alter the conclusion that land use impacts from continued plant operations and
refurbishment would be SMALL for all nuclear plants. Refurbishment activities, such as steam
generator and vessel head replacement, have not permanently altered onsite land use.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Based on these considerations, the NRC concludes that impacts from continued nuclear plant
operations during the initial LR and SLR terms and refurbishment on onsite land use would be
the same—SMALL for all nuclear plants. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial
LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new
information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR
or SLR term. Therefore, onsite land use impacts would be SMALL for all nuclear plants, and it
is a Category 1 issue for both initial LR and SLR.
34
4.2.1.1.2 Offsite Land Use
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Environmental reviews have shown that initial LR or SLR and refurbishment activities have had
little to no direct effect on development trends near nuclear power plants including changes in
population or tax revenue in communities near nuclear power plants. Employment levels at
nuclear plants remain the same or have decreased with no increased demand for housing,
infrastructure improvements, or services. Operational activities during the license renewal term
would be similar to those already occurring at the nuclear plant and would not affect offsite land
use beyond what has already been affected. The NRC has not identified any information or
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-6
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
situations, including in low-population areas or population and tax revenue changes resulting
from initial LR or SLR that would alter the conclusion that impacts on offsite land use would be
SMALL for all nuclear power plants.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
For nuclear plants located in a coastal zone or coastal watershed, as defined by each State
participating in the National Coastal Zone Management Program, applicants must submit to the
affected State a certification that the proposed license renewal action is consistent with the
State Coastal Zone Management Program. Applicants must receive a determination from the
State agency that manages the State Coastal Zone Management Program that the proposed
license renewal action would be consistent with the State program. Consistency with State
Coastal Zone Management Programs further assures that impacts in State coastal zones will be
small.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Based on these considerations, the NRC concludes that impacts from continued nuclear plant
operations during the initial LR and SLR terms and refurbishment on offsite land use would be
the same—SMALL for all nuclear plants. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial
LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new
information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue either for an initial LR
or SLR term. Therefore, offsite land use impacts would be SMALL for all nuclear plants, and it
is a Category 1 issue for both initial LR and SLR.
19
4.2.1.1.3 Offsite Land Use in Transmission Line Right-of-Ways (ROWs)
20
21
22
23
24
25
Transmission lines that connect the nuclear plant to the switchyard where electricity is fed into
the regional power distribution system (the first substation of the regional electric power grid)
and lines that feed electricity to the nuclear plant from the grid during outages are within the
scope of license renewal environmental reviews. Operational activities in transmission line
ROWs during the initial LR or SLR term would be the same or similar to those already occurring
and would not affect offsite land use beyond what has already been affected.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Transmission lines do not preclude the use of the land in ROWs for other purposes, such as
agriculture and recreation. Transmission lines connecting nuclear plants to the electrical grid
are no different from transmission lines connecting any other power plant to the grid. However,
certain land use activities in transmission line ROWs are restricted. Land cover is generally
managed through a variety of maintenance procedures so that vegetation growth and building
construction do not interfere with transmission line operation and access. Consequently, land
use within transmission line ROWs is limited to activities that do not endanger power line
operation; these activities include recreation, off-road vehicle use, grazing, agriculture, irrigation,
roads, environmental conservation, and use as wildlife areas.
35
36
The impact of transmission lines on offsite land use during the license renewal term is
considered to be SMALL for all nuclear plants and a Category 1 issue in the 2013 LR GEIS.
37
38
39
40
41
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would
result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. Therefore, impacts
in offsite land use in transmission line ROWs would be SMALL for all nuclear plants, and it is a
Category 1 issue for both initial LR and SLR.
February 2023
4-7
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.2.1.2
Visual Resources
2
3
4
License renewal environmental reviews have shown that nuclear power plants and transmission
lines do not change in appearance over time, so aesthetic impacts are not anticipated during the
initial LR or SLR term.
5
4.2.1.2.1 Aesthetic Impacts
6
7
8
9
10
The NRC considered the visual impact of continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment
during the license renewal term in the 2013 LR GEIS. The NRC concluded aesthetic impacts
would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and a Category 1 issue, because the visual appearance
of nuclear power plants and transmission lines are not expected to change during the license
renewal term.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Separately, a case study found a limited number of situations where nuclear power plants have
had a negative effect on the public (NRC 1996). Negative perceptions were based on aesthetic
considerations (for instance, the nuclear plant is out of character or scale with the community or
the viewshed), physical environmental concerns, safety and perceived risk issues, an antinuclear plant attitude, or an anti-nuclear outlook. It is believed that these negative perceptions
would persist regardless of any mitigation. Subsequently, license renewal environmental
reviews have not revealed any new information that would change this perception.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
After cooling towers and the containment building, transmission line towers are probably the
most frequently observed structure associated with nuclear power plants. Transmission lines
from nuclear plants are generally indistinguishable from those from other power plants.
Because electrical transmission lines are common throughout the United States, they are
generally perceived with less prejudice than the nuclear power plant itself. Also, the visual
impact of transmission lines tends to wear off when viewed repeatedly. Replacing or moving
towers or burying cables to reduce the visual impact would be impractical from both a cost and
efficiency perspective. The visual impact of transmission lines during the license renewal term
was also considered to be SMALL for all nuclear plants and a Category 1 issue in the 2013 LR
GEIS. No new information or situations that would alter that conclusion has been identified in
initial LR or SLR environmental reviews.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Based on these considerations, the NRC concludes the aesthetic impact of continued nuclear
plant operations during initial LR and SLR terms and refurbishment would be the same—SMALL
for all nuclear plants. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs)
completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
The visual appearance of nuclear plants would not change or have a different level of impact.
Therefore, aesthetic impacts would be SMALL for all nuclear plants, and it is a Category 1 issue
for both initial LR and SLR.
37
4.2.2
38
39
40
41
42
Construction – Various replacement energy alternatives would involve the permanent
commitment of land for the construction of a new power plant along with support structures and
other facilities. Other land use and visual impacts during construction would include land
clearing, excavation, and the installation of temporary facilities, such as material laydown areas
and concrete batch plants. Depending on the location, construction of an electrical substation,
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-8
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
switchyards, transmission lines, railroad spurs, and access roads may also be required. Some
of these facilities could affect offsite land use.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Construction of a new power plant at an existing nuclear plant or brownfield site would have less
of a land use and visual impact than at a greenfield site. Installation of a replacement energy
alternative at an existing nuclear plant site would require the least amount of land because the
new power plant could make use of existing intake and discharge structures, substations,
transmission lines, office buildings, parking lots, and access roads. Constructing a power plant
at a greenfield site would convert land from other uses such as agriculture (including prime
farmland) to industrial use. In addition, construction on a greenfield site could have a dramatic
visual impact because the industrial appearance of a new power plant would be quite different
from a surrounding rural landscape.
12
13
Increase in traffic to and from the construction site could require changes to existing
transportation infrastructure and traffic patterns resulting in offsite land use and visual impacts.
14
15
16
17
18
Operations – Land would be in use throughout the period of power plant operation. Aesthetic
impacts would be similar to those experienced at existing nuclear plants or industrial brownfield
sites. Power plant structures, transmission lines, cooling and meteorological towers would add
to the permanent visual impact. Vapor plumes during power plant operations may be visible for
some distance in certain weather conditions.
19
4.2.2.1
20
21
22
23
Construction and Operations – Land use impacts from constructing coal- or natural gas-fired
power plants would be similar. However, a coal-fired power plant would need more land for coal
fuel delivery and storage. A coal-fired power plant would likely have a greater visual impact
than a natural gas-fired plant.
24
4.2.2.2
25
26
27
Construction and Operations – Land requirements for a new nuclear power plant would be the
same as license renewal and similar to a coal-fired power plant. The appearance of the new
nuclear power plant during operations would be the same as license renewal.
28
4.2.2.3
29
30
31
32
Construction and Operation – Land requirements for renewable energy facilities would vary
greatly. Hydroelectric dams and reservoirs capable of generating utility-scale power would
require a large land area resulting in a noticeable visual impact. Dams serving as flood control
could affect land use both upstream and downstream of the reservoir.
33
34
35
36
Geothermal facilities, typically located in remote areas, would require a small land area and
could generate vapor plumes in certain weather conditions. The appearance of wellheads,
exposed piping, and power plant structures in remote settings would have a noticeable visual
impact.
37
38
39
Land area required for biomass and municipal solid waste, refuse-derived and landfill gas-fired
power plants would be similar to that required for other fossil fuel-fired facilities. Additional land
would be required for biomass and municipal solid waste, refuse-derived and landfill gas-fuel
Fossil Energy Alternatives
New Nuclear Alternatives
Renewable Alternatives
February 2023
4-9
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
handling facilities. Buildings, smokestacks, cooling towers, and condensate plumes would have
a visual impact in open areas comparable to fossil fuel-fired facilities.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Utility-scale wind farms generally require large land or surface water areas. However, only a
small percentage of land and water would be occupied by wind turbines and other support
facilities. Land-based wind farms generally have a greater visual impact depending on the
height and placement of the turbines (e.g., along ridgelines). Once construction is completed,
the area between turbines can be used for other purposes (e.g., agriculture, grazing, boating,
fishing, etc.). In addition, land would be required to support utility-scale offshore energy facilities
for cable landings and substations. Distance from shore and the curvature of the Earth could
attenuate some of the visual impacts of offshore wind turbines.
11
12
13
14
Utility-scale solar thermal power block and photovoltaic (PV) farms could require large areas of
land. Visual impacts would depend on the size, location, and the amount of land needed for
power generation—height of thermal power block, cooling towers, and condensate plume, and
the array of solar collectors.
15
16
17
18
19
Offshore ocean wave and current energy-generating facilities would require a small land area
for cable landing, substation, warehouse, and repair facilities. Existing piers and docks could
also be used to support power generation. The relatively short height of above-water structures,
distance from shore, and the curvature of the Earth may attenuate most, if not all, of the visual
impacts.
20
4.3
21
22
4.3.1
23
24
25
Ambient air quality and noise conditions at all nuclear power plants and associated transmission
lines have been well established during the current licensing term. These conditions are
expected to remain unchanged during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR term).
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
This section focuses on the impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities
associated with license renewal on air quality and noise. Refurbishment and associated
construction activities can affect air quality (e.g., fugitive dust, vehicle and equipment exhaust
emissions, and automobile exhaust from commuter traffic). Baseline meteorological,
climatological, and ambient air quality and noise conditions at operating plants are discussed in
Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, respectively. License renewal is expected to result in a continuation of
similar conditions for an extended period commensurate with the license renewal term (initial LR
or SLR term). As a result, the criteria air pollutants emitted and the noise generated during
normal continued nuclear plant operations during the initial LR or SLR term are not expected to
change substantially and thus should remain SMALL.
36
4.3.1.1
37
38
Two issues related to impacts on air quality during the license renewal (initial LR or SLR) terms
are considered in this section:
39
40
41
•
Air Quality and Noise
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued Operations
and Refurbishment Activities
Air Quality
air quality impacts – this issue encompasses impacts of continued operations and
refurbishment activities on air quality, including nonattainment or maintenance area
conformity; and
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-10
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
•
2
4.3.1.1.1 Air Quality Impacts
air quality effects of transmission lines.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Impacts on air quality during normal plant operations can result from operations of fossil fuelfired equipment needed for various plant functions (see Section 3.3.2). Each licensed plant
typically employs emergency diesel generators for use as a backup power source. These
generators provide a standby source of electric power for essential equipment required during
plant upset or an emergency event. They also provide for safe reactor shutdown and for the
maintenance of safe conditions at the power station during such an event. These diesel
generators are typically tested once a month with several test burns of various durations
(e.g., 1 to several hours). In addition to these maintenance tests, longer-running endurance
tests are also typically conducted at each plant. Each generator is typically tested for 24 hours
on a staggered test schedule (e.g., once every refueling outage). Plants with nonelectric fire
pumps, typically also diesel-fired, usually employ test protocols identical or similar to those used
for emergency generators. Maintenance procedures during these tests would include, for
example, checks for leaks of lubricating oil or fuel from equipment, and pumps would be
replaced as required.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In addition to the emergency diesel generators, fossil fuel (i.e., diesel-, oil-, or natural gas-fired)
boilers are used primarily for evaporator heating, plant space heating, and/or feed water
purification. These units typically operate at a variable load on a continuous basis throughout
the year unless end use is restricted to one application, such as space heating. For example,
the Peach Bottom plant uses two auxiliary boilers for space heating and to help with unit
startups (NRC 2020g). Air emissions include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, particulate matter (PM), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) for diesel-, natural gas-, and oil-fired units. Natural gas-fired units emit only
trace amounts of VOCs and PM that has an aerodynamic diameter of 10 m or less (PM10).
The utility boilers at commercial plants are relatively small compared to most industrial boilers
and are typically regulated through State-level operating permits.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Given the infrequency and short duration of maintenance testing of onsite combustion sources,
annual air emissions are minor. For example, the contribution of air emissions from sources at
the LaSalle, River Bend, Waterford, Peach Bottom, Turkey Point, Surry, Point Beach, and North
Anna plants constitute anywhere from 0.2 to 2 percent of the County’s (where the plant is
located) annual air emissions (NRC 2016d, NRC 2018c, NRC 2018d, NRC 2019c, NRC 2020c,
NRC 2020f, NRC 2021f, NRC 2021g). Therefore, annual air emissions from nuclear power
plant sources would not be an air quality concern even at those plants located in or adjacent to
nonattainment areas. The locations of the currently designated nonattainment areas near
nuclear plants are shown in Section 3.3.2.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
As discussed in Section 3.3.2, cooling tower drift can increase downwind PM concentrations,
impair visibility, ice roadways, cause drift deposition, and damage vegetation and painted
surfaces. Currently, 16 nuclear power plants use natural draft cooling towers and 11 nuclear
power plants use mechanical draft cooling towers. Currently, no dry or hybrid (combinations
incorporating elements of both dry and wet design) systems are being used at operating nuclear
plants. The natural draft cooling tower at the Hope Creek Generating Station (Hope Creek) in
New Jersey is the only operating tower at a plant that uses high-salinity water for cooling system
makeup, which results in greater PM10 concentrations (NRC 2011b). An air quality impact
analysis performed in support of an extended power uprate request for Hope Creek assessed
emissions related to cooling tower drift droplets for this situation. The analysis determined that
February 2023
4-11
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
cooling tower operations would result in average PM10 emissions of 35.6 lb/hr, as summarized in
Section 3.3.2, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection determined that the
PM10 emissions would not exceed National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Thus, although
there is the potential for some air quality impacts to occur as a result of equipment and cooling
tower operations, as in the case with Hope Creek, the impacts have been small.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Diesel generators, pumps, fossil fuel boilers, and cooling towers typically require State or local
operating permits. Operating permits specify conditions that limit air emissions, hours of
operation, fuel content, or fuel consumption. Most State air pollution regulations provide air
permit exemptions for air pollution sources that are not routinely operated, which can be defined
as sources with insignificant activity meeting specified operating criteria (e.g., so many hours of
continuous operation over specified periods or so many hours of operation per year). For
example, the North Anna plant has one emergency generator, one diesel generator, and two fire
pump diesel generators that are exempt from the site’s State Operating Permit conditions
because they are considered insignificant equipment emission units of minimal or no air quality
concern (NRC 2021g). The Fermi plant uses two natural draft hyperbolic cooling towers that
are exempt from Michigan’s air permitting requirements. Particulate matter (with a diameter of
10 microns or less) emissions of each cooling tower are estimated to be 0.10 T/yr (NRC 2016c).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
License renewal environmental reviews performed since publication of the 2013 LR GEIS (see
Section 4.1.3) have not identified new information or situations that would result in air quality
impacts that would differ from what was concluded in the 2013 LR GEIS for either an initial LR
or SLR term. In the SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs), the NRC concluded that fossil fuel-fired
equipment is operated intermittently, primarily during testing or outages, annual air emissions
are minor, and air emissions and sources would not be expected to change or have different
impacts on air quality during the LR term. Therefore, the potential impact from onsite air
emission sources on air quality would be expected to be SMALL for all nuclear plants, and it is a
Category 1 issue for both initial LR and SLR.
27
28
29
30
31
32
Potential sources of impacts on air quality during refurbishment activities associated with
continued operations during the license renewal term include (1) fugitive dust from site
excavation and grading and (2) emissions from motorized equipment, construction vehicles, and
workers’ vehicles. With application of adequate controls or mitigation measures and best
practices, the air quality impacts from these air pollution sources would be small and of
relatively short duration.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
During site excavation and grading, some PM in the form of fugitive dust would be released into
the atmosphere. Construction vehicles and other motorized equipment would generate exhaust
emissions that include small amounts of CO, NOx, VOCs, and PM. These emissions would be
temporary (restricted to the construction period) and localized (occurring only in the immediate
vicinity of construction areas). For refurbishment occurring in geographical areas with poor or
marginal air quality, the emissions generated from these activities could be cause for concern in
a few cases (e.g., building demolition, debris removal, and new construction). However, the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments include a provision that requires Federal actions conform to an
applicable State Implementation Plan designed to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide [SO2], nitrogen dioxide, CO, ozone, lead, PM10,
and PM with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 m or less [PM2.5]).
44
45
46
On April 5, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its 40 CFR Part 51
and 93 revisions to the General Conformity Regulations in the Federal Register (75 FR 17254).
General conformity requires Federal agencies to ensure that a proposed Federal action, such
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-12
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
as initial LR or SLR, in air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas conforms to the
applicable State Implementation Plan. A conformity analysis must be completed before the
action is taken. A conformity analysis begins with an applicability analysis to determine whether
the action is exempt or has total net direct and indirect emissions below the de minimis levels.
The de minimis emission levels (40 CFR 93.153(b)) serve as screening values to determine
whether a conformity determination must be undertaken for a proposed Federal action. The
applicability analysis must be documented. If conformity applies, the agency must prepare a
written conformity analysis and determination for each pollutant for which the emissions caused
by a proposed Federal action would exceed the de minimis levels. An area is designated as
nonattainment for a criteria pollutant if it does not meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for the pollutant. A maintenance area is one that a State has redesignated from nonattainment
to attainment. The current nationwide designations of nonattainment areas are identified in
Section 3.3.2.
14
15
16
The de minimis levels for air emissions vary depending on air quality conditions in the area
where the plant is located. In most cases, the de minimis levels are established at 100 T/yr.
Exceptions include:
17
18
•
NOx or VOC emissions of 10, 25, and 50 T/yr in extreme, severe, and serious ozone
nonattainment areas, respectively;
19
20
•
VOC emissions of 50 T/yr in ozone nonattainment areas inside an ozone transport region
stretching from Virginia to Maine;
21
•
Lead emissions of 25 T/yr in lead nonattainment areas;
22
•
PM10 emissions of 70 T/yr in serious PM10 nonattainment areas; and
23
•
SO2, NOx, VOC, and ammonia emissions of 70 T/yr in serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
24
25
In maintenance areas, the de minimis levels are 100 T/yr for all pollutants, except for 50 T/yr for
VOCs inside the ozone transport region and 25 T/yr for lead.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The EPA regulations require that direct construction emissions including construction vehicle
and equipment exhaust and fugitive dust and indirect emissions, such as those from worker and
delivery vehicles, be included in the conformity analysis. Emissions from construction
equipment and vehicles are expected to be small for anticipated refurbishment projects on the
basis of activities that have occurred to date. In the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC concluded that the
impacts from plant refurbishment associated with license renewal on air quality could range
from SMALL to LARGE, although these impacts were expected to be SMALL for most plants.
The 1996 LR GEIS determined that emissions from 2,300 vehicles over a 9-month
refurbishment period may exceed the thresholds for CO, NOx, and VOCs in nonattainment and
maintenance areas. In the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC concluded that the impact of refurbishment
activities on air quality would be SMALL for most plants. The 2013 LR GEIS noted that findings
from license renewal SEISs published since the 1996 LR GEIS have shown that refurbishment
activities, such as steam generator and vessel head replacement, have not required the large
numbers of workers, months of time, or the degree of land disturbance that was conservatively
estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS. For example, refurbishment activities associated with license
renewal for the Davis-Besse plant required an additional 1,400 workers for 90 days. It was
estimated that the additional worker vehicles for this duration would result in 25 T of VOCs, 49 T
of NOx, 1.0 T of SO2, and 1.5 T of PM2.5 (direct emissions) being emitted, which would not
exceed the de minimis levels of 100 T/yr of NOx, 50 T/yr of VOCs for ozone maintenance areas,
100 T/yr of direct emissions of PM2.5, 100 tons per year of SO2, 100 T/yr for PM2.5 maintenance
February 2023
4-13
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
areas and 100 T/yr for SO2 nonattainment areas, as set forth in 40 CFR 93.153(b) (NRC 2015e).
Additionally, Exelon Generating Company LLC (Exelon) estimated that steam generator
replacement of Byron Unit 2 would require an additional 500 workers for 90 days (NRC 2015c).
The NRC staff concluded that the additional workforce for steam generator replacement
activities would be temporary and estimated to result in an additional 3.3 T (3.0 MT) of VOCs,
9.8 T(8.9 MT) of NOx, 0.04 T (0.04 MT) of SO2, and 0.40 T (0.36 MT) of PM2.5 (direct emissions)
being emitted, which do not exceed the de minimis levels of 100 T/yr set forth in 40 CFR
93.153(b). Therefore, the NRC concluded that the additional emissions resulting from these
activities would be minor (NRC 2015c). For Indian Point vessel head replacement and control
rod mechanism replacement, the NRC staff estimated that an additional 500 workers for
60 days would result in an additional 3.4 T (3.1 MT) of VOCs, 31.1 T (28.2 MT) of CO, 2.3 T
(2.1 MT) of NOx, 0.08 T (0.07 MT) of SO2, and 0.01 T (0.01 MT) of PM2.5 (NRC 2018e). These
additional emissions would not exceed the de minimis levels for designated maintenance areas
of 100 T (91 MT) for each pollutant.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The 1996 LR GEIS found that disturbed areas for refurbishment actions required 10 acres (ac)
(4 hectares [ha]) or less for laydown areas and storage. Since publication of the 1996 LR GEIS
and 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC has not identified refurbishment activities that would require
disturbance of land that exceeds 10 ac (4 ha). For example, as part of refurbishment activities
associated with license renewal for the Davis-Besse plant, temporary and permanent buildings
were constructed and laydown areas were needed, which resulted in land disturbance of less
than 10 ac (4 ha) (NRC 2015e). For Indian Point vessel head replacement and control rod
mechanism replacement, storage would require construction of a permanent building requiring
0.12 ac (0.04 ha) (NRC 2010a). Because of the (1) small size of the disturbed area,
(2) relatively short construction period, (3) availability of paved roadways at existing facilities,
and (4) use of best management practices (BMPs) (such as watering, chemical stabilization,
and seeding), fugitive dust resulting from these construction activities is minimal.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS identified no new information or situations that would result in
different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. The NRC concludes that the
impact of refurbishment activities on air quality during the initial LR or SLR terms would be
SMALL. Impacts would be temporary and cease once projects were completed and
implementation of BMPs, including fugitive dust controls and the imposition of new and/or
revised conditions in State and local air emissions permits, would ensure conformance with
applicable State or Tribal implementation plans.
35
36
37
38
39
The NRC also concludes that the air quality impacts of continued nuclear plant operations
during the initial LR and SLR terms and refurbishment would be SMALL for all plants. The staff
has identified no information that would lead to different impacts on air quality during the initial
LR term or SLR term. Therefore, the impacts of initial LR and SLR on air quality is a Category 1
issue.
40
4.3.1.1.2 Air Quality Effects of Transmission Lines
41
42
43
44
45
46
Small amounts of ozone and substantially smaller amounts of oxides of nitrogen are produced
by transmission lines during corona, a phenomenon that occurs when air ionizes near isolated
irregularities on the conductor surface such as abrasions, dust particles, raindrops, and insects.
Several studies have quantified the amount of ozone generated and concluded that the amount
produced by even the largest lines in operation (765 kilovolt [kV]) is insignificant (SNYPSC
1978; Scott-Walton et al. 1979; Janes 1978; Varfalvy et al. 1985). Monitoring of ozone levels for
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-14
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
2 years near a Bonneville Power Administration 1,200 kV prototype line revealed no increase in
ambient ozone levels caused by the line (Lee et al. 1989). Similarly, field tests conducted over
a 19-month period concerning ozone levels adjacent to Sequoyah transmission lines concluded
that high-voltage lines up to 765 kV do not generate ozone above ambient measurements made
at locations remote from transmission lines (TVA 2013; NRC 2015f). The ozone concentrations
generated by transmission lines are therefore too low to cause any significant effects. The
minute amounts of oxides of nitrogen produced are similarly insignificant. On the basis of these
considerations, the NRC concludes that the air quality impacts of transmission lines, within this
scope of review (see Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.6.5 in this LR GEIS), during the initial LR and SLR
terms would be SMALL. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs)
completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
This is supported by the evidence that production of ozone and nitrogen oxide are insignificant
and does not measurably contribute to ambient levels of those gases. Potential mitigation
measures (e.g., burying transmission lines) would be very costly and would not be warranted.
Therefore, the issue of air quality impacts of transmission lines would be SMALL for all nuclear
plants, and it is a Category 1 issue for both initial LR and SLR.
18
4.3.1.2
19
20
One issue related to noise impacts during the license renewal (initial LR or SLR) term is
considered in this section:
21
•
22
4.3.1.2.1 Noise Impacts
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Noise from nuclear plant operations can often be detected offsite relatively close to the plant site
boundary. Sources of noise and the relative magnitude of impacts during normal nuclear power
plant operations are discussed in Section 3.3.3. Major sources of noise at operating nuclear
power plants include cooling towers, turbines, transformers, large pumps, firing range, steam
safety relief valves, and cooling water system motors. Nuclear plant operations have not
changed appreciably with time, and no change in noise levels or noise-related impacts are
expected during the initial LR or SLR term.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Given the industrial nature of the power plant and the number of years of plant operation, noise
from a nuclear plant is generally nothing more than a continuous minor nuisance. However,
noise levels may sometimes exceed the day-night average 55 A-weighted decibels (dBA) level
that the EPA uses as a threshold level to protect against excess noise during outdoor activities
(EPA 1974). For instance, continuous measurements at three noise-sensitive receptors from
Fermi Unit 2 resulted in a day-night sound level of between 55 and 63 dBA (NRC 2016c). While
the day-night sound levels measured are above EPA’s recommended threshold, it does “not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation,” rather it is intended to provide a basis for
State and local governments establishing noise standards. Furthermore, the day-night sound
levels measured at noise-sensitive receptors near Fermi Unit 2 were below the Federal Housing
Administration guideline of a day-night average sound level of 65 dBA or less (NRC 2016c, 24
CFR Part 51). In 2008, an ambient noise-monitoring survey was performed in areas adjacent to
the Turkey Point site. Measurements (equivalent sound intensity level) at monitoring locations
offsite and beyond the site boundary (including nearest residence, day-care facility, and a park)
ranged from 46 dBA to 67 dBA during the daytime and from 41 dBA to 56 dBA at nighttime.
Audible noise sources contributing to noise levels included traffic, insects, and wind, indicating
Noise
noise impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities.
February 2023
4-15
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
that audible sound from the Turkey Point site does not reach these noise-sensitive receptors
(NRC 2016b). Ambient sound level surveys in the vicinity of nuclear power plants have not
approached 80–85 dBA, which is the threshold at which noise levels can become very annoying
(CDC 2019b).
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
In addition to EPA and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development noise threshold
guidelines, local governments can establish noise ordinances. For example, Louisa County,
VA, where the North Anna plant is located, has a noise ordinance that limits daytime sound
levels to 75 decibels (dB) and nighttime sound levels to 65 dB for industrial zoning districts
(NRC 2021g). Similarly, Waterford is located in a designated industrial land use area within a
heavy manufacturing zoning district. St. Charles Parish (where Waterford is located) has a
noise ordinance, but the ordinance does not set maximum permissible sounds levels for areas
zoned as industrial (NRC 2018d).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Nuclear power plants have received noise complaints associated with operational activities. For
instance, Braidwood received noise complaints related to the cooling water discharge system
into the Kankakee River. Prior to 2011, this system produced noticeable noise at the discharge
location. In 2011, Exelon installed a new diffuser for water discharge into the Kankakee River,
which, among other environmental benefits, nearly eliminated noise from the discharge location
(NRC 2015d). Furthermore, Exelon notifies the public about upcoming activities and the
potential for noise via their notification system. The notification system alerts residences and
other locations within 1 mi (1.6 km) of Braidwood prior to planned activities that may affect the
surrounding area. Similarly, in response to complaints regarding activities associated with
nighttime fire training at the range at Fermi, DTE Electric notifies the nearby municipalities of
upcoming scheduled training at the range and provides information about upcoming activities
(NRC 2016c).
25
26
27
28
29
30
Noise would also be generated by construction-related activities and equipment used during
refurbishment. Noise attenuates rapidly with distance. As a rule of thumb, with a doubling in
distance from a point source the sound level decreases by 6 dB. Additionally, this noise would
occur for relatively short periods of time (several weeks) and is not expected to be
distinguishable from other operational noises at the site boundary or create an adverse impact
on nearby residents.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
In the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC noted that there have been few noise complaints at power
plants, but that noise impacts have been found to be small. Because noise sources at power
plants do not change appreciably during the aging process, the 1996 LR GEIS concluded that
noise was not expected to be a problem at any nuclear plant during the license renewal term
and given the few noise complaints no additional mitigation measures are warranted. The
magnitude of noise impacts was therefore determined to be SMALL for all plants, and the issue
was designated as Category 1. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and
SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
The NRC has found that noise sources and levels are not expected to change from current
operations and therefore would remain similar during the initial LR or SLR term.
42
43
44
On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the noise impact of continued
nuclear plant operations during the initial LR and SLR terms and refurbishment would be
SMALL for all plants. Therefore, this is a Category 1 issue.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-16
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.3.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Construction – Construction of a replacement power alternative would result in temporary
impacts on local air quality. Air emissions would include criteria pollutants (PM, NOx, CO, and
SO2), hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) from construction vehicles and
equipment and dust from land clearing and grading. VOCs could be released from organic
solvents used in cleaning, during the application of protective coatings, and the onsite storage
and use of petroleum-based fuels. Air emissions would be intermittent and would vary
depending on the level and duration of specific activities throughout the construction phase.
Engine exhaust emissions would be from heavy construction equipment and commuter,
delivery, and support vehicular traffic traveling to and from the facility as well as within the site.
Fugitive dust emissions would be from soil disturbances by heavy construction equipment (e.g.,
earthmoving, excavating, and bulldozing), vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces, concrete batch
plant operations, and wind erosion to a lesser extent. Various mitigation techniques and BMPs
(e.g., watering disturbed areas, reducing equipment idle times, and using ultra-low sulfur diesel
fuel) could be used to minimize air emissions and reduce fugitive dust.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Construction of a replacement power alternative would be similar to the construction of any
industrial facility in that they all involve many noise-generating activities. In general, noise
emissions would vary during each phase of construction, depending on the level of activity,
types of equipment and machinery used, and site-specific conditions. Typical construction
equipment, such as dump trucks, loaders, bulldozers, graders, scrapers, air compressors,
generators, and mobile cranes, would be used, and pile-driving and blasting activities could take
place. Other noise sources include construction worker vehicle and truck delivery traffic.
Impacts, however, would be temporary, and both air quality and noise impacts would return to
preconstruction levels after construction was completed.
25
26
Air quality and noise impacts from construction activities would be similar whether occurring at a
greenfield site, brownfield site, or at an existing nuclear power plant.
27
28
29
30
31
32
Operations – The impacts on air quality as a result of operation of a facility for a replacement
power alternative would depend on the energy technology (e.g., fossil, new nuclear, or
renewable). Air quality would be affected during operations by cooling tower drift, auxiliary
power equipment, building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (i.e., HVAC) systems, and
vehicle emissions. Auxiliary power equipment could include standby diesel generators and
power systems for emergency power and auxiliary steam.
33
34
35
36
Noise generated during operation would include noise from cooling towers (water pumps,
cascading water, or fans), transformers, turbines, pumps, compressors, loudspeakers, other
auxiliary equipment such as standby generators, and vehicles. Noise from vehicles would be
intermittent.
February 2023
4-17
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.3.2.1
2
Construction – Air quality and noise impacts would be the same as described in Section 4.3.2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Operations – Fossil fuel (coal, natural gas) power plants can have a significant impact on air
quality. The burning of fossil fuels is a major source of criteria pollutants and GHGs, primarily
CO2, as well as other hazardous air pollutants. The exact nature of these pollutants and their
quantity depends on many factors, including the chemical constituency of the fuel, combustion
technology, air pollution control devices, and onsite management of fuel and waste material.
Table 4.3-1 presents representative emission factors for various fossil fuel power plants. The
values presented in Table 4.3-1 are not all inclusive of fossil fuel-burning technologies, but
represent the possible range of operational emissions that could result from fossil fuel-fired
power plants. In comparing these emission factors, it is apparent that air emissions from a
natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant would be less than those from operation of an
integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) or supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) plant.
14
Fossil Energy Alternatives
Table 4.3-1
Pollutant
SO2
NOx
PM
CO
CO2
Emission Factors of Representative Fossil Fuel Plants
Emission Factors(a) in
kg/MWh (lb/MWh)
for NGCC(b)
0.003 (0.006)
0.010 (0.022)
0.005 (0.012)
0.005 (0.012)
336 (741)
Emission Factors(a)in
kg/MWh (lb/MWh)
for SCPC(c)
0.294 (0.648)
0.318 (0.700)
0.041 (0.090)
N/A
738 (1,627)
Emission Factors(a) in
kg/MWh (lb/MWh)
for IGCC(d)
0.059 (0.130)
0.177 (0.390)
0.021 (0.047)
N/A
602 (1,328)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
SO2 = sulfur dioxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM = particulate matter; CO = carbon monoxide; CO2 = carbon dioxide;
kg/MWh = kilograms per megawatt-hr; lb/MWh = pounds per megawatt-hr; NGCC = natural gas combined cycle;
SCPC = supercritical pulverized coal; IGCC = integrated gasification combined cycle; N/A = not available.
(a) Values are based on gross output and no carbon capture technology.
(b) Emission factors are based on two combustion turbine-generators, a gross output of 740 MW, a capacity factor
of 85 percent, NOx emissions control technology (selective catalytic reduction and dry low NOx burner), and low
natural gas sulfur content.
(c) Emission factors are based on a gross output of 685 MW, a capacity factor of 85 percent, SO2 emission control
technology (wet limestone forced oxidation), NOx control technology (low NOx burner and selective catalytic
reduction), and bituminous coal.
(d) Emission factors are based on two Shell gasifiers, a total gross output of 765 MW, a capacity factor of 80
percent, two carbon beds to remove mercury, and bituminous coal.
Source: NETL 2019.
28
29
30
31
32
33
Air quality and noise impacts from operations of a fossil fuel power plant would be the same as
described in Section 4.3.2. Operation of a natural gas power plant would also include offsite
mechanical noise from compressor stations and pipeline blowdowns. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission requires that any new compressor station or any modification, upgrade,
or update of an existing station must not exceed a day-night sound intensity level of 55 dBA at
the closest noise-sensitive area (18 CFR 157.206).
34
4.3.2.2
35
36
37
38
Construction – Air quality and noise impacts for the construction of a new nuclear power plant
would be the same as those described in Section 4.3.2. Air emissions from construction would
be limited, local, and temporary. Noise impacts during construction would be limited to the
immediate vicinity of the site.
New Nuclear Alternatives
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-18
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Operations – Air quality and noise impacts would be the same as those described in
Section 4.3.2. An operating nuclear plant would have minor air emissions associated with
stationary combustion sources (e.g., diesel generators, auxiliary boilers, pumps) and mobile
sources (e.g., worker vehicles, truck deliveries). Additional air emissions would result from the
use of cooling towers and could contribute to the impacts associated with the formation of
visible plumes, fogging, and subsequent icing downwind of the towers. Noise sources would
include turbines, cooling towers, transformers, and vehicular traffic associated with worker and
delivery vehicles.
9
4.3.2.3
Renewable Alternatives
10
11
12
13
14
15
Construction – Air quality and noise impacts for the construction of land-based alternative
energy technologies would be the same as those described in Section 4.3.2. Air quality impacts
associated with the construction of offshore power-generating facilities and support structures
include the emission of criteria pollutants from construction barges and equipment (e.g., cranes,
compressors) and vehicles delivering materials and crews to embarkation locations on the
shore, and dust from the construction of onshore facilities (e.g., cable landings, substations).
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Construction-related noise impacts would be substantially different offshore than those
associated with onshore construction because these activities would be distant from most
human receptors and because noise propagates much greater distances in water. Sources of
noise would include crew vessels and construction and equipment barges; seismic technologies
used to characterize the site; explosives or pile-driving to construct foundations for offshore
wind turbines or anchoring devices for wave, tidal, and current energy capturing equipment; and
excavation of sea bottoms for installation of buried power and communication cables.
Construction-related impacts on air quality and noise would generally be temporary.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Operations – In general, air quality impacts associated with most renewable energy alternatives
would be negligible because no burning of fossil fuels resulting in direct air emissions would be
required to generate electricity. Emission sources associated with the operation of renewable
energy alternatives could include engine exhaust from worker vehicles, heavy equipment
associated with site inspections, onsite combustion sources (emergency diesel generators,
pumps), and cooling towers. Biomass, geothermal, and refuse-derived fuel facilities, however,
can emit significant air emissions, including criteria pollutants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
mercury, and hazardous air pollutants (Ciferno and Marano 2002; NREL 2003; Kagel et al.
2005; BLM 2008). Air emissions associated with the operation of offshore facilities will also
result from engine exhaust of vessel traffic traveling to and from offshore sites for operation and
maintenance activities.
35
36
37
38
39
Noise sources associated with operation of renewable energy alternatives can include
transformers, transmission lines, cooling towers, pumps, and worker vehicles. Noise generated
by onshore and offshore wind turbines includes aerodynamic noise from the blades and
mechanical noise from turbine drivetrain components (generator, gearbox). Noise impacts
would depend on the proximity of noise-sensitive receptors to noise sources.
February 2023
4-19
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.4
Geologic Environment
2
3
4.4.1
4
4.4.1.1
5
6
7
8
This issue was added in the 2013 LR GEIS. Geologic and soil conditions at all nuclear power
plants and associated transmission lines have been well established during the current licensing
term. These conditions are expected to remain unchanged during the 20-year license renewal
(initial LR or SLR) term.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The impact of continued operations and any refurbishment associated with license renewal on
geologic and soil resources would consist of soil disturbance, including sediment and/or any
associated bedrock, for projects, such as replacing or adding buildings, roads, parking lots, and
belowground and aboveground utility structures. For such projects, a licensee may also need to
obtain geologic resources (e.g., soil or sand borrow or backfill material, aggregate for road
building or concrete production) from locations on the nuclear power plant site or from offsite
borrow areas or quarries. However, it is more likely that these materials would be obtained from
commercial vendors. Regardless, for onsite activities, implementation of BMPs by the plant
licensee would reduce soil erosion and subsequent impacts on surface water quality. These
practices include, but are not limited to, minimizing the amount of disturbed land, stockpiling
topsoil before ground disturbance, mulching and seeding in disturbed areas, covering loose
materials with temporary covers such as geotextiles, using sediment (silt) fences to reduce
sediment loading to surface water, using check dams to minimize the erosive power of
drainages, and installing proper culvert outlets to direct flows in streams or drainages.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Detailed geotechnical analyses would be required to address the stability of excavations,
foundation footings, and slope cuts for building construction, road creation, or other
refurbishment-related construction projects. Depending on the plant location and design,
riverbank or coastline protection might need to be upgraded, especially at water intake or
discharge structures, if natural flows, such as storm surges, cause an increase in erosion. For
example, at the Point Beach plant, the bluffs along Lake Michigan are subject to erosion from
storm action. The licensee performs necessary shoreline and bank stabilization activities in
accordance with an authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In 2019,
the licensee initiated a project to construct a new breakwater structure (wave barrier) along the
plant boundary with Lake Michigan. The projected was completed in August 2020. The work
included construction of a new breakwater structure extending north from near the midpoint of
the Point Beach Unit 2 discharge flume for approximately 600 ft (185 m) to an existing
breakwater structure. The second 600 ft (185 m) segment of the breakwater extends south
from near the midpoint of the Point Beach Unit 1 flume and curves back to the existing
shoreline. The breakwater structure consists of large armor stones (dolomite blocks) stacked
on the lake bottom. The project also included installation of additional riprap protection along
the shoreline, extending for 400 linear ft (120 m) and including the shoreline segment between
the plant’s two discharge flumes (NRC 2021f).
41
42
43
44
45
In addition, the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 USC 4201 et seq.) requires Federal
agencies to take into account agency actions affecting the preservation of farmland, including
prime and other important farmland soils, as described in Section 3.4. While the Farmland
Protection Policy Act could apply in some circumstances at nuclear power plant sites
(e.g., development of renewable energy resources as an alternative to license renewal, other
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued Operations
and Refurbishment Activities
Geology and Soils
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-20
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
projects completed with Federal assistance including funding), it does not apply to Federal
permitting or licensing actions for activities on private or non-Federal lands (7 CFR Part 658).
3
4
5
Plant-specific environmental reviews conducted by the NRC to date have not identified any
significant impact issues related to continued operations and refurbishment activities on geology
and soils.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
The impacts of natural phenomena, including geologic hazards, on nuclear power plant
systems, structures, and components are outside the scope of the NRC’s license renewal
environmental review. Nonetheless, the environmental review documents the potential effects
of continued nuclear power plant operation during the license renewal term, including any
refurbishment activities, on the environment. As discussed in Section 3.4, nuclear power plants
were originally sited, designed, and licensed in consideration of the geologic and seismic criteria
set forth in 10 CFR 100.10(c)(1) and 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, and, where applicable,
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A. In its license renewal environmental reviews, for instance, the
NRC considers the risk to reactors from seismicity in the evaluation of severe accidents. Where
appropriate, seismic issues are also assessed in the plant-specific safety review that is
performed for license renewals. The NRC also conducts safety reviews prior to allowing
licensees to make operational changes due to changing environmental conditions.
18
19
20
21
22
23
Further, the NRC requires all licensees to take seismic activity into account in order to maintain
safe operating conditions at all nuclear power plants. When new seismic hazard information
becomes available, the NRC evaluates the new information to determine if any changes are
needed at existing plants, as discussed in Section 1.7.6 of this LR GEIS. This reactor oversight
process, which considers seismic safety, is separate and distinct from the NRC staff’s license
renewal environmental review.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The impact of continued operations and refurbishment on geology and soils during the license
renewal term was considered to be SMALL for all plants and a Category 1 issue in the 2013 LR
GEIS. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would
result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. The staff concludes
that the impacts of continued nuclear plant operations during the initial LR or SLR terms and
any refurbishment activities on geology and soils would be the same (SMALL) for all nuclear
plants. As a result, geology and soils is a Category 1 issue.
32
4.4.2
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Construction – For all alternatives (including fossil energy, new nuclear, and renewable
alternatives) discussed in this section, the impacts of construction on geology and soils would
be similar in nature but would likely vary in intensity based on the land area required. Land
would be cleared of any vegetation during construction. Clearing and grading activities over
large land areas increases the risk of soil erosion, soil loss, and potential offsite water quality
impacts due to stormwater runoff. Soils would be stored onsite for redistribution at the end of
construction. Land clearing during construction and the installation of power plant structures
and impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, parking lots, buildings) would alter surface drainage.
Sources of engineered fill (e.g., compacted soil or other material) and aggregate such as
crushed stone and sand and gravel would be required for construction of buildings, foundations,
roads, and parking lots. Once facility construction is completed, areas disturbed during
construction would be within the footprint of the completed facilities, overlain by other
impervious surfaces (such as roadways and parking lots), or revegetated or stabilized as
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
February 2023
4-21
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
appropriate, so there would be no additional land disturbance and no direct operational impacts
on geology and soils. Consumption of geologic resources (e.g., aggregate materials or topsoil)
for maintenance purposes during operations would be negligible.
4
4.4.2.1
Fossil Energy Alternatives
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Operations – Impacts on soil and geologic resources during power plant operations would be
limited to the extraction of fossil fuel, typically at existing mining and drilling locations away from
the power plant. Surface mining or underground mining for coal would result in various degrees
of overburden clearing, soil stockpiling, waste rock disposal, re-routing of drainages, and
management of any co-located geologic resources. Drilling for petroleum resources would
involve clearing and grading for drill pads and construction of underground pipelines with
associated soil disturbance. Proper design of surface water crossings would be needed to
manage the potential for erosion at these locations. Eventual closure of extraction sites would
require proper restoration of mines and other sites to reduce environmental impacts.
14
4.4.2.2
15
16
17
18
19
20
Operations – Impacts on soil and geologic resources during operations would be limited to the
extraction of uranium ore material used to make nuclear fuel, typically at existing mining
locations away from the power plant. The extraction could involve mining techniques similar to
those used for fossil fuels, along with management of ore tailings. However, another method is
solution mining (in situ leach uranium recovery), which involves the construction of drilling pads
for injection and recovery wells to remove uranium from underground ore bodies.
21
4.4.2.3
22
23
24
Operations – For renewable energy facilities requiring large land areas (i.e., solar PV and solar
thermal), vegetation maintenance during operations would increase the potential for soil erosion
and loss by wind and precipitation runoff.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Other renewable technologies would entail potential operational impacts inherent to their
design. The operation of hydroelectric dams would induce downstream impacts, including
sediment transport and deposition patterns, and channel erosion or scouring. Geothermal
energy facilities can induce land subsidence due to the removal of large quantities of groundwater. Farming to provide feedstock for biomass-fuel facilities would have the potential for
increased soil erosion and the release of pesticides and fertilizers to nearby surface water
bodies.
32
4.5
33
34
35
36
37
Hydrologic and water quality conditions at all nuclear power plants and associated transmission
lines have been well established during the current licensing terms. However, continued
operations and any refurbishment activities could have an impact on water resources during the
license renewal (initial LR or SLR) terms. This section describes the potential impact of these
proposed activities and alternatives on surface water and groundwater resources.
New Nuclear Alternatives
Renewable Alternatives
Water Resources
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-22
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued Operations
and Refurbishment Activities
1
2
4.5.1
3
4
5
Continued operations and any refurbishment activities during the license renewal term could
affect surface water and groundwater resources in a manner similar to what has occurred during
the current license term (see Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2, respectively).
6
4.5.1.1
Surface Water Resources
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
For the most part, no significant surface water impacts are anticipated during the license
renewal terms that would be different from those occurring during the current license term.
Certain operational changes (such as a power uprate) affecting surface water would be
evaluated by the NRC in a separate environmental review. For potential impacts on water
resources, the use of surface water is of greatest concern because of the high volumetric flow
rates required for condenser cooling at nuclear power plants. Withdrawals from surface water
bodies are high for both once-through and closed-cycle cooling systems. Consumptive water
use occurs through evaporation and drift, especially from cooling towers, and may affect water
availability downstream from nuclear power plants along rivers. Associated impacts on surface
water quality may result from the discharge of thermal effluent containing chemical additives.
Other potential impacts on surface water are the result of normal industrial plant activities during
the license renewal term.
19
20
The following issues concern impacts on surface water that may occur during the initial LR or
SLR term:
21
•
surface water use and quality (non-cooling system impacts);
22
•
altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures;
23
•
altered salinity gradients;
24
•
altered thermal stratification of lakes;
25
•
scouring caused by discharged cooling water;
26
•
discharge of metals in cooling system effluent;
27
•
discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills;
28
•
surface water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems);
29
30
•
surface water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water
from a river);
31
•
effects of dredging on surface water quality; and
32
•
temperature effects on sediment transport capacity.
33
4.5.1.1.1 Surface Water Use and Quality (Non-Cooling System Impacts)
34
35
36
37
38
39
Continued operations and refurbishment activities could result in the degradation of water
quality within the receiving watershed. Power plant sites and land-disturbing activities can
increase the variety and quantity of pollutants entering receiving water bodies such as streams,
rivers, and lakes. Pollutants within stormwater runoff from plant sites can include suspended
sediment; pesticides and nutrients from landscaped areas; petroleum products including oil and
grease and toxic chemicals from motor vehicles; spills of hydrocarbon fuels; paints; road salts;
February 2023
4-23
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
water treatment chemicals including acids and biocides; heavy metals from roof shingles and
motor vehicles; and thermal pollution (i.e., heated stormwater runoff) from impervious surfaces.
These pollutants could potentially harm aquatic and terrestrial species, contaminate recreational
areas, and degrade drinking water supplies.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
In an effort to minimize or eliminate impacts on the water quality of receiving water bodies,
BMPs are typically included as conditions within National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits issued by the EPA, or, where delegated, by individual States. BMPs
are measures used to control the adverse water quality-related effects of land disturbance and
development or industrial activity. They include structural devices designed to remove
pollutants, reduce runoff rates and volumes, and protect aquatic habitats. BMPs also include
nonstructural or administrative approaches, such as training to educate staff in the proper
handling and disposal of potential pollutants.
13
14
15
16
17
18
Permanent BMPs are designed to control pollutants to the maximum extent practicable during
continued operations of the power plant. Extended detention and infiltration basins are
examples of pollutant-removal features designed to remove pollutants based on volume.
Hydrodynamic separator systems (hydrodynamic devices, baffle boxes, swirl concentrators, or
cyclone separators) are examples of pollutant-removal devices that are typically designed
based on flow rate.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Refurbishment activities involving construction-related land disturbance are expected to be
managed by an approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Development and
implementation of a SWPPP is normally required as a condition of a NPDES permit. The
SWPPP would indicate the structural and nonstructural BMPs that must be implemented for the
duration of the refurbishment activity. Examples of construction BMPs include use of sediment
(silt) fences, check dams, staked hay bales, sediment ponds, mulching, and geotextile matting
of disturbed areas.
26
27
28
29
30
BMPs and conformance to plant site NPDES permits (individual sitewide or general permits),
encompassing those covering stormwater discharges associated with construction and
industrial activity, are expected to be followed during continued operations and refurbishment
activities. Implementation of spill prevention and control plans would further reduce the
likelihood of any liquid chemical spills.
31
32
33
34
35
Continued operations and refurbishment activities will require water for non-cooling-related
purposes, including some consumptive use (i.e., water that is used but not returned to the
source and effectively lost). The water source is dependent on the nuclear power plant site,
water availability, and the nature of any refurbishment activities. Typical water sources at
nuclear power plants are surface water, groundwater, and public domestic (potable) water.
36
37
38
39
40
Water may be used during refurbishment activities for concrete production, dust control,
washing stations, facility and equipment cleaning, and soil compaction and excavation
backfilling. However, the impacts due to the volume of water consumed from a surface water
source would be insignificant when compared with that used or consumed by a plant’s cooling
system (either once-through or closed-cycle cooling system).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-24
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
The use of groundwater for non-cooling system uses would have a minimal impact on the
surface water source similar to that of a direct surface water withdrawal, assuming an
interconnection between the groundwater source and surface water body. Groundwater
withdrawal near a water body with a disconnected groundwater table would have no effect on
the surface water resource.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The use of public domestic water would reduce the direct consumptive use impacts on surface
water resources. Still, domestic water runoff and water main breaks have the potential to
introduce an additional pollutant (residual chlorine), which could impact water quality. It is
expected that such occurrences would be rare and would be identified and corrected as piped
domestic water is metered at the point of interconnection with a plant’s water distribution
system. Any such occurrences are not expected to present a significant water quality concern
over the license renewal term.
13
14
15
Surface water consumption for non-cooling water-related operational activities is anticipated to
be negligible and limited to uses such as facility and equipment cleaning. As a result, no
surface water use conflicts would be expected.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The impacts of refurbishment on surface water use and quality during the license renewal term
were considered to be SMALL for all plants and designated as a Category 1 issue in the 2013
LR GEIS. Further, non-cooling system operational impacts on water use and quality are
expected to be SMALL, as described above. In addition, if refurbishment took place during a
reactor shutdown, the overall water use by the facility would be greatly reduced. The staff
reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the
2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different
impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. On the basis of these considerations,
the non-cooling system impacts of continued operations and refurbishment activities on surface
water resources during the initial LR and SLR terms would be SMALL for all nuclear power
plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
27
4.5.1.1.2 Altered Current Patterns at Intake and Discharge Structures
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The large flow rates associated with cooling system water use have the potential to alter current
patterns. The degree of influence depends on the design and location of the intake and
discharge structures and the characteristics of the surface water body. The effect on currents
near the intake and discharge locations is expected to be variable and localized, and any
problems would have been mitigated during the early operational period of a nuclear power
plant (NRC 1996). Most nuclear power plants are sited on large bodies of water to make use of
the water for cooling purposes. The size of large rivers, lakes, or reservoirs precludes
significant current alterations except in the vicinity of the structures. For ocean shore, bay, or
tidally influenced river settings, the effect is further reduced when compared with the strong
natural water movement patterns. For example, current patterns were modified at the Oyster
Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Oyster Creek; which permanently shut down in September
2018). The plant site is located inland from Barnegat Bay in New Jersey. The once-through
cooling system for this plant was created by modifying two small rivers originally flowing parallel
into the bay. On the north side of the plant, the South Branch of the Forked River was enlarged
between the plant and the bay to serve as an intake canal. On the south side of the plant,
Oyster Creek was enlarged between the plant and the bay for use as a discharge canal. Near
the plant, the two waterways were joined. Bay water was pulled from the bay through the intake
canal to the plant, against the original flow direction of the lowest reach of the South Branch of
the Forked River. Flow at the mouth of this river was both reversed and significantly increased,
February 2023
4-25
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
while flow at the mouth of the Oyster Creek discharge canal significantly increased during plant
operations. While current patterns in Barnegat Bay in the immediate vicinity of the intake and
discharge canals were affected by operations, the effect on the overall Barnegat Bay system
was minor (NRC 1996; NRC 2007b).
5
6
7
This issue has no relevance to nuclear power plants relying on cooling ponds or canal systems
because such structures are human-made (excavated earthworks or engineered
impoundments) without natural currents.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Impacts from altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures during the license
renewal term were considered to be SMALL for all plants and designated as Category 1 in the
2013 LR GEIS. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed
since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that
would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. On the basis
of these considerations, the impact of altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures
would be SMALL during the initial LR and SLR terms for all nuclear plants. This is a Category 1
issue.
16
4.5.1.1.3 Altered Salinity Gradients
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This issue relates to the few (operating) nuclear power plants (Table 3.1-2) located on estuaries
and addresses changes in salinity caused by cooling system water withdrawals and discharges
directly to receiving waters. Using the same example site as for the current patterns issue,
construction of the Oyster Creek plant (no longer operating) included modification of the lower
reaches of two creeks. These portions of the creeks were originally brackish, with a mix of
freshwater from their upper reaches and tidally influenced bay water. Because of the cooling
system operations, the water quality of these lower reaches had approached that of Barnegat
Bay, with contributions of freshwater from their upper reaches being relatively minor. These
lower reaches were also affected by occasional dredging activities, and the discharge canal
received water to which heat and chemicals had been added. The salinity changes did not
affect the upper portions of the creeks. In the 1996 LR GEIS, only minor effects had been noted
in Barnegat Bay.
29
30
31
32
As documented in the 1996 LR GEIS and Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (Calvert Cliffs)
SEIS (NRC 1999c), the NRC found that operation of the Calvert Cliffs plant has not had
significant effects on salinity in Chesapeake Bay. Altered salinity gradients are expected to be
noticeable only in the immediate vicinity of the intake and discharge structures.
33
34
35
36
37
38
More recently, in the Surry SLR SEIS, the NRC evaluated the plant’s cooling water withdrawals
and discharges to the tidally influenced James River in Virginia. The range in measured
salinities in the James River for the period 1984 through 2018 indicated no significant effect
from Surry’s operations, based on comparison to salinity data compiled prior to and immediately
after plant startup in 1975. Higher salinity does occur within Surry’s engineered discharge canal
due to the withdrawal of higher salinity water (NRC 2020f).
39
40
41
42
43
Impacts from altered salinity gradients at intake and discharge structures during the license
renewal term were considered to be SMALL for all plants and designated as a Category 1 issue
in the 2013 LR GEIS. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs)
completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-26
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
On the basis of these considerations, the impact of altered salinity gradients would be SMALL
during the initial LR and SLR terms for all nuclear plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
3
4.5.1.1.4 Altered Thermal Stratification of Lakes
4
5
6
7
Because cooling systems typically withdraw from the deeper, cooler portion of the water column
of lakes or reservoirs and discharge to the surface, they have the ability to alter the thermal
stratification of the surface water. This has not been shown to be an issue for rivers or oceans
because of mixing caused by natural turbulence.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A thermal plume of discharge water loses heat to the atmosphere and to the receiving surface
water body. It also undergoes mixing with the surface water. In the 1996 LR GEIS, examples
included the Oconee Nuclear Station (Oconee) in South Carolina, where the withdrawal of cool,
deep water for cooling purposes favors warmwater fish species at the expense of coolwater fish.
Mitigation of this effect is possible by modifying the allowable discharge water temperature. In
an example from the McGuire Nuclear Station (McGuire) in North Carolina, a modeling study
indicated that increasing the permitted discharge temperature would reduce the withdrawal of
cool, deep water and conserve coolwater species habitat.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Thermal plumes may be studied through field measurements and modeling studies. For plants
on lakes or reservoirs, the thermal effect on stratification is examined periodically through the
NPDES permit renewal process. For example, as documented in the Point Beach SLR SEIS,
the plant’s Wisconsin-issued NPDES permit imposes a heat-rejection limit on the plant’s cooling
water discharge. This limit accounts for operational changes implemented at Point Beach
associated with the extended power uprate that the NRC approved in 2011 (NRC 2021f).
Problems with thermal stratification due to nuclear power plant operations have not been
encountered.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Impacts from altered thermal stratification of lakes and reservoirs during the license renewal
term were considered to be SMALL for all plants and were designated as a Category 1 issue in
the 2013 LR GEIS. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs)
completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
On the basis of these considerations, the impact of altered thermal stratification of lakes would
be SMALL during the initial LR and SLR terms for all nuclear plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
31
4.5.1.1.5 Scouring Caused by Discharged Cooling Water
32
33
34
The high-flow rate of water from a cooling system discharge structure has the potential to scour
sediments and redeposit them elsewhere. Scouring will remove fine-grained sediments,
resulting in turbidity, and leave behind coarse-grained sediments.
35
36
37
38
39
40
The degree of scouring depends on the design of the discharge structure and the character of
the sediments. Scouring is expected to occur only in the vicinity of the discharge structure
where flow rates are high. While scouring is possible during reactor startup, operational periods
would typically have negligible scouring. Natural sediment transport processes could bring
fresh sediment into the discharge flow area. These processes include transport due to ocean
currents, tides, river meandering, and storm events.
41
42
In the 1996 LR GEIS, scouring had not been noted as a problem at most plants and had been
observed at only three nuclear power plants (Calvert Cliffs, Connecticut Yankee [no longer
February 2023
4-27
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
operating], and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station [San Onofre; no longer operating]). The
effects at these plants were localized and minor.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Impacts from scouring caused by discharged cooling water during the license renewal term
were considered to be SMALL for all plants and were designated as a Category 1 issue in the
2013 LR GEIS. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed
since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that
would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. On the basis
of these considerations, the impact of scouring caused by discharged cooling water would be
SMALL during the initial LR and SLR terms for all nuclear plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
10
4.5.1.1.6 Discharge of Metals in Cooling System Effluent
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Heavy metals such as copper, zinc, and chromium can be leached from condenser tubing and
other components of the heat exchange system by circulating cooling water. These metals are
normally addressed in NPDES permits because high concentrations of them can be toxic to
aquatic organisms. Operations at all nuclear power plants are subject to one or more NPDES
permits that require licensees to conduct effluent monitoring and reporting for a wide range of
pollutants that could potentially be discharged in cooling water and comingled effluents. For
example, as described in the SEIS for initial LR of the Byron plant, the plant’s Illinois-issued
NPDES permit requires that the licensee monitor cooling system blowdown discharges to the
Rock River for various parameters, including the metals zinc, iron, lead, copper, nickel, and
chromium (NRC 2015c). During normal nuclear power plant operations, metal concentrations
are normally below laboratory detection levels. However, plants occasionally undergo planned
outages for refueling or unplanned maintenance, with stagnant water remaining in the heat
exchange system. During an outage at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) in
California, the longer residence time of water in the cooling system resulted in elevated copper
levels in the discharge when operations resumed; abalone (Haliotis spp.) deaths were attributed
to the increased copper (NRC 1996). At the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant (Robinson) in
South Carolina, the gradual accumulation of copper in its reservoir resulted in impacts on the
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) population. In both cases, copper condenser tubes were
replaced with titanium ones, and the problem was eliminated (NRC 1996).
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Impacts from the discharge of metals in cooling system effluent during the license renewal term
were considered to be SMALL for all nuclear power plants and were designated as a Category 1
issue in the 2013 LR GEIS. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and
SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
On the basis of these considerations, the impact of the discharge of metals in cooling system
effluent would be SMALL during the initial LR and SLR terms for all nuclear plants. This is a
Category 1 issue.
38
4.5.1.1.7 Discharge of Biocides, Sanitary Wastes, and Minor Chemical Spills
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The use of biocides and other water treatment chemicals is common and is required to control
biofouling and nuisance organisms in plant cooling systems. However, the types of chemicals,
their amounts or concentrations, and the frequency of their use may vary. The use of biocides
at nuclear power plants is discussed generally in Section 3.5.1. Ultimately, any residual
biocides used in the cooling system are discharged to surface water bodies. The discharge of
treated sanitary waste also occurs at plants. Discharge may occur via onsite wastewater
treatment facilities, via an onsite septic field, or through a connection to a municipal sewage
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-28
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
system. Minor chemical spills collected in floor drains are associated with industry in general
and are a possibility at all plants. Each of these factors represents a potential impact on surface
water quality.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Discharges of cooling water and other plant wastewaters are monitored through the NPDES
program administered by the EPA, or, where delegated, by individual States. The NPDES
permit contains requirements that limit the flow rates and pollutant concentrations that may be
discharged at permitted outfalls, including chemical residuals from biocides and other water
treatment chemicals. For example, as described in the SEIS for initial LR of the Fermi plant, the
plant’s Michigan-issued NPDES imposes effluent limits and monitoring requirements for residual
chlorine and other listed biocides (used for zebra mussel control) on the plant’s primary outfall to
Lake Erie (NRC 2016c). NPDES permits normally include special conditions such as requiring
preapproval from the regulatory agency for the use of new water treatment chemicals, as well
as requiring that onsite sanitary wastewater treatment facilities be attended by a licensed
operator. The permit may also include biological monitoring parameters that are primarily
associated with the discharge of cooling water. NPDES permits may also include biochemical
monitoring parameters. Discharge from building drains is also addressed in the NPDES permit.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Because of Federal or State regulatory involvement, and the fact that no significant problems
with outfall monitoring have been found, the impacts from the discharge of chlorine and other
biocides and minor spills of sanitary wastes and chemicals during license renewal and
refurbishment were considered to be SMALL for all nuclear power plants and designated as a
Category 1 issue in the 2013 LR GEIS. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial
LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new
information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR
or SLR term. On the basis of these considerations, the discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes,
and minor chemical spills would be SMALL during the initial LR and SLR terms for all nuclear
plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
27
4.5.1.1.8 Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Nuclear power plant cooling systems may compete with other users relying on surface water
resources, including downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users. Once-through and
closed-cycle cooling systems have different water consumption rates. As reported by Dieter
et al. (2018), thermoelectric plant once-through cooling systems return most of their withdrawn
water to the same surface water body, with evaporative losses of approximately 1 percent,
compared to 57 percent for closed-cycle (recirculating) cooling systems. Consumptive use by
plants with once-through cooling systems during the license renewal term is not expected to
change unless power uprates, with associated increases in water use, are proposed. Because
power uprates are a separate licensing action from license renewal, such uprates would
normally require a separate environmental review by the NRC.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Future scenarios for water availability focus on climate change and associated changes in
precipitation and temperature patterns. Since the beginning of the last century, annual
precipitation has increased on average by 4 percent across the United States with increases in
the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains and decreases over parts of the Southeast and
Southwest. The frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation have increased average annual
precipitation, with the highest observed changes occurring across the Northeast and Midwest.
Climate models project that these trends will continue. Annual average temperature has
increased by 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (0.7 degree Celsius [°C]) across the contiguous
United States for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960. In the coming decades, annual
February 2023
4-29
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
average temperatures are projected to increase by about 2.2 °F (1.2 °C) (USGCRP 2018).
Increased temperatures and/or decreased rainfall would result in lower river flows, increased
cooling pond evaporation, and lowered water levels in the Great Lakes or reservoirs. Climate
change-induced impacts on water availability are less pronounced across large watersheds
(large river systems and lakes). As a result, surface water withdrawals by nuclear power plants
would be even less likely to affect water availability. While weather will vary from year to year,
the results of climate change models and the projected changes to surface water runoff support
increases in runoff across the eastern United States and decreases in runoff in the western
United States, where water remains less available due to drought and decreases in winter
snowpack. Regardless of overall climate change, droughts could result in problems with water
supplies and allocations. Because future agricultural, municipal, and industrial users would
continue to share their demands for surface water with power plants, conflicts might arise if the
availability of this resource decreased. This situation would then necessitate decisions by local,
State, and regional water-planning officials.
15
16
17
18
19
Population growth around nuclear power plants has caused increased demand on municipal
water systems, including systems that rely on surface water. Municipal intakes located
downstream of a nuclear power plant could experience water shortages, especially in times of
drought. Water demands upstream of a plant could affect the water availability at the plant’s
intake.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In the 2013 LR GEIS, the impacts of continued operations and refurbishment on water use
conflicts associated with once-through cooling systems were considered to be SMALL and were
designated as a Category 1 issue. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs
and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new
information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue either for an initial LR
or SLR term. On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact on water
use conflicts from the continued operation and refurbishment activities would be SMALL during
the initial LR and SLR terms for plants that use once-through cooling. This is a Category 1
issue.
29
30
4.5.1.1.9 Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using
Makeup Water from a River)
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Nuclear power plant cooling systems may compete with other users relying on surface water
resources, including downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users. Closed-cycle
cooling is not completely closed, because the system discharges blowdown water to a surface
water body and withdraws water for makeup of both the consumptive water loss due to
evaporation and drift (for cooling towers) and blowdown discharge. For plants using cooling
towers, while the volume of surface water withdrawn is substantially less than once-through
systems for a similarly sized nuclear power plant, the makeup water needed to replenish the
consumptive loss of water to evaporation can be significant. As reported by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS 2019b), consumptive water use in thermoelectric power plants with recirculating
cooling systems can be up to 74 percent of the withdrawal flow rate. Cooling ponds also require
makeup water as a result of naturally occurring evaporation, evaporation of the warm effluent,
the potential need for periodic blowdown to maintain pond chemistry, and possible seepage to
groundwater.
44
45
46
Consumptive use by plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a
river during the license renewal term is not expected to change unless power uprates, with
associated increases in water use, occur. Such uprates would normally require a separate
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-30
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
environmental review by the NRC. Any river, regardless of size, can experience low-flow
conditions of varying severity during periods of drought and changing conditions in the affected
watershed such as upstream diversions and use of river water. However, the potential for direct
impacts on instream flow and potential water availability for other users from nuclear power
plant surface water withdrawals are greater for smaller (i.e., low-flow1) rivers.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
As stated earlier, increased temperatures and/or decreased rainfall would result in lower river
flows, increased cooling pond evaporation, and lowered water levels in lakes or reservoirs.
Regardless of overall climate change, droughts could result in problems with water supplies and
allocations. Conflicts might arise due to competing agricultural, municipal, and industrial user
demands for surface water with power plants. Closed-cycle cooling systems are more
susceptible to these issues than once-through cooling systems because they consume more
water per unit volume of water withdrawn from the water source. For this reason, climate
change is more of a potential concern for water use conflicts associated with nuclear power
plants with closed-cycle cooling systems.
15
16
17
18
19
Population growth around nuclear power plants has caused increased demand on municipal
water systems, including systems that rely on surface water. Municipal intakes located
downstream from a nuclear power plant could experience water shortages, especially in times
of drought. Similarly, water demands upstream from a nuclear power plant could affect the
water availability at the plant’s intake.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
As discussed in the 2013 LR GEIS, potential water use conflicts have been documented for
nuclear power plants with closed-cycle cooling systems. State regulatory agencies have
imposed surface water withdrawal limits on a number of operating nuclear power plants with
cooling towers and cooling ponds. The Limerick plant is equipped with natural draft cooling
towers, on the Schuylkill River in Pennsylvania. It is cited as an example of a plant in the 1996
LR GEIS on which limits were imposed on the rate of withdrawal from a river for the purpose of
avoiding water use conflicts, including downstream water availability and water quality. As
further documented in the SEIS for initial LR of Limerick, plant operations are subject to low-flow
augmentation requirements during low river flow (NRC 2014d). In another example, as
documented in the SEIS for initial LR of the Braidwood plant, the plant’s makeup water
withdrawal from the Kankakee River to its cooling pond is subject to a maximum withdrawal rate
imposed by the State of Illinois (NRC 2015d). Further, availability problems for downstream
habitat and users may be anticipated at other plants.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Water use conflicts associated with plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup
water from a river with low flow are considered to vary among sites because of differing sitespecific factors, such as makeup water requirements, water availability (especially in terms of
varying river flow rates), changing or anticipated changes in population distributions, or changes
in agricultural or industrial demands. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs
and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new
information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR
or SLR term.
41
42
43
On the basis of these considerations, the impact of water use conflicts from the continued
operation of nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water
from a river could be SMALL or MODERATE during the initial LR and SLR terms, depending on
1
A river with low flow was previously defined in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) and in the 1996 LR GEIS as
one with an annual flow rate that is less than 3.15 1012 ft3/yr (9 1010 m3/yr) (100,000 ft3/s (2,830 m3/s).
February 2023
4-31
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
factors such as plant-specific design characteristics affecting consumptive water use, the
characteristics of the water body serving as the source for makeup water, and the amount of
competing use for that water. Because the impact could vary among nuclear plants, this is a
Category 2 issue.
5
4.5.1.1.10 Effects of Dredging on Surface Water Quality
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Dredging in the vicinity of surface water intakes, canals, and discharge structures is undertaken
by nuclear power plant licensees to remove deposited sediment and maintain the function of
plant cooling systems. Dredging may also be needed to maintain barge shipping lanes.
Whether accomplished by mechanical, suction, or other methods, dredging disturbs sediments
in the surface water body and affects surface water quality by temporarily increasing the
turbidity of the water column. In areas affected by industries, dredging can also mobilize heavy
metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), or other contaminants in the sediments.
13
14
15
16
17
18
The frequency of dredging depends on the rate of sedimentation. At the Oyster Creek plant in
New Jersey (which permanently shut down in September 2018), dredging took place during site
construction to create canals for the once-through cooling system (NRC 2007b). Depth
measurements were performed there every 2 years, and dredging took place on portions of the
canal system during operations. At the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (Susquehanna) in
Pennsylvania, the plant’s river intake and diffuser pipe are dredged annually (NRC 2009c).
19
20
21
22
23
More recently, as documented by the NRC in the Surry SLR SEIS, the licensee conducts
maintenance dredging of its cooling water intake channel in the James River every 3 to 4 years
in accordance with a USACE permit. The licensee also performs debris removal on an asneeded basis from its low-level intake structure under a USACE Nationwide Permit (NRC
2020f).
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
In general, maintenance dredging affects localized areas for a brief period of time. Dredging
operations are performed under permits issued by the USACE and possibly by State or local
agencies. The physical alteration of water bodies is regulated by Federal and State statutes
under Section 401 (Certification) and Section 404 (Permits) of the Clean Water Act (CWA;
33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.). The USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material
under Section 404, while Section 401 requires the applicant for a Section 404 permit to also
obtain a Water Quality Certification from the State in order to confirm that the discharge of fill
materials will be in compliance with applicable State water quality standards. If dredging could
affect threatened or endangered species or critical habitat, as established under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), the USACE must consult with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) before it
makes a permit decision. When issuing a Section 404 permit, the USACE also considers other
potential impacts on aquatic resources, archaeological resources, Tribal concerns, and the
permitting requirements of State and local agencies. The permitting process may include
planning for the sampling and disposal of the dredged sediments.
39
40
41
42
43
44
The impact of dredging has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants.
Dredging has localized effects on water quality that tend to be short-lived. The staff reviewed
information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR
GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for this
issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. The impact of dredging on water quality would be
SMALL during the initial LR and SLR terms for all nuclear plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-32
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.5.1.1.11 Temperature Effects on Sediment Transport Capacity
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Increased temperature and the resulting decreased viscosity have been hypothesized to change
the sediment transport capacity of water, leading to potential sedimentation problems, altered
turbidity of rivers, and changes in riverbed configuration. As referenced in the 2013 LR GEIS,
there is no indication that this has been a significant problem at operating power plants.
Examples of altered sediment characteristics are more likely the result of power plant structures
(e.g., jetties or canals) or current patterns near intakes and discharges; such alterations are
readily mitigated.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Based on review of literature and operational monitoring reports, consultations with utilities and
regulatory agencies, and public comments on previous license renewal reviews, there is no
evidence that temperature effects on sediment transport capacity have caused adverse
environmental effects at any existing nuclear power plant. Regulatory agencies have expressed
no concerns regarding the impacts of temperature on sediment transport capacity.
Furthermore, because of the small area near a nuclear power plant affected by increased water
temperature, it is not expected that plant operations would have a significant impact. The staff
reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the
2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different
impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. Effects are considered to be of
SMALL significance during the initial LR and SLR terms for all plants. No change in the
operation of the cooling system is expected during the license renewal term so no change in
effects on sediment transport capacity is anticipated. This is a Category 1 issue.
22
4.5.1.2
23
24
25
Operational activities during the license renewal term would be similar to those occurring during
the current license term. The impact issues of concern are availability of groundwater and the
effect of nuclear plant operations on groundwater quality.
26
27
The following issues concern impacts on groundwater that may occur during the license renewal
(initial LR or SLR) term:
28
•
groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system impacts);
29
•
groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw less than 100 gallons per minute [gpm]);
30
•
groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute [gpm]);
31
32
•
groundwater use conflicts (plants with closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw makeup
water from a river);
33
•
groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals;
34
35
36
37
•
groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds) (consolidation of two issues
from the 2013 LR GEIS: (1) groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds in
salt marshes) and (2) groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds at inland
sites); and
38
•
radionuclides released to groundwater.
Groundwater Resources
February 2023
4-33
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.5.1.2.1 Groundwater Contamination and Use (Non-Cooling System Impacts)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
As indicated in Section 3.5.2, the original construction of some plants required dewatering of a
shallow aquifer, and operational dewatering takes place at some plants, including for
groundwater contaminant plume control. This is accomplished by systems of pumping wells or
drain tiles. Continued operations and refurbishment activities during the initial LR or SLR term
are not expected to require any significant dewatering that would have an incremental effect on
groundwater availability over that which has already taken place. Such dewatering impacts are
expected to remain SMALL and confined to the boundaries of operating plants.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The contamination of soil and underlying groundwater can result from general industrial
practices at any site and is not limited to those occurring at nuclear power plants. Such
industrial practices can be evaluated generically, because they are common to industrial
facilities and nuclear power plants. Activities that result in contamination may include the use of
solvents, hydrocarbon fuels (diesel and gasoline), heavy metals, or other chemicals. These
materials all have the potential to affect soils, sediments, and groundwater if released.
Furthermore, contaminants present in the soil can act as long-term sources of contamination to
underlying groundwater depending on the severity of the spill.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Based on previous plant-specific reviews, these types of groundwater and soil contamination
problems have occurred at some operating plants. Release of contaminants into groundwater
and soil degrades the quality of these resources, even if applicable groundwater quality
standards are not exceeded. This includes de minimis quantities of contaminants that do not
typically require reporting to regulatory agencies because they are below applicable threshold
quantities and/or have been promptly remediated and would not otherwise pose a long-term
threat to human health and the environment.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Historical examples of the types of contamination that may be present at a nuclear power plant
include hydrocarbon leaks or spills at a storage tank, leaked or spilled solvents from barrels,
and a hydraulic oil-line break (NRC 2006d); thallium in soil at a seepage pit, heavy metals in soil
at a sand blasting site, a diesel fuel line leak, methyl tertiary butyl ether from spills of a gasoline
storage tank, and PCBs in soil as a result of former dielectric fluid use (NRC 2007b);
hydrocarbon spills and sulfuric acid leaks (NRC 2009c); and sodium hypochlorite solution spilled
to soil, diesel fuel spills to groundwater, sewage discharged to the ground from a sanitary sewer
line break, and nonradioactive oily water spilled to the ground from an oil/water separator (NRC
2016c). Some of these situations have required regulatory involvement by State agencies
during both monitoring and remediation phases. Remediation has taken place in the form of
excavation and recovery wells. In these instances, all contamination was either remediated with
no further action required by regulatory agencies or contamination was confined to the plant site
with remediation continuing until completed. Nevertheless, the number of occurrences of such
problems can be minimized by means of proper chemical storage, secondary containment, and
leak-detection equipment. In addition, nuclear plants have their own programs for handling
chemicals, waste, and other hazardous and toxic materials in accordance with Federal and
State regulations. Environmental permits held by nuclear power plant licensees (e.g., NPDES
permits) generally require the use of BMPs to prevent pollutant releases to the environment.
Continued implementation of such programs and procedures such as pollution and spill
prevention and control plans including BMPs (e.g., good housekeeping of the plant site,
preventive maintenance, routine inspections, etc.) would reduce the likelihood of any
inadvertent releases to soils and/or groundwater.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-34
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
An additional source of groundwater contamination can be the use of wastewater disposal
ponds or lagoons. At the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (D.C. Cook) in Michigan, permitted
wastewater ponds have been used for receiving treated sanitary wastewater and for process
wastes from the turbine room sump. Groundwater monitoring showed that concentrations of
water quality parameters had increased to levels above background but below drinking water
standards (EPA maximum contaminant levels) (NRC 2005c). As a result, in an arrangement
with the county, the use of groundwater by other users in a designated area was restricted and
the affected groundwater was limited to the southwestern portion of the plant property.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
In contrast, a number of licensees have continued to operate treatment ponds and lagoons
without significant adverse impact. As described in the SEIS for initial LR of the Sequoyah
plant, the licensee operated two former metal-cleaning waste ponds that discharged to an
NPDES internal monitoring point to the plant’s diffuser pond system. Ultimately, this system
discharged collected wastewater through the plant’s submerged diffuser structure into the
Chickamauga Reservoir (NRC 2015f). In a more recent example, as described by the NRC in
the SEIS for the initial LR of the River Bend plant, the licensee operated two sets of open
aeration and sedimentation lagoons located at the sanitary wastewater treatment plant. The
lagoons received sanitary waste from across the plant. As a safeguard, waste from sinks and
drains within the plant containing waste that was known to be or was potentially contaminated
with chemicals or radioactivity were physically separated from the sanitary drains. Effluent from
the system was discharged to an NPDES-permitted outfall (NRC 2018c).
21
22
23
24
Contaminants in wastewater disposal ponds and lagoons, whether lined or unlined, at a plant
have the potential to enter groundwater and soils. However, the use of wastewater disposal
ponds and lagoons is subject to discharge authorizations under the NPDES and other
applicable State wastewater discharge permit and monitoring programs.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Remediation of groundwater contamination can involve long-duration cleanup processes that
depend on the types, properties, and concentrations of the contaminants; aquifer properties;
groundwater flow field characteristics; and remedial objectives. Contaminants may be able to
migrate to onsite potable wells or to the wells of offsite groundwater users. Groundwater
monitoring programs, including monitoring of onsite drinking water quality in accordance with
safe drinking water regulations, would be expected to identify problems before contaminated
groundwater reached receptors; however, monitoring wells need to be present and in proper
locations in order to detect contaminants.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
In the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC found that the impact of continued operations and refurbishment
activities on groundwater use and quality unrelated to cooling system operations would be
SMALL for all nuclear plants. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and
SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
On the basis of these considerations, the impact of continued operations and refurbishment
activities on groundwater use would be SMALL during the initial LR and SLR terms for all
nuclear plants. Further, the impact of plant industrial practices and their impact on groundwater
quality associated with continued operations and refurbishment activities would continue to be
SMALL during the initial LR and SLR terms. This is a Category 1 issue.
February 2023
4-35
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
4.5.1.2.2 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw Less Than 100 Gallons
per Minute [gpm])
3
4
5
6
7
Water wells are commonly used at nuclear power plant sites to provide water for the potable
water system, although municipal water is available at some nuclear plants. Groundwater may
also be used for landscaping (see Section 3.5.2). At some sites, groundwater is the source for
the makeup and service water systems. In this case, the water undergoes treatment to prepare
it for its intended use.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The pumping of groundwater creates a cone of depression in the potentiometric surface around
the pumping well. The amount the water table or potentiometric surface declines and the
overall extent of the cone depend on the pumping rate, characteristics of the aquifer (e.g., its
permeability), whether the aquifer is confined or unconfined, and certain boundary conditions
(including the nearby presence of a hydrologically connected surface water body). Generally,
plants with a peak withdrawal rate of less than 100 gpm (378 Lpm) do not have a significant
cone of depression. Depending upon hydrogeologic conditions and siting factors, withdrawal
rates in excess of 100 gpm (378 Lpm) may not create conflicts. The potential for nuclear plant
production wells to cause conflicts with other groundwater users would depend largely on the
proximity of other wells. As stated in the 2013 LR GEIS, cones of depression usually do not
extend past the property boundary, thereby reducing the possibility of a groundwater use
conflict.
20
21
22
23
24
For example, as documented in the Peach Bottom SLR SEIS, three active groundwater
production wells supply water for miscellaneous, nonpotable uses across the plant site. In total,
these wells withdraw a maximum of about 15 gpm (57 Lpm) of water from the crystalline rock
aquifer. The NRC found that this groundwater withdrawal would be unlikely to affect offsite
domestic water supplies (NRC 2020g).
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
In the 2013 LR GEIS, the groundwater impacts associated with continued operations during the
license renewal term were considered to be SMALL for all nuclear plants and designated as
Category 1. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed
since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that
would result in different impacts for this issue either during an initial LR or SLR term. On the
basis of these considerations, the impact on groundwater use conflicts from continued
operations for all nuclear plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm (378 Lpm) would be SMALL
during the initial LR and SLR terms. This is a Category 1 issue.
33
34
4.5.1.2.3 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw More Than 100 Gallons
per Minute [gpm])
35
36
37
38
39
Nuclear power plants withdraw groundwater for various purposes. Most plants use groundwater
to supply their potable water and service water needs. In some cases, groundwater is pumped
to intentionally lower high water tables. At the Grand Gulf plant in Mississippi, Ranney wells in
the Mississippi River alluvium are used to provide cooling system makeup water (see
Section 3.5.2).
40
41
42
43
44
As described in the section above, the pumping of groundwater is expected to create a cone of
depression around the well, with the degree of aquifer dewatering dependent on various factors.
A nuclear plant may have several wells, with combined pumping in excess of 100 gpm
(378 Lpm). Overall site pumping rates of this magnitude have the potential to create conflicts
with other local groundwater users if the cone of depression extends to the offsite well(s). Large
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-36
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
offsite pumping rates for municipal, industrial, or agricultural purposes may, in turn, lower the
water level at power plant wells. For any user, allocation is normally determined though a Stateissued permit.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
In the initial LR SEIS for the South Texas plant (NRC 2013b), the NRC evaluated the potential
for groundwater use conflicts from operation of the plant’s five onsite groundwater production
wells completed in the confined Deep Chicot aquifer and located near the plant site boundary.
Over a 10-year period, the site’s actual groundwater withdrawals averaged 768 gpm
(2,910 Lpm). The licensee maintained a permit from the Coastal Plains Groundwater
Conservation District to withdraw groundwater at a rate of approximately 1,860 gpm
(7,040 Lpm). The NRC performed a confirmatory analysis of the licensee’s analysis of potential
aquifer drawdown in the Deep Chicot aquifer after 40 and 60 years of pumping for an offsite
production well and also performed drawdown analyses out to distances of 1 and 5 mi (1.6 and
8 km). The NRC found that while operation of the South Texas production wells and associated
drawdown could impact the pumping lift of nearby offsite wells, the overall increase in drawdown
in the aquifer over an additional 20 years beyond the current license period would be less than
1 ft (0.3 m). This would have a negligible impact on neighboring wells and the NRC concluded
that groundwater use conflicts from groundwater withdrawals would be SMALL (NRC 2013b).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
As described in the SEIS for initial LR of Callaway (NRC 2014f), the licensee maintained three
deep groundwater wells to supply groundwater for plant uses. Potable groundwater was being
supplied to the plant at a rate of 33 gpm (124 Lpm). Another well located near the Missouri
River was used to lubricate intake structure pump bearings with a usage rate of 120 gpm (454
Lpm). Groundwater was also being withdrawn from the backfill surrounding the nuclear island
by a sump pump at a rate of 65 gpm (246 Lpm). Total groundwater withdrawal was 218 gpm
(825 Lpm). The NRC determined that groundwater withdrawals at Callaway would likely have
little impact on groundwater use as a result of the relatively small amount of groundwater
consumed and the good aquifer yields in the area. The NRC concluded that the impact of
groundwater consumption at Callaway on groundwater availability was SMALL (NRC 2014f).
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
In the Turkey Point SLR SEIS, the NRC evaluated the potential groundwater use conflicts
associated with the licensee’s sitewide groundwater withdrawals from the Biscayne and Upper
Floridan aquifers (NRC 2019c). In 2018, the licensee’s groundwater withdrawals from the
Biscayne aquifer averaged 12.7 million gallons per day (Mgd) (48 million liters per day [MLd]).
These withdrawals were associated with operating a site recovery well system installed to
extract hypersaline groundwater from near the base of the Biscayne aquifer and to limit the
operational influence of the plant’s cooling canal system (CCS) on the regional saltwater
interface. Construction and operation of this recovery well system was instituted by the licensee
in order to meet the requirements of a Consent Agreement with the Miami-Dade County Division
of Environmental Resources Management and a Consent Order issued by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. As also described in the SEIS, the licensee operates
the recovery well system under a State-issued permit (NRC 2019c).
40
41
42
43
44
45
During 2018, the licensee’s groundwater withdrawals from the Upper Floridan aquifer averaged
20.3 Mgd (76.8 MLD). This total included about 12.7 Mgd (48.1 MLd) associated with
groundwater withdrawn and discharged into the Turkey Point CCS for salinity management
(freshening) with the remainder (about 7.6 Mgd [28.8 MLd]) withdrawn for other site uses. The
licensee’s groundwater usage from the Upper Floridan aquifer is governed by a State power
plant site certification issued for Turkey Point by the State of Florida Siting Board.
February 2023
4-37
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
In consideration of groundwater modeling performed in support of the referenced withdrawals,
projected drawdowns in affected aquifers, potential impacts on other groundwater users, and
conditions imposed by State regulators, the NRC concluded that the potential for groundwater
use conflicts from the licensee’s groundwater withdrawals would be SMALL for the Biscayne
aquifer and MODERATE for the Upper Floridan aquifer during the Turkey Point SLR term (NRC
2019c).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
As described for the Turkey Point plant, this is the first time the NRC has identified groundwater
use conflicts at an operating nuclear power plant. The NRC considers this to be a unique
occurrence because the licensee has the need to withdraw large volumes of groundwater for
salinity management and groundwater remediation at a site located within a complex
hydrogeologic setting. For most operating nuclear power plants, no significant change in water
well systems would be expected over the license renewal term. If a conflict did occur, it might
be possible to resolve it if the power plant relocated its well or wellfield to a different part of the
property. The siting of new wells would be determined through a hydrogeologic assessment
and governed by applicable production well siting, construction, groundwater allocation
permitting processes.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In the 2013 LR GEIS, groundwater use conflicts were considered for plants that withdraw more
than 100 gpm (378 Lpm) or plants that use Ranney wells. The NRC concluded that the impacts
of continued operations and refurbishment would not necessarily be the same at all nuclear
plant sites (i.e., a Category 2 issue) because of site-specific factors (e.g., well pump rates, well
locations, and hydrogeologic factors) and that the impacts could be SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would
result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. On the basis of
these considerations, groundwater use conflicts for plants that withdraw more than 100 gpm
(378 Lpm) could be SMALL, MODERATE, or potentially LARGE during the initial LR and SLR
terms, depending on the plant-specific characteristics described above. This is a Category 2
issue.
29
30
4.5.1.2.4 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants with Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems That Withdraw
Makeup Water from a River)
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
In the case of nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds that rely on a river for
makeup of consumed (evaporated) cooling water, it is possible that water withdrawals from the
river could lead to groundwater use conflicts with other groundwater users. This situation could
occur because of the interaction between groundwater and surface water, especially in the
setting of an alluvial aquifer in a river valley. Consumptive use of the river water, if significant
enough to lower the river’s water level, would also influence water levels in the alluvial aquifer.
Shallow wells of nearby groundwater users could therefore have reduced water availability or go
dry. During times of drought, the effect would occur naturally, although withdrawals for makeup
water would increase the effect. In the 1996 LR GEIS, a situation at the Duane Arnold Energy
Center (Duane Arnold) in Iowa (which permanently shut down on August 10, 2020) was
described in which a reservoir on a small tributary is used as a secondary supply of makeup
water for the plant’s cooling towers. During low-flow conditions in the plant’s usual source of
water, the Cedar River, the plant was not allowed to withdraw river water. Instead, it used the
reservoir temporarily. In such a situation, because the high rate of water usage can lower the
water level in the reservoir significantly, local users of shallow groundwater may be affected,
particularly during times of drought affecting a small river. Similar to other water resourcesrelated issues described in this section, such conflicts are highly dependent on the area’s
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-38
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
hydrogeologic framework and the locations, depths, and pump rates of wells, in addition to the
amount that the surface water level declines. The NRC’s license renewal environmental
reviews performed since 2013 have revealed no tangible instances where this issue is of
concern.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
As described in the SEIS for initial LR of the South Texas plant (NRC 2013b), the NRC
assessed the impact of the licensee’s withdrawal of water from the lower Colorado River as
makeup for the plant’s main cooling reservoir. The NRC considered potential impacts on the
Shallow Chicot aquifer discharges and the alluvial aquifer that separates the Shallow Chicot
aquifer from the Colorado River. The Shallow Chicot aquifer is used primarily for low-yield
livestock watering near the plant site and this shallow aquifer is hydraulically separated from the
regional Deep Chicot aquifer. Separately, withdrawals from the lower Colorado River during
lower river flow are regulated by a Certificate of Adjudication for water use. The NRC found, in
part, that the Shallow Chicot aquifer would not be substantially influenced by the bank storage
effects of alluvial aquifer recharge and discharge to the lower Colorado River. Therefore, the
NRC concluded that continued withdrawals of surface water from the river for operation of South
Texas during low-flow periods would have a SMALL impact on recharge to the alluvial aquifer
during the license renewal term (NRC 2013b).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
In the 2013 LR GEIS, groundwater use conflicts were evaluated for plants that use cooling
towers withdrawing makeup water from a river during continued operations and refurbishment.
The NRC found that that conflicts would not necessarily be the same at all nuclear power plant
sites because of site-specific factors (e.g., the amount of surface water decline, well pump rates,
well locations, and hydrogeologic conditions). The resulting impact could be SMALL,
MODERATE, or LARGE. Therefore, this was considered a Category 2 issue. The staff
reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the
2013 LR GEIS. On the basis of these considerations, groundwater use conflicts for nuclear
plants that use closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw makeup water from a river could
have SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE impacts during the initial LR and SLR terms, depending
on the plant-specific characteristics of surrounding areas described above. This is a Category 2
issue.
30
4.5.1.2.5 Groundwater Quality Degradation Resulting from Water Withdrawals
31
32
This issue considers the possibility of groundwater quality becoming degraded as a result of
drawing water of potentially lower quality into an aquifer.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
A well near a river may draw lower quality river water into the aquifer as a function of the
interaction between groundwater and surface water. An example of this type of hydrologic
interaction is the use of Ranney wells (see Section 3.5.2) at the Grand Gulf plant in Mississippi.
The resulting induced infiltration of Mississippi River water into the alluvial aquifer was
discussed in the 1996 LR GEIS. This aspect of Ranney well operation was reexamined by the
NRC in the SEIS for the initial LR of the Grand Gulf plant (NRC 2014e). At Grand Gulf, the
sandstone layers comprising the Catahoula aquifer underlie the Mississippi River Alluvial
aquifer. The analysis in the SEIS confirms that the water quality from the plant’s Ranney wells
that pump water from the Mississippi River Alluvial aquifer is nearly identical to the water quality
of the Mississippi River. As also stated in the SEIS, the transmissivity (ability of an aquifer to
transmit water) of the Catahoula aquifer is so substantially less than that of the Mississippi River
Alluvial aquifer that wells pumping water from the Mississippi River Alluvial aquifer would obtain
their water as induced infiltration from the Mississippi River rather than from upward discharge
of groundwater from the Catahoula aquifer. As a result, any groundwater contamination
February 2023
4-39
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
entering the Mississippi River Alluvial aquifer would likely remain in the Mississippi River Alluvial
aquifer or discharge into the Mississippi River, rather that migrating to deeper aquifers (NRC
2014e).
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
While site-specific hydrogeologic factors and well design may provide some control of the flow
of surface water to the well, the bulk of the groundwater pumped by a well in an alluvial aquifer
near a river is expected to be induced surface water, with a smaller component of groundwater
from the direction opposite the river. If well pumping is continuous, the only portion of the
shallow aquifer significantly affected by induced infiltration remains in the capture zone of the
well(s). Therefore, the portion of the aquifer with water quality parameters approaching those of
the river water would usually be located on the power plant’s property.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Wells in a coastal setting (e.g., ocean shore or estuary) have the potential to cause saltwater
intrusion into the aquifer. This water quality problem is a common concern for large pumping
centers associated with municipal or industrial users. The degree of saltwater intrusion
depends on the cumulative pumping rates of wells, their screen depths, and hydrogeologic
conditions. Deep, confined aquifers, for example, may be separated from saline aquifers closer
to the surface. However, as evaluated in the 2013 LR GEIS, the potential for inducing saltwater
intrusion was considered to be of SMALL significance at all sites because groundwater
consumption from confined aquifers for potable and service water uses by nuclear power plants
is a small fraction of groundwater use in all cases. Where saltwater intrusion has historically
been a problem, the large users have been those related to agricultural (irrigation) and
municipal water supply uses.
22
23
24
In the Turkey Point SLR SEIS (NRC 2019c), the aspect of induced saltwater intrusion and
groundwater quality degradation in general was previously considered and discussed, albeit
indirectly (see issue discussion in Section 4.5.1.2.3).
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
As previously described, at the Turkey Point plant, large volumes of groundwater are pumped
from both the upper Biscayne and Upper Floridan aquifers for a variety of applications in
support of Turkey Point operations, as well as for other activities conducted on the Turkey Point
site unrelated to Units 3 and 4. These principal uses include withdrawals of brackish water from
the Upper Floridan aquifer for freshening of the CCS, operation of a recovery well system and
associated underground injection well to extract and dispose of hypersaline groundwater from
the Biscayne aquifer, operation of Biscayne aquifer marine wells that withdraw saltwater to
supplement CCS freshening, and operation of Upper Floridan aquifer site production wells for
various onsite uses (e.g., Unit 5 gas-fired power plant usage) and including CCS freshening, as
previously described (NRC 2019c).
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The NRC staff’s analysis of potential groundwater use conflicts for SLR of Turkey Point first
considered the potential effects of site recovery well system and marine well operation on
existing groundwater quality. As described in the SEIS, the recovery well system is designed to
extract hypersaline groundwater radiating from the CCS. The permit for operation of the system
issued by the South Florida Water Management District requires the licensee to (1) mitigate
interference with existing legal uses of groundwater and (2) mitigate harm to natural resources.
The permit requires mitigation for harm including effects on surface water or groundwater that
result in lateral movement of the saltwater interface, reductions in the hydroperiod of wetlands
or natural water bodies, causes the movement of contaminants contrary to water quality
standards, or causes harm to the natural system including habitats for rare or endangered
species. In such cases, the licensee would be required to take corrective action. Based on the
NRC staff’s review of groundwater modeling performed by the licensee and State regulators, it
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-40
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
is likely that operation of the recovery well system will have beneficial water quality impacts by
retracting the CCS hypersaline plume and the westward expansion of the regional saltwater
interface, while providing reasonable assurance that any impacts on groundwater resources and
users would be mitigated.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
The Turkey Point marine wells, completed in the Biscayne aquifer, had been used intermittently
since they were installed in 2015 to lower salinity in the CCS under abnormal conditions. As
detailed in the Turkey Point SLR SEIS, the NRC staff determined that periodic use of the marine
wells during the period of continued operations extending through the SLR term would not have
any substantial impact on groundwater quality or quantity. This is because the permeable
Biscayne aquifer in the affected area is recharged from Biscayne Bay, and any future marine
well operation on a temporary basis would be unlikely to substantially alter groundwater flow
beyond the affected area or result in any substantial drawdown in the Biscayne aquifer (NRC
2019c).
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Regarding continued operation of the Upper Floridan aquifer site production wells, the NRC staff
reviewed groundwater modeling commissioned by the licensee to support the 2014 site
certification modification approval process with the State of Florida. The licensee’s modified site
certification and conditions (issued in 2016) authorize a total average daily withdrawal of
28.06 Mgd (106,200 m3/day) from the Upper Floridan aquifer. As of 2018, groundwater
withdrawals from the Upper Floridan aquifer have been less than the authorized amounts. As
documented in the SEIS, groundwater modeling indicated that operation of the freshening well
system would be unlikely to result in any changes in regional water quality because the Upper
Floridan aquifer is already brackish, no saltwater interface exists in the confined system, and
water quality changes experienced by other aquifer users have been minor. However, the SEIS
noted that there is the potential for degradation of water quality in wells producing from the
Upper Floridan aquifer over time due to vertical seepage or lateral movement of more saline
water. Nevertheless, the licensee’s modified site certification and associated conditions of
certification for Turkey Point require the licensee to mitigate harm to offsite groundwater users
(either related to water quantity or quality) as well as to offsite water bodies, land uses, and
other beneficial uses. In conclusion, the staff found that while continued operation of the Upper
Floridan aquifer production wells at the Turkey Point site, including the freshening well system,
would increase regional drawdown in the aquifer, the effects would not be expected to affect
water availability or impair the Upper Floridan aquifer as a resource during the SLR term.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The issue of groundwater quality degradation from groundwater withdrawals for nuclear plants,
including induced saltwater intrusion, was designated as a Category 1 issue in the 2013 LR
GEIS. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would
result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. For this issue,
groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals, the impacts would be SMALL
for all nuclear plants during the initial LR and SLR terms. This is a Category 1 issue.
40
4.5.1.2.6 Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants with Cooling Ponds)
41
42
43
44
45
46
This issue is a consolidation of two related issues in the 2013 LR GEIS: (1) groundwater quality
degradation (plants with cooling ponds in salt marshes) and (2) groundwater quality degradation
(plants with cooling ponds at inland sites). These two issues both consider the possibility of
groundwater quality and beneficial use becoming degraded as a result of the migration of
contaminants discharged to cooling ponds. For this reason, they are discussed here as a single
issue. This new combined issue is a Category 2 issue.
February 2023
4-41
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Nuclear plants that use cooling ponds, impoundments, or similar structures as part of their
recirculating cooling water system discharge heated cooling water effluent back to the pond.
The effluent’s concentration of contaminants and other solids increases relative to that of the
makeup water as it passes through the cooling system. These changes include increased total
dissolved solids (TDS) because they concentrate as a result of evaporation, increased heavy
metals (because cooling water contacts the cooling system components), and increased
chemical additives to prevent biofouling.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Other relatively small volumes of wastewater are released from other plant systems depending
on the design of each plant. They are discharged from such sources as the service water and
auxiliary cooling systems, water treatment plant, laboratory and sampling wastes, boiler
blowdown, floor drains, stormwater runoff, and metal-treatment wastes. These waste streams
are discharged as separate point sources or are combined with the cooling water discharges.
While these discharges at operating nuclear power plants are normally addressed in NPDES
permits, upsets and bypasses of treatment systems along with spills and leaks of wastewater
and chemical substances can and do occur.
16
17
18
19
Because the ponds are generally unlined, the water discharged to them can interact with the
shallow groundwater system and may create a groundwater mound. In this case, groundwater
below the pond can flow radially outward, and this groundwater would have some of the
characteristics of the cooling system effluent.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In many coastal locations, including salt marshes, the groundwater is naturally brackish
(i.e., with a TDS concentration of about 1,000 to more than 10,000 milligrams per liter [mg/L])
and, thus, is already limited in its uses. As such, this issue primarily concerns the potential for
changing the groundwater use category of the underlying shallow and brackish groundwater
due to the introduction of cooling water contaminants. Two nuclear plants, the South Texas
plant in Texas and Turkey Point plant in Florida, have cooling systems (a human-made cooling
pond and CCS, respectively) located relatively near or constructed in salt marshes.
27
28
29
30
31
Plants relying on brackish water cooling systems would generally not be expected to further
degrade the quality of the shallow aquifer relative to its use classification. This is because
groundwater quality beneath salt marshes is already too poor for human use (i.e., it is
nonpotable water) and is only suitable for industrial use. Plants relying on cooling ponds in salt
marsh settings were expected to have a SMALL impact on groundwater quality.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The NRC staff evaluated new information related to the impact of the continued operation of the
Turkey Point CCS on surface water and groundwater quality in the Turkey Point SLR SEIS in
the context of new, plant-specific analyses (NRC 2019c). As described in the SEIS, no surface
water is withdrawn to provide makeup water for the plant’s CCS. The plant’s intake and
discharge structures are located within the enclosed CCS, which does not directly discharge to
the surface waters of Biscayne Bay. Instead, water in the CCS is sustained by groundwater
inflow from the underlying surficial aquifer (Biscayne aquifer) into which the CCS was
excavated. The Biscayne aquifer, in turn, is hydrologically connected to the surrounding marsh
land, mangrove areas, adjacent drainage canals, Biscayne Bay, and Card Sound. The surficial
groundwater underlying Turkey Point and CCS was classified by the State of Florida in 1983 as
Class G-III (nonpotable use) with TDS levels of 10,000 mg/L or greater, while the Biscayne
aquifer to the west side of the CCS was classified as Class G-II (potable use). Information
presented in the SEIS shows that the inland movement of seawater through the Biscayne
aquifer (marked by the saltwater interface) had already progressed inland and to the west of the
location of the Turkey Point site prior to construction of the CCS in the 1970s. As of 2017, the
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-42
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
saltwater interface was located about 4.7 mi (7.6 km) west of the CCS at its closest point, and
moving west at a projected rate of 460 ft (140 m) per year. Nevertheless, through wells located
inland of the saltwater interface, the Biscayne aquifer is the major public water supply source
across Miami-Dade County as well as for the Florida Keys.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Due to a variety of environmental and other factors, the average salinity in the CCS increased
over time from that in nearby Biscayne Bay (approximately 34 practical salinity unit (PSU)) to
approximately 90 PSU in 2014 and 2015, and becoming hypersaline (i.e., saltier than seawater).
When the NRC staff prepared the Turkey Point initial LR SEIS in 2002 (NRC 2002a), the staff
acknowledged the existence of a hypersaline plume in the Biscayne aquifer directly beneath the
CCS. What was not fully understood at the time was the potential for the hypersaline plume to
migrate vertically downward through the Biscayne aquifer and then to move laterally within the
Biscayne aquifer beyond the CCS boundaries. Over the operational life of the CCS, the size of
the hypersaline plume grew larger. By 2018, the maximum extent of the hypersaline plume was
approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) west of the CCS in the intermediate zone of the Biscayne aquifer
and also to the east beneath Biscayne Bay and Card Sound. At the direction of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, groundwater modeling performed by the licensee
indicated that operating the CCS with salinity in excess of 35 PSU was the single largest
contributor to changes (movement) in the location of the saltwater interface (NRC 2019c).
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
In general, the results of extensive groundwater monitoring conducted by the licensee under the
direction of State of Florida and Miami-Dade County have shown that the extent of “potential
CCS influence” is 4.5 mi (7.2 km) west of the CCS as measured at the base (deep interval) of
the Biscayne aquifer. At this distance, and as detailed in the SEIS, the composition of the
groundwater includes ambient saline water mixed with small quantities of CCS water (including
soluble salts, nutrients, and tritium), whereas the degree of CCS influence (marked by higher
chloride and tritium concentrations) increases closer to the CCS. Further, elevated tritium levels
in the intermediate and deep monitored portions of the aquifer also indicate the potential
influence of CCS water in groundwater to the east of the CCS beneath Biscayne Bay. At no
location outside the boundary of the Turkey Point site did tritium levels in groundwater approach
the EPA and State primary drinking water standard for tritium (20,000 picocuries per liter [pCi/L])
(40 CFR Part 141), while the highest tritium levels observed in offsite monitoring wells near the
site during the 2018 reporting period were approximately 15 percent of the standard. Further,
the monitoring showed that no CCS-sourced constituents had affected the overlying surface
water quality (NRC 2019c).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
In accordance with the regulatory agreements reached with and requirements imposed by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Miami-Dade County, the licensee
implemented a salinity management plan and has undertaken other measures to abate
hypersaline water discharges and to actively remediate the hypersaline groundwater west and
north of the CCS. In 2016, the licensee also instituted pumping of brackish groundwater into the
CCS for salinity management purposes and specifically to maintain the average annual salinity
of the CCS at or below 34 PSU (see issue discussion Section 4.5.1.2.3). In 2017, the licensee
commenced operation of a recovery well system to extract hypersaline groundwater from near
the base of the Biscayne aquifer, and to limit the operational influence of the plant’s CCS. As
described in the SEIS, it is projected that operation of the recovery well system will achieve
retraction of the hypersaline plume back to within the Turkey Point site boundaries within
10 years (i.e., by about 2028) (NRC 2019c).
46
47
Regarding surface water quality impacts, the NRC staff concluded that the impacts on adjacent
surface water bodies via the groundwater pathway from continued CCS operations were SMALL
February 2023
4-43
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
and projected to remain SMALL during the SLR term. With respect to groundwater, the staff
found that hypersaline groundwater containing tritium had migrated beyond the boundaries of
the CCS and Turkey Point property at the base of the Biscayne aquifer from Class G-III
groundwater (i.e., nonpotable groundwater) to the west and to the east beneath Biscayne Bay.
The hypersaline groundwater plume was also a significant contributor to the westward migration
of the saltwater interface and would remain so without mitigation. The staff further determined
that based on the data evaluated in the SEIS, CCS-influenced water had migrated into portions
of the Biscayne aquifer that are a potential source of potable water. These aspects of cooling
pond operations and their effects on groundwater quality were not considered in the 1996 or
2013 LR GEIS, and thus represented new and significant information compared to the 2013 LR
GEIS. As a result, the NRC staff concluded that the plant-specific impacts for this issue at
Turkey Point were MODERATE for operations during the initial LR term but were projected to be
SMALL during the SLR term as a result of ongoing remediation measures and State and county
regulatory oversight (NRC 2019c).
15
16
17
18
19
20
For the South Texas plant initial LR, the NRC staff considered potential groundwater quality
impacts from operation of the plant’s main cooling reservoir (MCR), a 7,000 ac (2,833 ha)
engineered impoundment enclosed by a 12.4 mi (20 km) embankment. It is unlined and is the
source of the plant’s condenser cooling water and receives various wastewater effluents,
regulated under a Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. As described in the
SEIS, the MCR is a local source of recharge for the Upper Shallow Chicot aquifer (NRC 2013b).
21
22
23
24
25
26
The unlined MCR acts as a local recharge source for the Upper Shallow Chicot aquifer.
Further, a substantial portion of the seepage through the MCR is collected by the 770 relief
wells that surround the MCR, which discharge the seepage water to a perimeter drainage
system and then to local drainages (NRC 2013b). Therefore, locally relative to the South Texas
site, the MCR influences the groundwater quality of the Upper Shallow Chicot aquifer and
potentially local surface water quality.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
The NRC staff’s analysis found that seepage from the MCR to the Upper Shallow aquifer would
initially have the same TDS concentration as the MCR (i.e., median concentration of about
2,000 mg/L). The staff also noted that for radionuclides the impact on water quality would be
bounded by the maximum observed ambient concentration of tritium in the MCR (i.e., 17,410 in
1996 and levels less than 14,000 pCi/L thereafter). Groundwater monitoring showed that tritium
levels in the Shallow Chicot aquifer around the MCR remained below the EPA drinking water
standard of 20,000 pCi/L (40 CFR Part 141), with a maximum concentration of 8,600 pCi/L in
2012. As also discussed in the SEIS, relief wells had measured tritium concentrations of less
than 7,000 pCi/L at the time of the staff’s review (NRC 2013b).
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
The Shallow Chicot aquifer exhibits poor water quality and low productivity, with TDS
concentrations in the local groundwater exceeding the EPA secondary drinking water standard
of 500 mg/L (40 CFR Part 143) and averaging 1,200 mg/L. The shallow aquifer has been used
in the vicinity of the South Texas plant for livestock watering. In contrast, water drawn from the
Deep Chicot aquifer is of higher quality. The licensee’s five onsite supply wells draw from the
deep aquifer, as do public supply wells for the nearby communities to the east of the plant site
(NRC 2013b).
43
44
45
46
In summary, for the South Texas plant initial LR, the NRC staff found that seepage from the
MCR and other onsite contaminant releases had not substantially affected the groundwater
quality within the plant site and impacts on groundwater quality offsite would be less. TDS
levels were consistent with the existing groundwater quality and its past and potential future use
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-44
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
as a source of water for livestock. Any impacts from this change in groundwater quality would
be localized because the groundwater plumes originating from the MCR are local to the plant
site and the region immediately downgradient of the site to the lower Colorado River. Thus, the
staff concluded that groundwater quality impacts from MCR seepage and other contaminant
releases to groundwater from South Texas operations would remain SMALL during the license
renewal term (NRC 2013b).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Some nuclear power plants that rely on unlined cooling ponds are located at inland sites
surrounded by farmland or forest or undeveloped open land. Degraded groundwater has the
potential to flow radially from the ponds and reach offsite groundwater wells. The degree to
which this occurs depends on the water quality of the cooling pond; site hydrogeologic
conditions (including the interaction of surface water and groundwater); and the location, depth,
and pump rate of water wells. Mitigation of significant problems stemming from this issue could
include lining existing ponds, constructing new lined ponds, or installing subsurface flow barrier
walls. At either coastal (salt marsh) sites as discussed above or inland sites, groundwater
monitoring networks would be necessary to detect and evaluate groundwater quality
degradation.
17
18
The degradation of groundwater quality associated with cooling ponds had not been reported for
any inland nuclear plant sites at the time the 2013 LR GEIS was prepared.
19
20
21
22
23
24
In addition to the Turkey Point and South Texas plants, as evaluated above, the other operating
plants with cooling ponds as identified in Section 3.1.3 are Dresden Nuclear Power Station
(Dresden), Robinson, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (Summer), and Wolf Creek Generating
Station (Wolf Creek) plants. Since publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC has performed
license renewal environmental reviews for two nuclear power plants with cooling ponds at inland
sites (Braidwood and LaSalle).
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
As contained in the SEIS for the Braidwood plant initial LR review, the NRC notes that the
plant’s cooling pond (constructed from a former strip mine) was built with a slurry wall to isolate
the pond from the Upper aquifer. As a result, no movement of water between the aquifer and
cooling pond would be expected, and the bottom of the cooling pond is filled with lowpermeability shale, clay, and siltstone mine spoils. Much of the cooling pond is accessible to
the public for fishing and other recreational activities. Wastewater discharges from the pond
(i.e., blowdown) to the Kankakee River are regulated under an Illinois-issued NPDES permit.
The NRC staff concluded that the impact of the cooling pond on groundwater quality would be
SMALL during the license renewal term (NRC 2015d).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
In the LaSalle plant initial LR SEIS (NRC 2016d), the staff described the plant’s cooling pond as
being formed from the construction of earthen dikes to enclose the north, east, and south sides
of the pond; a natural levee created by existing topography forms the fourth side. Engineered
fill consisting of silty-clay, taken from borrow areas within the pond basin, was used in the
construction of the dikes. A perimeter drainage ditch designed to intercept runoff and to capture
and direct seepage toward surface drainages and away from the dikes flanks the pond’s dikes.
The staff found that seepage from the cooling pond is negligible because the pond was built on
the Glacial Drift Aquitard (Wedron Silty-Clay Till), a geologic unit with very low permeability.
The pond’s ambient water quality has also supported a recreational fishery. Between 2009 and
2014, with the exception of a few tritium samples that were near background values, no
radionuclides have been detected in the pond above background values. Cooling pond
blowdown is discharged to the Illinois River in accordance with an Illinois-issued NPDES permit.
For these reasons, the NRC staff concluded that that the impact of operation of LaSalle’s
February 2023
4-45
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
cooling pond on groundwater quality would be SMALL during the license renewal term (NRC
2016d).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. On the basis of the information reviewed and the preceding
discussion, the impacts of groundwater quality degradation for plants using cooling ponds in
either coastal (salt marsh) settings or at inland sites could be greater than SMALL (i.e., SMALL
or MODERATE) depending on site-specific differences in the cooling pond’s construction and
operation; water quality; site hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction of surface water
and groundwater); and the location, depth, and pump rate of any water supply wells contributing
to or impacted by outflow or seepage from a cooling pond. Therefore, this revised, consolidated
issue is a Category 2 issue.
12
4.5.1.2.7 Radionuclides Released to Groundwater
13
14
15
As described in the 2013 LR GEIS, this Category 2 issue was added to evaluate the potential
contamination of groundwater from the inadvertent (abnormal) release of liquids containing
radioactive material from nuclear power plant systems into the environment.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The issue remains relevant to license renewal because all commercial nuclear power plants
routinely release radioactive gaseous and liquid materials into the environment. These
radioactive releases are designed to be planned, monitored, documented, and released into the
environment at designated discharge points. However, numerous events at power reactor sites
have involved unknown, uncontrolled, and unmonitored releases of liquids containing
radioactive material into the environment and affecting groundwater. NRC regulations in
10 CFR Part 20 and in 10 CFR Part 50 limit the amount of radioactive material, from all sources
at a nuclear power plant, released into the environment to levels that are as low as is
reasonably achievable (ALARA) along with associated radiation dose limits. The regulations
are designed to protect the public and the environment.
26
27
28
29
30
31
The majority of the inadvertent liquid release events have involved tritium, which is a radioactive
isotope of hydrogen. However, other radioactive isotopes, such as cesium and strontium, have
also been inadvertently released into the groundwater. The types of events have included, but
have not been limited to, leakage from spent fuel pools (SFPs), storage tanks, buried piping,
failed pressure relief valves on an effluent discharge line, and other nuclear power plant
equipment.
32
33
34
35
As summarized in Section 3.5.2 of this LR GEIS, in 2006, the NRC’s Executive Director for
Operations chartered a task force to conduct a lessons learned review of these incidents. On
September 1, 2006, the task force issued its report: Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons
Learned Task Force Report (NRC 2006e).
36
37
38
39
40
The most significant conclusion dealt with the potential health impacts on the public from the
inadvertent releases. Although there were numerous events where radioactive liquid was
released to the groundwater in an unplanned, uncontrolled, and unmonitored fashion, based on
the data available, the task force did not identify any instances where public health and safety
was adversely affected.
41
42
43
Specific examples from NRC (2006e), as discussed in the 2013 LR GEIS, focused on tritium
releases at 15 operating plants. Concentrations of tritium in sampled onsite groundwater at
many of these plants ranged well above the EPA drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-46
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Examples include onsite monitoring well samples of up to 250,000 pCi/L at the Braidwood plant
in Illinois, up to 211,000 pCi/L at the Indian Point plant in New York, up to 486,000 pCi/L at the
Dresden plant in Illinois, more than 30,000 pCi/L at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Watts Bar) in
Tennessee, and 71,400 pCi/L at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (Palo Verde) in
Arizona. Examples of samples taken either directly from the source of the leak or from nearby
onsite monitoring wells included samples with up to 200,000 pCi/L of tritium at the Callaway
Plant in Missouri, up to 15,000,000 pCi/L at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem) in
New Jersey, and up to 750,000 pCi/L at the Seabrook Station (Seabrook) in New Hampshire.
At the Byron plant in Illinois, tritium in monitoring wells was above the background level but
below drinking water standards (up to 3,800 pCi/L). The location and construction of the
monitoring wells relative to potential leak locations have not been evaluated. For each example,
it is possible that a different well placement could detect higher or lower activity concentrations.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Other reported instances (NRC 2006e) of tritium above background levels have been a result of
operator error, licensed discharge, or leaks or discharges to drain systems. At the Oyster Creek
plant in New Jersey (which permanently shut down in September 2018), a mistake involving a
valve allowed tritium-contaminated water to flow into the discharge canal. Sampling of this
water showed levels of 16,000 pCi/L. At the Wolf Creek plant in Kansas, an onsite lake
receiving liquid effluent was found to have a tritium activity concentration of 13,000 pCi/L. The
Perry Nuclear Power Plant (Perry) in Ohio had water samples in its drainage system with an
activity concentration of 60,000 pCi/L. In each of these cases, the tritium present at the surface
could infiltrate or seep into the groundwater system.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The NRC task force did not find the referenced tritium releases to be a health risk to the public
or onsite workers (NRC 2006e) because the tritiated groundwater is expected to remain onsite.
However, one identified exception was an event at the Braidwood plant, which resulted in
detectable concentrations of tritium at an offsite location. Sampling of an offsite residential well
at Braidwood showed 1,600 pCi/L of tritium, a level that was above the background level but
well below the EPA drinking water standard. There would be no potential for risk to workers
unless onsite wells were used for the potable water system and if the leak was in the capture
zone of the well. However, the NRC requires that the onsite potable well water be monitored for
radioactivity to protect plant workers.
31
32
33
The task force identified that under current NRC regulations the potential exists for unplanned,
uncontrolled, and unmonitored releases of radioactive liquids to migrate offsite into the public
domain. The following elements collectively contribute to this conclusion:
34
35
36
37
•
Some of the power plant components that contain radioactive fluids that have leaked were
constructed to commercial standards, in contrast to plant safety systems that are typically
fabricated to more stringent requirements. The result is a lower level of assurance that
these types of components will be leak-proof over the life of the plant.
38
39
40
41
42
•
Some of the components that have leaked were not required by NRC regulations to be
subject to surveillance, maintenance, or inspection activities by the licensee. This increases
the likelihood that leakage in such components can go undetected. Additionally, relatively
low leakage rates may not be detected by plant operators, even over an extended period of
time.
43
44
45
•
Portions of some components or structures are physically not visible to operators, thereby
reducing the likelihood that leakage will be identified. Examples of such components
include buried pipes and SFPs.
February 2023
4-47
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
•
Leakage that enters the ground below the plant may be undetected because there are
generally no NRC requirements to monitor the groundwater onsite for radioactive
contamination unless an onsite well is used for drinking water or irrigation.
4
5
6
7
•
Contamination in groundwater onsite may migrate offsite undetected. Although the power
plant operator is required by NRC regulations to perform offsite environmental monitoring,
the sampling locations are typically in the vicinity of the routine effluent discharge point into
the environment, not around plant systems, piping, and tanks containing radioactive liquids.
8
9
10
11
Another aspect encountered by the NRC due to the inadvertent releases was the high level of
concern from the public, even at the very low radiation levels caused by the events. There has
also been significant media coverage and demands by State and local government officials and
members of Congress for the NRC to take action to stop these events.
12
13
14
15
The NRC has continued its oversight and evaluation of inadvertent releases of liquids containing
radioactive material from nuclear power plants, particularly those that result in groundwater
contamination. A discussion of NRC staff and Commission engagement and actions on this
issue since 2006 is presented in Section 3.5.2.
16
17
18
The NRC has also considered the impact of the inadvertent release of radioactive liquids during
its environmental reviews performed for initial LR and SLR applications since 2013. The
following narrative discusses noteworthy findings from these reviews.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
As described in the SEIS for initial LR of the Seabrook plant, the NRC evaluated the impact of
historical inadvertent releases of radionuclides on groundwater resources. The releases
originated from the cask loading area and transfer canal, which is connected to the plant’s SFP.
Before repairs were completed in 2004, tritium concentrations in the primary auxiliary building
were reported at up to 84,000 pCi/L in 2000 and, in the Unit 1 containment enclosure ventilation
area (CEVA), concentrations were reported up to 3,560,000 pCi/L in 2003. As part of the
licensee’s corrective actions, a groundwater dewatering and pumping system was installed to
provide hydraulic containment of contaminated groundwater, and an extensive groundwater
monitoring network was also installed. By 2011, tritium concentrations in the CEVA had
dropped substantially, and ranged from 2,150 to 50,000 pCi/L. By the end of 2011, the highest
detection of tritium in the shallow aquifer at the site was 2,850 pCi/L in a well located near the
Unit 1 containment structure. The NRC determined that inadvertent releases of tritium had not
substantially impaired site groundwater quality or affected groundwater use downgradient of the
Seabrook plant. The NRC further concluded that groundwater quality impacts would remain
SMALL during the license renewal term (NRC 2015b).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
There is a long history of documented spills and leaks of liquids containing radioactive material
at the Indian Point site in New York (Units 2 and 3 permanently shut down on April 30, 2020 and
April 30, 2021, respectively). The NRC in the second supplement to the SEIS for the initial LR
of the Indian Point plant (NRC 2018e) evaluated the environmental impact of inadvertent
releases to site groundwater, along with actions taken by the licensee, the NRC, and State
regulators to assess contamination and to take corrective action. As detailed in the SEIS,
groundwater contamination across the site has primarily been traced to the Unit 1 and Unit 2
SFPs. Historically, leaks from the Unit 1 SFP created contaminant plumes consisting of
strontium-90 and tritium, and leaks from various sources associated with Unit 2 created another
plume of tritium. These plumes comingle with each other and extend to the Hudson River.
Over much of the site, the plumes occur under buildings and other plant structures. Before they
reach the Hudson River, all three plumes are confined to the site and both vertically and laterally
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-48
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
to the Inwood Marble. Other radionuclides have been sporadically identified in the groundwater
at discrete locations onsite. Since 2005, the licensee has maintained an extensive long-term
groundwater monitoring program designed in part to characterize the current and potential
future offsite groundwater contaminant migration to the Hudson River. Based on the data
presented in the SEIS, concentrations of several radionuclides (e.g., tritium, strontium-90,
cesium-137) in groundwater exceeded the EPA drinking water standard (i.e., yielding an
equivalent annual dose of 4 mrem). In February 2016, the licensee notified the NRC of a
significant increase in groundwater tritium levels in monitoring wells located near the Unit 2 fuel
storage building. Tritium concentrations in one well increased from 18,900 pCi/L to 8.97 million
pCi/L. Investigations and inspection by the licensee, the NRC, and State followed. The sources
of the spills were identified. As a followup action, the NRC on January 17, 2017, issued a notice
of violation with a finding of very low safety significance under 10 CFR 20.1406(c) for failure by
the licensee to conduct operations to minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the
site, including the subsurface. The NRC’s environmental review determined that site
groundwater contamination will either remain onsite or be discharged into the Hudson River.
Offsite groundwater supplies should continue to be unaffected by ongoing operations.
However, the NRC concluded that the impact on onsite groundwater quality was MODERATE
and likely to remain MODERATE through the end of scheduled plant operations (i.e., by no later
than April 30, 2025, for Unit 3). However, with the elimination of radionuclide leaks to the
groundwater and with the use of monitored natural attenuation, the impact on onsite
groundwater quality could move to SMALL. The NRC also concluded that the impact of site
groundwater contamination on surface water quality was SMALL, because the concentrations of
radionuclides in groundwater discharging to the Hudson River should be rapidly diluted to low
levels (NRC 2018e).
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
A number of inadvertent releases of radionuclides to groundwater have been documented at the
River Bend plant over the period 2008–2015, as described in the initial LR SEIS (NRC 2018c).
These releases resulted in the NRC issuing the licensee a non-cited violation of 10 CFR
20.1406(c) in 2016 for failure to conduct operations to minimize the introduction of residual
radioactivity into the site. The licensee took corrective actions to remedy and prevent future
leaks from the turbine building in the power block, including pumping groundwater from areas
near the power block. However, as documented in the SEIS, tritium exists in site groundwater
in a small area within the power block area, including groundwater within the structural fill and in
the underlying Upland Terrace aquifer. Monitoring wells are installed at various depths within
the structural fill and the Upland Terrace aquifer. The direction of groundwater flow in the
structural fill and the Upland Terrace aquifer is southwestward toward the Mississippi River
aquifer and from there into the Mississippi River. In 2017, tritium concentrations in the structural
fill of the power block and in the underlying Upland Terrace aquifer were 740,000 pCi/L and
223,000 pCi/L, respectively. Meanwhile, a short distance away from the power block, tritium
concentrations were much lower, with a maximum value of 54,900 pCi/L. The NRC staff
concluded that the impact of radionuclides released to groundwater at River Bend during the
license renewal term could range from SMALL to MODERATE (i.e., if the licensee has not
identified and stopped all leak sources, and if tritium continued to leak into site groundwater)
(NRC 2018c).
44
45
46
47
48
49
In the SLR SEIS for the Peach Bottom plant, the NRC evaluated the history of inadvertent
releases of radionuclides at the site and corrective actions taken by the licensee since 2006.
While the licensee had recorded no inadvertent releases between 2011 and 2014, a release in
April 2015 was traced to floor drains in the Unit 3 turbine building moisture separator area. The
highest tritium level observed in a nearby overburden well was 38,100 pCi/L. As described in
the SEIS, a plume of tritium-contaminated groundwater remains in the overburden material
February 2023
4-49
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
beneath the plant site. The plume is the result of previous inadvertent spills and leaks of
radionuclide-containing liquids from the plant. The plume extends northeast of the Unit 3
turbine building toward the Peach Bottom intake basins. The NRC found that inadvertent
releases of radionuclides (primarily tritium) had not substantially impaired or noticeably altered
groundwater quality with respect to drinking water standards within the overburden and bedrock
groundwater beneath the plant site. Onsite inadvertent releases had no measurable effect on
surface waters adjoining the site, and did not threaten offsite groundwater. The NRC concluded
that impacts on groundwater resources from inadvertent releases of radionuclides were SMALL
and projected to remain SMALL during the SLR term (NRC 2020g).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. On the basis of the information reviewed and cited about
inadvertent releases at operating nuclear power plants, the NRC concludes that the impact on
groundwater quality from the release of radionuclides could be SMALL or MODERATE during
the initial LR and SLR terms, depending on the magnitude of the leak, radionuclides involved,
hydrogeologic factors, the distance to receptors, and the response time of plant personnel to
identify and stop the leak in a timely fashion. Therefore, this is a Category 2 issue.
17
4.5.2
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Construction – For all alternatives discussed in this section, the impacts of construction on water
resources would be similar but could vary considerably in magnitude. For land-based facilities,
construction-related impacts on hydrology (land clearing, excavation work, and installation of
impervious surfaces) could alter surface drainage patterns and groundwater recharge zones, as
applicable. Potential hydrologic impacts would vary depending on the nature and acreage of
the land area disturbed and the intensity of the excavation work. Surface water runoff over
disturbed ground, construction laydown areas, and material stockpiles could increase the levels
of dissolved and suspended solids and other contaminants. Water quality could also be
affected by spills and leaks of petroleum, oil, and lubricant products from construction
equipment and conveyed in stormwater runoff or otherwise discharge into water bodies and
potentially affecting underlying groundwater. Groundwater withdrawn from onsite wells and
dewatering systems could depress the water table and possibly change the direction of
groundwater flow near the affected sites. Concrete production and wetting of ground surfaces
and unpaved roadways for fugitive dust control could require substantial amounts of water.
Appropriate permits, including a CWA Section 404 permit for dredge and fill activities,
Section 401 certification, and Section 402(p) NPDES general stormwater permit, would be
required prior to construction. These impacts would apply generally to the construction phase of
each of the alternatives discussed below. Differences among alternatives would depend not
only on the selected technology but on site-specific factors, which cannot be evaluated here.
For example, locating new alternative facilities, particularly thermoelectric power-generating
plants, at existing or former power plant sites to maximize the use of existing infrastructure
would reduce environmental impacts. However, the discussion of such differences and
considerations is outside the scope of this LR GEIS but is considered in plant-specific SEISs.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Operation – Most large electrical power plants require water for cooling. As a result, fossilfueled and nuclear power plants are generally located near large surface water bodies, including
lakes, rivers, or oceans. Table 4.5-1 compares water demands and consumptive use for
various technologies. Water cooling systems at existing thermoelectric power plants use either
once-through or closed-cycle systems (i.e., cooling towers). New thermoelectric power plants
are generally constructed with a closed-cycle cooling system to meet CWA Section 316(b)
requirements. Surface water and any groundwater withdrawals for cooling or other uses would
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-50
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
be subject to applicable State water appropriation and registration requirements. Potable water
could be purchased from municipalities or commercial water providers or obtained from onsite
wells or a combination of the above.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Potential operational water quality impacts could occur from blowdown (from cooling towers,
ponds, or other plant systems) and evaporative losses in the steam cycle and cooling system
and from drift of chemically treated cooling water from the cooling tower. Releases of industrial
wastewaters, stormwater, and other effluents would be controlled by an NPDES permit, issued
by the EPA or State permitting authority. The operational aspects and impacts of alternative
energy technologies on water resources are presented in the following sections.
10
11
Table 4.5-1
Water Withdrawal and Consumptive Use Factors for Select Electric Power
Technologies
Water Withdrawal Consumptive
(gal/MWh)(a)
Use (gal/MWh)(a)
Electric Power Technologies
IGCC (coal) with cooling towers
358 to 605
318 to 439
IGCC (coal) with cooling towers and carbon capture and
sequestration (storage)
479 to 678
522 to 558
22,5551 to 22,611
64 to 124
582 to 669
458 to 594
Supercritical (coal) with cooling towers and carbon capture and
sequestration (storage)
1,098 to 1,148
846(c)
NGCC with once-through cooling
7,500 to 20,000
20 to 100
NGCC with cooling towers
150 to 283
130 to 300
NGCC with cooling towers and carbon capture and sequestration
(storage)
487 to 506
378(c)
25,000 to 60,000
100 to 400
Nuclear (conventional LWR) with cooling towers
800 to 2,600
581 to 845
Nuclear (conventional LWR) with cooling pond
500 to 13,000
560 to 720
Biopower (steam) with cooling towers
500 to 1,460
480 to 965
Supercritical (coal) with once-through cooling
Supercritical (coal) with cooling towers
Nuclear (conventional LWR) with once-through cooling
Geothermal (EGS) with cooling towers
2,885 to 5,147
2,885 to 5,147(b)
740 to 860(b)
740 to 860(b)
Solar photovoltaic
0 to 33(b)
0 to 33(b)
Wind turbine
0 to 1(b)
0 to 1(b)
Not applicable
1,425 to 18,000
Concentrated solar power (power tower) with cooling towers
Hydropower (instream and reservoir losses due to power
production)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(b)
EGS = enhanced geothermal system; gal/MWh = gallons per megawatt-hour; IGCC = integrated gasification
combined cycle; LWR = light water reactor; NGCC = natural gas combined cycle.
(a) Water withdrawal and consumptive use are expressed in units of volume per unit of electrical output (gallons
per megawatt-hour) to provide a direct comparison among technologies based on NREL 2011.
(b) Water withdrawal factors and consumptive use for geothermal, concentrated solar, solar photovoltaic, and wind
technologies are assumed to be equal (i.e., all water is assumed to be lost through evaporation or consumed in
process, etc.).
(c) Only a single value is included in the source data.
Note: To convert gallons (gal) to liters, multiply by 3.7854.
Source: NREL 2011.
February 2023
4-51
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.5.2.1
Fossil Energy Alternatives
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Operation – All thermoelectric energy facilities, including fossil fuel power plants, require a
continuous supply of water to operate. Water demands vary greatly among energy technologies
and cooling system designs. In general, facilities using once-through cooling systems withdraw
10 to 100 times more water per unit of electric generation than those using cooling towers, but
cooling tower consumptive use is twice as much or more water per unit of electricity production
(NREL 2011). As indicated in Table 4.5-1, coal-fired facilities generally have higher
consumptive water use than natural gas combined-cycle plants. The use of carbon capture and
sequestration (storage) increases both water withdrawal (demand) requirements and
consumptive use. In total, water usage is a function of the fossil fuel combustion technology,
heating value of the fuel being consumed, the design of the primary cooling systems, and the
operation of various other devices, many of which require water.
13
14
15
16
17
Water resources would be affected not only by water withdrawals but by reintroduction of water
from steam cycle, cooling tower, gasifier blowdown water, and other wastewaters, as applicable
to the technology. Water quality would also be affected by wastewater generated by exhaustgas cleaning devices that may be operating and by other ancillary industrial activities, such as
runoff and the leachate from onsite coal storage and ash piles.
18
4.5.2.2
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Water resources would be affected by operation of the cooling system and by discharges of
blowdown water from the cooling system and steam cycle, both of which can introduce chemical
contaminants and heat to the receiving surface water body. Operation of these systems could
also affect hydrology by reducing available surface water volume, altering current patterns at
intake and discharge structures, altering salinity gradients where applicable, scouring and
increases in sediment caused by discharges of treated cooling water, and increasing water
temperature. Hydrologic impacts would vary, depending on the surface water source or
groundwater used for cooling as well as the cooling water system employed (see Table 4.5-1).
Hydrology can also be affected by a nuclear power plant’s service water system, which provides
water for turbine and reactor auxiliary equipment cooling, reactor shutdown cooling, and other
services. Surface water and groundwater can also be affected by discharges authorized under
NPDES and other permits and by accidental spills and leaks of radionuclides, chemicals, and
fuels to the ground surface. Overall, impacts on water resources at a greenfield site could be
substantial and would depend highly on local circumstances and factors such as other
dependencies on the hydrologic resources. Hydrologic impacts at a brownfield site or an
existing nuclear facility could also be substantial, depending in part on whether or not the new
nuclear plant could use the existing cooling water system.
36
4.5.2.3
37
38
The operational impacts of renewable energy technologies on water resources would vary
greatly based on the technology (see Table 4.5-1).
New Nuclear Alternatives
Renewable Alternatives
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-52
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
For biomass-fired plants, water demands for cooling and steam would be similar to those of
some fossil fuel-fired power plants. Water demand could equal evaporative water loss from
cooling tower and flue gas scrubbers. Water quality could be affected by blowdown and
contaminants released in runoff from piles of feedstock materials, fly and bottom ash, and
scrubber sludge.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Geothermal plants have water demands and consumptive water use rates equal to or greater
than those of many conventional thermoelectric (nonrenewable) technologies (Table 4.5-1)
during operation. Potential operational impacts on surface water or groundwater from
geothermal plants include releases of contaminants from faulty geothermal wells or release of
geothermal fluids (brines) to the surface and being conveyed by stormwater runoff or otherwise
affecting surface water bodies. These potential impacts can be mitigated with proper
safeguards (DOE 1997b).
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
As shown in Table 4.5-1, solar PV facilities and wind farms (either onshore or offshore) have
minimal water demands during normal operation. Similarly, solar PV and wind farm installations
have little or no wastewater discharge during normal operation. In contrast, concentrated
thermal power facilities can have water demands similar to those of many other thermoelectric
(nonrenewable) technologies. For some facilities, cooling tower blowdown must be managed
(typically in an arid environment), and there is the potential for water quality impacts from
accidental release of heat transfer fluids or thermal storage media (molten salts) used in
concentrated solar plants (DOE 1997b).
21
22
23
24
25
26
Reservoirs used by hydroelectric dams could be affected by changes in water temperature and
amounts of dissolved oxygen. Surface water temperatures in the reservoir could be affected
when water flow is reduced. Warm water released from the top of a hydroelectric dam and
cooler water released from the lower portions of the dam could affect river water temperatures
downstream. Additionally, both low- and high-flow conditions would alter sediment transport
and deposition patterns.
27
4.6
28
29
4.6.1
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Environmental conditions at operating nuclear power plants have been well established during
the current licensing term. Continued operations are not expected to change substantially
during the license renewal term, and therefore, existing conditions are expected to persist
during initial LR and SLR terms. Initial LR or SLR generally represent a continuation of current
environmental stressors that have existed during many years of operation. License renewal is
unlikely to introduce wholly new stressors on the ecological environment. However, due to the
ever-changing nature of ecological communities, the magnitude of impact that these stressors
exhibit on ecological resources may change. Sections 3.6.1, 3.6.2, and 3.6.2.3 discuss
terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, and federally protected ecological resources,
respectively, and existing environmental stressors. The following sections present the potential
effects on these resources associated with continued operations of a nuclear power plant during
a license renewal term.
Ecological Resources
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued Operations
and Refurbishment Activities
February 2023
4-53
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.6.1.1
Terrestrial Resources
2
3
4
5
6
Continued operations of nuclear power plants during an initial LR or SLR term are expected to
include continued operation of the cooling water intake system (e.g., once-through system,
cooling pond, or cooling tower[s]), continued management of in-scope transmission lines and
associated ROWs, maintenance of site facilities, releases of gaseous and liquid effluents, and
ground disturbances and other effects associated with refurbishment, if applicable.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Terrestrial plants and animals would continue to be exposed to chemical and radionuclide
releases and cooling tower drift (at sites with cooling towers). Continued site and transmission
line maintenance could affect vegetation and disturb wildlife. Nuclear power plant structures
and transmission lines would continue to pose collision hazards for birds. Wildlife near the site
would experience elevated noise, vibration, and general human disturbance. Habitat loss,
degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation could result from construction, refurbishment, or
other site activities, including site maintenance and infrastructure repairs. Plants and animals
would also be exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Section 3.6.1 discusses the basis for
these factors; this section evaluates how these factors would affect terrestrial resources during
the course of a license renewal term.
17
18
This section considers the effects that terrestrial resources may experience as a result of initial
LR or SLR as eight issues. These issues are:
19
•
non-cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources;2
20
•
exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides;
21
22
•
cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources (plants with once-through cooling systems or
cooling ponds);
23
•
cooling tower impacts on terrestrial plants;2
24
•
bird collisions with plant structures and transmission lines;
25
26
•
water use conflicts with terrestrial resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers
using makeup water from a river);
27
•
transmission line right-of-way (ROW) management impacts on terrestrial resources; and
28
•
electromagnetic field effects on terrestrial plants and animals.2
29
4.6.1.1.1 Non-Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources
30
31
32
33
34
35
This issue concerns the effects of nuclear power plant operations on terrestrial resources during
an initial LR or SLR term that are unrelated to operation of the cooling system. Such activities
include landscape and grounds maintenance, stormwater management, elevated noise levels
and vibration, and ground-disturbing activities. These impacts are expected to be like past and
ongoing impacts that terrestrial resources are already experiencing at the nuclear power plant
site.
36
37
38
In the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC evaluated the impacts of refurbishment on terrestrial resources.
In the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC expanded this issue to include impacts of other site activities,
unrelated to cooling system operation, that may affect terrestrial resources. In both the 1996
2
Issue retitled from the 2013 LR GEIS for clarity and consistency with other ecological resource issues.
No substantive changes to this issue have been made.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-54
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC concluded that effects could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.
Therefore, these were considered Category 2 issues for all nuclear power plants. This LR GEIS
refines the title of this issue from “effects on terrestrial resources (non-cooling system impacts)”
to “non-cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources” for clarity and consistency with other
ecological resource LR GEIS issue titles.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Industrial-use portions of nuclear power plant sites are typically maintained as modified habitats
with lawns and other landscaped areas; however, these areas may also include disturbed early
successional habitats or small areas of relatively undisturbed habitat. Developed areas are
generally maintained through physical (e.g., mowing and cutting) and chemical (e.g., herbicides
or pesticides) means. Plant diversity in these areas is generally low and often consists of
cultivated varieties or weedy species tolerant of disturbance. Nonindustrial-use portions of
nuclear power plant sites may include natural areas, such as forests, shrublands, prairies,
riparian areas, or wetlands. These habitats may be undisturbed or in various degrees of
disturbance.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Certain areas may also be managed to preserve natural resources, either privately by the
nuclear power plant operator or in conjunction with local, State, or Federal agencies. For
instance, approximately 13,000 ac (5.300 ha) of land to the south and west of the Turkey Point
site in Florida is part of the Everglades Mitigation Bank (NRC 2019c). Under the guidance of
Federal and State agencies, Florida Power and Light Company creates, restores, and enhances
this habitat to provide compensatory mitigation of wetland losses elsewhere. At Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant (Harris) in North Carolina, Duke Energy leases land, including part of
Harris Lake, to Wake County which co-manages the area with the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission for natural resource preservation and recreational opportunities (Duke
Energy 2017). Continued conservation efforts during the license renewal term would have
beneficial effects on the local ecology.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
The characteristics of terrestrial vegetation and wildlife communities on nuclear power plant
sites have generally developed in response to many years of plant operations and maintenance.
While some communities may have reached a relatively stable condition, some may have
continued to change gradually over time. Operations and maintenance activities as well as any
refurbishment during the license renewal term are expected to be like current activities (see
Section 2.1). Because the plants and animals present on nuclear power plant sites are
generally tolerant of disturbance and acclimated to human activity, continued operations during
the license renewal term would not affect the composition of terrestrial communities or any
current trends of change.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Continued site landscape maintenance would maintain vegetation on developed portions of
nuclear power plant sites as low-diversity habitat. Wildlife diversity immediately surrounding
industrial-use portions of sites and within other landscaped areas is typically limited by lowquality habitat and generally includes species adapted to developed land uses. Animals in
these areas may be exposed to elevated noise levels and vibration associated with
transformers, cooling towers, and other site activities that could cause animals to avoid suitable
habitat or otherwise disrupt behavioral patterns.
42
43
44
45
46
Stormwater management may affect onsite and adjacent wetlands. Effects may include
changes in plant community characteristics, altered hydrology, decreased water quality, and
sedimentation (EPA 1993, EPA 1996; Wright et al. 2006). Impervious surfaces within the
watershed generally result in increased runoff and reduced infiltration, which can cause
changes in the frequency or duration of inundation or soil saturation and greater fluctuations in
February 2023
4-55
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
wetland water levels. Runoff may contain sediments, contaminants from road and parking
surfaces, or herbicides. Erosion of wetland substrates and plants can result from increased flow
from impervious surfaces.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
If activities associated with continued nuclear power plant operations disturb nonindustrial-use
portions of sites, some wildlife could be displaced to nearby available habitats, and competition
could increase among species. Terrestrial plants and animals could experience adverse effects
from fugitive dust, altered surface water flow patterns, water quality degradation, introduction or
proliferation of non-native and invasive species, and general disturbance from human activity.
Species that are more sensitive to disturbance may be displaced by more tolerant species.
Impervious surfaces within watersheds generally result in more runoff and less infiltration to
shallow groundwater, which alters the hydrologic input to nearby wetlands (EPA 1993, EPA
1996; Wright et al. 2006). This can change the frequency or duration of inundation or soil
saturation, cause greater fluctuations in wetland water levels, and degrade or erode wetland
substrates. Site runoff often contains sediments, contaminants from road and parking surfaces,
or herbicides (EPA 1993, EPA 1996; Wright et al. 2006). In rare or unique plant communities,
sensitive habitats such as wetlands or bird rookeries, or high-quality undisturbed habitats occur
in or near affected areas, impacts on such resources could be considered MODERATE or
LARGE if they would noticeably alter or destabilize important attributes of those resources.
Impacts would be considered SMALL if only previously disturbed or other lower-quality habitats
would be affected and no noticeable or detectable impacts on the ecological environment would
result.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The 2013 LR GEIS indicates that elevated noise levels and vibration from transformers and
cooling towers could disrupt wildlife behavioral patterns or cause animals to avoid such areas.
However, limited wildlife inhabit most areas of nuclear power plant sites that experience
elevated noise levels due to the developed, industrial nature of the site, regular presence of
human activity, and associated lack of high-quality habitat. Wildlife that does occur in
developed areas has already adapted to the conditions of the plant site and is tolerant of
disturbance. The NRC staff have not identified noise or vibration associated with normal
nuclear power plant operations to be of concern in any SEISs (initial LR or SLR) completed
since development of the 2013 LR GEIS. Therefore, continued noise associated with the
operation of transformers and cooling towers during the license renewal term is unlikely to
create noticeable impacts on terrestrial resources.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC staff anticipated that nuclear power plants may
require refurbishment to support continued operations during a license renewal term (see
Section 2.1.2). However, refurbishment has not typically been necessary for license renewal.
Only two nuclear power plants have undertaken refurbishment as part of license renewal
(Beaver Valley Power Station [Beaver Valley] and Three Mile Island, Unit 1 [Three Mile Island;
no longer operating], both of which are located in Pennsylvania) (NRC 2009a; NRC 2009b). In
addition to refurbishment, license renewal could also require construction of additional onsite
spent fuel storage. Refurbishment or spent fuel storage construction could require new parking
areas for workers as well as new access roads, buildings, and facilities. Temporary project
support areas for equipment storage, overflow parking, and material laydown areas could also
be required.
44
45
46
47
Any activities that require construction or involve ground disturbance could affect terrestrial
habitats. Ground-disturbing activities may be related to refurbishment or other planned activities
during the license renewal term that involve demolition or construction. Natural habitats could
be destroyed or altered and wildlife could be displaced or killed. Indirect effects include erosion
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-56
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
and sedimentation, both of which are typically proportional to the amount of surface disturbance,
slope of the disturbed land, and condition of the area at the time of disturbance. Chemical
contamination could also occur from fuel or lubricant spills. Temporarily disturbed habitats
would likely recover over time, while permanently disturbed habitats would be permanently lost.
Associated noise, vibration, and human activity could cause wildlife to temporarily avoid the
affected area or otherwise alter behaviors.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Some activities during a license renewal period could require Federal permits or review, which
would mitigate potential effects. For instance, site activities involving the discharge of dredge or
fill material into wetlands would likely require the nuclear power plant operator to obtain a CWA
Section 404 (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) permit from the USACE. Actions that may affect
federally endangered or threatened species or other federally protected resources would require
interagency consultation with the FWS or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). Some states and local jurisdictions also require permits for actions that may affect
State-listed species and rare habitats. Such permits would ensure that effects on sensitive
habitats and species are minimized during the license renewal term.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Many nuclear power plant operators have developed site or fleet-wide environmental review
procedures that help workers identify and avoid impacts on the ecological environment when
performing site activities. These procedures generally include checklists to help identify
potential effects and required permits and BMPs to minimize the affected area. BMPs relevant
to terrestrial resources may include measures to control fugitive dust, runoff, and erosion from
project sites; minimize the spread of nuisance and invasive species; and reduce wildlife
disturbance. Proper implementation of environmental procedures and BMPs would minimize or
mitigate potential effects on terrestrial resources during the license renewal term.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Some utilities are members of the Wildlife Habitat Council, which helps corporations manage
their land for broad-based biodiversity enhancement and conservation. As part of membership,
sites develop wildlife management plans that include a comprehensive strategy for enhancing
and conserving site ecological resources. For instance, at the Limerick plant in Pennsylvania,
Exelon places and monitors artificial avian nesting structures and bat roost boxes (NRC 2014d).
At the Peach Bottom plant in Pennsylvania, Exelon has established a butterfly garden to support
and promote native pollinator diversity (Exelon 2011). To maintain membership, sites must
undertake projects that promote native biodiversity, gather data on conservation efforts, and
report on their progress. Other nuclear power plant sites that maintain Wildlife Habitat Council
membership include Braidwood, Byron Station (Byron), Calvert Cliffs, Clinton Power Station
(Clinton), Dresden, James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (Fitzpatrick), R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant (Ginna), LaSalle, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Nine Mile Point), and Quad
Cities Nuclear Power Station (Quad Cities). Continued participation in this or similar
environmental conservation organizations would minimize or mitigate potential effects on
terrestrial resources during the license renewal term.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. In summary, the potential non-cooling system effects during
an initial LR or SLR term depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological
setting of the plant; the planned activities during the license renewal period; the characteristics
of the plants and animals present in the area (e.g., life history, distribution, population trends,
management objectives, etc.); and the implementation of BMPs or other conservation initiatives.
Non-cooling system impacts would be SMALL at most nuclear power plants but may be
MODERATE or LARGE at some plants. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts
on terrestrial resources from continued operations during a license renewal term is not possible.
February 2023
4-57
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
The NRC concludes that non-cooling system effects on terrestrial resources during the license
renewal term (initial LR or SLR) could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. This is a
Category 2 issue.
4
4.6.1.1.2 Exposure of Terrestrial Organisms to Radionuclides
5
6
This issue concerns the potential impacts on terrestrial organisms from exposure to
radionuclides from routine radiological effluent releases during an initial LR or SLR term.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The 1996 LR GEIS did not address this issue. In 2007, the International Commission on
Radiation Protection (ICRP) issued revised recommendations for a system of protection to
control exposure from radiation sources (ICRP 2007). The recommendations included a section
about the protection of the environment in which the ICRP found that a clearer framework for
assessing nonhuman organisms was warranted. The ICRP indicated that it would develop a set
of reference animals and plants as the basis for relating exposure to dose, and dose to radiation
effects, for different types of organisms. This information would then provide a basis from which
agencies and responsible organizations could make policy and management decisions.
Subsequently, the ICRP developed and published a set of 12 reference animals and plants
(ICRP 2008a, ICRP 2009). They include a large and small terrestrial mammal, an aquatic bird,
and a large and small terrestrial plant, among others. The ICRP also issues publications and
information related to radiological effects and radiosensitivity in non-human biota (AdamGuillermin et al. 2018).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In 2009, following the NRC staff’s review of the ICRP’s 2007 recommendations, the
Commission found that there is no evidence that the NRC’s current set of radiation protection
controls is not protective of the environment (NRC 2009e). For this reason, the Commission
determined that the NRC staff should not develop separate radiation protection regulations for
plant and animal species (NRC 2009e).3 The Commission directed the NRC staff to continue
monitoring international developments on this issue and to keep the Commission informed.
Nonetheless, the NRC addressed radiological exposure of nonhuman organisms in the 2013 LR
GEIS due to public concern about these impacts at some nuclear power plants.
28
29
30
In the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC determined that the impacts of exposure of terrestrial organisms
to radionuclides would be SMALL at all nuclear power plants. Therefore, this was considered a
Category 1 issue for all nuclear power plants.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Radionuclides may be released from nuclear power plants into the environment through several
pathways. During normal operations and potentially during refurbishment, nuclear power plants
can release gaseous emissions that deposit small amounts of radioactive particulates in the
surrounding environment. Gaseous emissions typically include krypton, xenon, and argon
(which may or may not be radioactive), tritium, isotopes of iodine, and cesium. Emissions may
also include strontium, cobalt, and chromium. Radionuclides may also be released into water
as liquid effluent. Terrestrial plants can absorb radionuclides that enter shallow groundwater or
surface waters through their roots. Animals may experience exposure to ionizing radiation
through direct contact with air, water, or other media; inhalation; or ingestion of contaminated
food, water, or soil.
3
See also SECY-04-0223 (NRC 2004f), SECY-06-0168 (NRC 2006g), SECY-08-0197 (NRC 2008c),
SECY-04-0055 (NRC 2004e), and related Staff Requirements Memorandums SRM-SECY-04-0223 (NRC
2005e), SRM-SECY-06-0168 (NRC 2005f), SRM-SECY-08-0197 (NRC 2009e), and SRM-SECY-04-0055
(NRC 2004d).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-58
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
The DOE has produced a standard on a graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to
terrestrial and aquatic biota (DOE 2019). The DOE standard provides methods, models, and
guidance that can be used to characterize radiation doses to terrestrial and aquatic biota
exposed to radioactive material (DOE 2019). The following DOE guidance dose rates are the
levels below which no adverse effects to resident populations are expected:
6
•
riparian animal (0.1 radiation-absorbed dose per day [rad/d]; 0.001 gray per day [Gy/d])
7
•
terrestrial animal (0.1 rad/d) (0.001 Gy/d)
8
•
terrestrial plant (1 rad/d) (0.01 Gy/d)
9
•
aquatic animal (1 rad/d) (0.01 Gy/d)
10
11
12
13
14
15
Previously, in 1992, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (IAEA 1992) had also
concluded that chronic dose rates of 0.1 rad/d (0.001 Gy/d) or less do not appear to cause
observable changes in terrestrial animal populations. The United Nations Scientific Committee
on the Effects of Atomic Radiation concluded in 1996 and re-affirmed in 2008 that chronic dose
rates of less than 0.1 mGy/hr (0.24 rad/d or 0.0024 Gy/d) to the most highly exposed individuals
would be unlikely to have significant effects on most terrestrial communities (UNSCEAR 2010).
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC estimated the total radiological dose that the four non-human
receptors listed above (i.e., riparian animal, terrestrial animal, terrestrial plant, and aquatic
animal) would be expected to receive during normal nuclear power plant operations based on
plant-specific radionuclide concentrations in water, sediment, and soils at 15 operating nuclear
power plants using Argonne National Laboratory’s RESRAD-BIOTA dose evaluation model.
The NRC found that total calculated dose rates for all terrestrial receptors at all 15 plants were
significantly less than the DOE guideline values. As a result, the NRC anticipated in the 2013
LR GEIS that normal operations of these facilities would not result in negative effects on
terrestrial biota. The 2013 LR GEIS concluded that the impact of radionuclides on terrestrial
biota from past operations would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and would not be expected to
change appreciably during the license renewal period.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
In this revision, the NRC staff conducted an updated and expanded analysis for this issue to
assess whether the 2013 LR GEIS conclusions are valid for initial LR and apply to the SLR
term. As part of this expanded analysis, the staff reviewed effluent release reports, performed
additional RESRAD-BIOTA dose calculations, and analyzed dose to biota using the ICRP biota
dose calculator. The staff reviewed a subset of operating PWR and BWR plants4 to evaluate
the potential impacts of radionuclides on terrestrial biota from continued operations. The staff
reviewed effluent releases for this subset of plants between 2013 and 2020 to evaluate releases
since the 2013 LR GEIS was published. The staff found that all data for this time period were
below reportable thresholds.
36
37
38
39
40
41
The NRC staff evaluated Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) reports for
the year 2020 for the subset of operating PWR and BWR plants. This review yielded expected
radionuclide concentrations in the environment that may be sourced from nuclear power plants.
In addition to regulated Lower Limits of Detection (LLD) stated in NUREG-1301 and NUREG1302 (NRC 1991b, NRC 1991a), the NRC staff obtained site-specific radionuclide
concentrations and LLDs in water, sediment, and soils when available from the REMP reports.
4
The subset of plants included the following PWR plants: Comanche Peak, D.C. Cook, Palo Verde 1-3,
Robinson, Salem 1-2, Seabrook, and Surry; and the following BWR plants: Fermi 2, Hatch 1-2, Hope
Creek, Limerick, and Columbia.
February 2023
4-59
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
To estimate radioactive impacts to environmental receptors, the staff used the RESRAD-BIOTA
dose evaluation model (DOE 2004c) to calculate estimated dose rates for terrestrial biota (see
Section D.5 in Appendix D for further details on this approach). The values reported in the
reviewed REMP reports were frequently listed as being below the LLD. Measurements below
the LLD are too low to statistically confirm the presence of the radionuclide in the sample.
Accordingly, the staff conducted a RESRAD-BIOTA analysis using either the maximum values
from a measured media concentration or an LLD, when all measurements for that radionuclide
were below detection limits. The staff then aggregated these values to form a single RESRADBIOTA analysis. This method is considered a bounding analysis because it assumes that all
radionuclides included in the RESRAD-BIOTA analysis are present in the environment, even
though some radionuclides are not confirmed to actually be present (i.e., those radionuclides
that are below the LLD). Table 4.6-1 presents the results of the NRC staff’s RESRAD-BIOTA
analysis. This table shows the total dose estimates to the four ecological receptors: riparian
animal,5 terrestrial animal, terrestrial plant, and aquatic animal.
15
16
Table 4.6-1 Estimated Radiation Dose Rates to Terrestrial Ecological Receptors from
Radionuclides in Water, Sediment, and Soils at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
Receptor
Sum of Total Dose (rad/d)(a)(b)
Riparian
Animal
4.86 E-2
Terrestrial
Animal
1.25 E-2
Terrestrial
Plant
9.18 E-3
Aquatic
Animal
7.48 E-2
17
18
19
(a) Dose rates were estimated with RESRAD-BIOTA (DOE 2004c) by using site-specific radionuclide concentrations
and lower limits of detection in water, sediment, and soils obtained from the REMP reports.
(b) These values exclude potassium-40 because it is a naturally occurring radionuclide.
20
21
22
23
All dose estimates found using RESRAD-BIOTA and shown in Table 4.6-1 were below the DOE
guideline dose levels. Based on the staff’s analysis, it is unlikely that radionuclide releases
during normal operations of these nuclear power plants would have adverse effects on resident
populations of these biota because calculated doses are below protective guidelines.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
In addition to the RESRAD-BIOTA analysis discussed above, the NRC staff estimated dose
rates to a riparian organism using the ICRP biota dose calculator (ICRP 2022) (see Section D.5
in Appendix D for full description of ICRP BiotaDC methodology). A small subset of nuclear
power plant REMP reports6 were evaluated to determine available non-human biota tissue
concentrations for the ICRP biota dose calculator analysis. These tissue concentrations, as well
as site-specific LLDs and media measurements for surface water and soil when available, were
used to estimate a dose to a riparian organism. The staff used the ICRP BiotaDC tool to
develop dose coefficients (DCs, expressed in μGy h-1 per Bq kg-1) for water and soil/sediment
exposure of a generic organism. A hypothetical small burrowing mammal with mass of 0.016 kg
was chosen as a representative “riparian” organism. The mass and dimensions of the animal
are similar to that of the meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), a common North
American rodent (Smith 1999). The staff developed DCs using the ICRP’s BiotaDC v.1.5.2,
which incorporates the radionuclide decay data of ICRP 107 (ICRP 2008b). The staff
established this methodology to obtain conservative dose estimates (see Section D.5 in
Appendix D for a further discussion of methodology). None of the radionuclides evaluated
singly, or in common, produced dose rates that approached the DOE’s guidance dose rate of
0.1 rad/d for riparian animals using the ICRP BiotaDC tool (DOE 2019). The dose rates
5
Defined in RESRAD-BIOTA as an animal that was assumed to spend approximately 50 percent of its
time in aquatic environments and 50 percent of its time in terrestrial environments.
6 The subset of plants included Comanche Peak, Columbia, and Callaway.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-60
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
calculated for the riparian organism ranged between 2E-4 and 2E-5 rad per day, which is orders
of magnitude lower than the DOE guideline dose rate. Additionally, the calculated dose rates
did not approach the level advocated by the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements to initiate additional evaluation (Cool et al. 2019). In fact, the dose rates for the
riparian organism calculated using the ICRP’s calculator were lower than the RESRAD
conservative analysis, and both were well below the DOE guideline values.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Initial LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors
rather than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and
initial LR or SLR on terrestrial organisms would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of
exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides would be minor and would neither destabilize
nor noticeably alter any important attribute of populations of exposed organisms during the initial
LR or SLR terms of any nuclear power plants. Continued adherence of nuclear power plants to
regulatory limits on radioactive effluent releases would minimize the potential impacts on the
terrestrial environment. Doses to terrestrial organisms would be expected to remain within the
DOE’s guidance dose levels and, therefore, impacts to terrestrial communities are not expected.
The staff reviewed information in scientific literature and from SEISs (for initial LRs or SLRs)
completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
19
20
21
The NRC concludes that the impacts of exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides
during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for all nuclear power plants.
This is a Category 1 issue.
22
23
4.6.1.1.3 Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources (Plants with Once-Through Cooling
Systems or Cooling Ponds)
24
25
26
27
This issue concerns the potential impacts of once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds at
nuclear power plants on terrestrial resources during an initial LR or SLR term. The impacts of
plants with cooling towers on terrestrial resources are addressed in Sections 4.6.1.1.4 and
4.6.1.1.5.
28
29
30
31
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that cooling system impacts on terrestrial
resources would be SMALL. Therefore, this was considered a Category 1 issue. The 1996 LR
GEIS considered this issue for nuclear power plants with cooling ponds; the 2013 LR GEIS
expanded this issue to include plants with once-through cooling systems.
32
33
34
35
36
Cooling system operation can alter the ecological environment in a manner that affects
terrestrial resources. Such alterations may include thermal effluent additions to receiving water
bodies; chemical effluent additions to surface water or groundwater; impingement of waterfowl;
disturbance of terrestrial plants and wetlands associated with maintenance dredging; disposal of
dredged material; and erosion of shoreline habitat.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Thermal effluents discharged from once-through cooling systems and cooling ponds can
contribute to localized elevated water temperatures in receiving water bodies that may affect the
distributions of some terrestrial plants and animals in adjacent riparian or wetland habitats. For
example, at the Robinson plant in South Carolina, the growth of plants along the cooling pond
shoreline is restricted by the thermal effluent (NRC 2003a). In general, however, thermal
impacts on the terrestrial environment have not been identified at nuclear power plants.
Thermal effluents to waters of the United States are regulated through NPDES permits to limit
the effects of such discharges on the ecological environment. In addition, because wetland and
February 2023
4-61
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
riparian plant communities present near nuclear power plants have been influenced by many
years of facility operation, elevated temperatures are unlikely to result in the mortality of any
plants that may be exposed to effluent discharges because vegetation present in these areas
has likely acclimated to local conditions. The available information indicates that the effects of
thermal effluents on the terrestrial environment is not of concern for license renewal.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Along with thermal effluents, nonradiological chemical contaminants may be present in cooling
system discharges. Terrestrial plants and animals may be exposed to these contaminants by
direct contact with effluent discharges or through uptake from contaminated food or water.
Plants and animals associated with wetland or riparian communities along the receiving water
body, along with waterfowl and other wildlife that forage in these waters, are the most likely to
be exposed to such chemicals, and exposure may have adverse impacts on these organisms.
Contaminants of potential concern include chlorine and other biocides, heavy metals, VOCs,
and oil products. NPDES permits typically limit the allowable concentrations of these
contaminants in liquid effluent to minimize impacts on the ecological environment. Because of
the low concentrations of nonradiological chemical contaminants within liquid effluents, the
uptake and accumulation of contaminants in the cells of exposed plants or animals are not
expected to be a significant issue for license renewal. Radionuclide contaminants, such as
tritium and strontium, are discussed in Section 4.6.1.1.2 as a separate license renewal issue.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
In the past, heavy metals used in condenser tubing was found to be an issue at two plants.
Elevated concentrations of these contaminants are toxic to terrestrial organisms. Copper alloy
condenser tubes in the cooling systems at the Robinson plant and the Diablo Canyon plant in
California resulted in the discharge of copper in these plants’ liquid effluent. At Robinson, these
metals resulted in adverse effects on the morphology and reproduction of resident bluegill
(Lepomis macrochirus) populations (Harrison 1985). At Diablo Canyon, abalone (Haliotis
species) deaths were attributed to exposure to copper in plant effluents (NRC 1996). Terrestrial
wildlife that feed on these aquatic organisms could have also been exposed to elevated copper
levels and could have experienced adverse effects. However, these nuclear power plants
subsequently replaced the copper alloy condenser tubes with tubes made of different materials
(e.g., titanium), which has eliminated these impacts. This issue has not been reported at any
other nuclear power plants. The available information indicates that the effects of heavy metals
on the terrestrial environment is not of concern for license renewal.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Groundwater quality can be degraded by nonradiological contaminants present in cooling ponds
and cooling canals. Deep-rooted terrestrial plants could be exposed to these contaminants.
However, as noted above, nonradiological contaminant concentrations are typically very low,
and any effects on terrestrial plants would be expected to be SMALL. Mitigation may also be
implemented where sensitive resources could be affected. At the Turkey Point plant in Florida,
for example, the flow of hypersaline groundwater from the cooling canals toward the Everglades
to the west is prevented by an interceptor ditch, located along the west side of the canal system,
from which groundwater inflow is extracted (NRC 2002a). However, since the publication of the
2013 LR GEIS, new information indicates that the interceptor ditch has not prevented movement
of hypersaline groundwater in the deeper Biscayne aquifer. Based on ecological monitoring
data, the NRC concluded that movement of the hypersaline water did not have discernable
ecological impacts. Data also suggest that the interceptor ditch did prevent westward
movement of near surface groundwater (NRC 2019c). This issue has not been identified at any
other operating nuclear power plant.
46
47
The impingement of waterfowl at cooling water intakes has been observed at some nuclear
power plants, such as the D.C. Cook plant in Michigan, Nine Mile Point plant in New York, and
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-62
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Point Beach plant in Wisconsin. About 400 ducks, primarily lesser scaup (Aythya affinis), were
impinged at D.C. Cook in December 1991 (Mitchell and Carlson 1993); about 100 ducks, both
greater scaup (Aythya marila) and lesser scaup, were impinged in January 2000 at Nine Mile
Point (NRC 2006b). At the Point Beach plant, several double-crested cormorants
(Phalacrocorax auritus) were impinged in September 1990, and 33 birds (mostly gulls) were
impinged from June 2001 through December 2003 (NRC 2005a). These nuclear power plants
have changed operational procedures, such as periodically cleaning zebra mussels (Dreissena
polymorpha) off intake structures or have changed intake structure designs to minimize impacts
on waterfowl. This issue has not been found to be a problem at any other nuclear power plants
or in any of the initial LR or SLR reviews conducted since publication of the 2013 LR GEIS. The
available information indicates that bird impingement is not of concern for license renewal.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Maintenance dredging near cooling system intakes or outfalls may physically disturb or alter
wetland or riparian habitats. Dredging may alter current patterns or increase local water
velocities and cause erosion of shoreline wetlands or riparian habitats. Dredging and disposal
of dredged material would likely require the nuclear power plant operator to obtain a CWA
Section 404 permit from the USACE. BMPs and conditions associated with these permits would
minimize impacts on the ecological environment. Granting of such permits would also require
the USACE to conduct its own environmental reviews prior to the undertaking of dredging.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
License renewal would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather
than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of once-through cooling systems
and cooling ponds on terrestrial resources would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of
these systems on terrestrial resources would be minor and would neither destabilize nor
noticeably alter any important attribute of populations of plants or animals during the initial LR or
SLR terms of any nuclear power plants. The staff reviewed information in scientific literature
and from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS
and identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue
for either an initial LR or SLR term, as described above.
28
29
30
The NRC concludes that cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources during the license
renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for nuclear power plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling ponds. This is a Category 1 issue.
31
4.6.1.1.4 Cooling Tower Impacts on Terrestrial Plants
32
33
34
35
36
This issue concerns the potential impacts of cooling tower operation on terrestrial plant
communities during an initial LR or SLR term. This issue applies only to nuclear power plants
with cooling towers. Terrestrial habitats near cooling towers can be exposed to particulates,
such as salt, and can experience increased humidity, which can deposit water droplets or ice on
vegetation. These effects can lead to structural damage and changes in plant communities.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that cooling tower impacts on terrestrial
plants would be SMALL. Therefore, this was considered a Category 1 issue for all nuclear
power plants with cooling towers. The 1996 LR GEIS evaluated this issue as two separate
issues; the 2013 LR GEIS consolidated the two issues into one issue. This GEIS refines the
title of this issue from “cooling tower impacts on vegetation (plants with cooling towers)” to
“cooling tower impacts on terrestrial plants” for clarity and consistency with other ecological
resource GEIS issue titles.
February 2023
4-63
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Cooling tower drift contains small amounts of particulates that are dispersed over a wide area.
Most deposition from cooling towers, regardless of cooling tower type, occurs in close proximity
to the towers. Particulates from natural draft towers generally disperse over a larger area, while
particulates from mechanical draft towers tend to concentrate closer to the towers (Roffman and
Van Vleck 1974). Generally, particulate deposition from cooling towers has not resulted in
measurable adverse impacts on vegetation. At most nuclear power plants with cooling towers,
no effects on agricultural crops or natural plant communities have been observed (NRC 1996).
Where impacts have been observed, vegetation has typically adapted to cooling tower operation
following the period of initial operation. For instance, at Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) (no
longer operating) on Lake Michigan, condensate plumes and drift associated with the site’s two
mechanical draft cooling towers caused the loss of about 5 ac (2 ha) of vegetation on dune
ridges adjacent to the cooling towers within the first several years of operation (NRC 1996).
Within 4 months of plant startup, white pines (Pinus strobus) near the cooling towers began to
show signs of chemically induced injury. During the second summer of operation, deciduous
trees began exhibiting observable effects. Researchers determined that sulfate deposition from
the cooling towers was responsible for the damage. Severe icing associated with the cooling
towers during the following winter further damaged these trees, and within the first several years
of operation, early successional scrub-shrub vegetation had replaced the mature forest stand.
Subsequently, Palisades stopped adding sulfuric acid to the cooling water, which eliminated
observable effects on vegetation. The NRC (NRC 2006d) anticipated no additional impacts
associated with cooling tower drift during the license renewal period.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Icing of vegetation and roads can occur near mechanical draft towers when fog is present and
temperatures are below freezing. Associated impacts have been rare, minor, and localized.
The 1996 LR GEIS reports the results of vegetation monitoring at 10 plants with mechanical
draft cooling towers and 8 nuclear power plants with natural draft cooling towers. Vegetation at
only three sites exhibited ice-related damage: the Palisades plant (discussed above), Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant (Prairie Island) in Minnesota, and Catawba Nuclear Station
(Catawba) in North Carolina. At Prairie Island, researchers observed frequent ice damage to
red oaks (Quercus rubra) adjacent to the site’s mechanical draft cooling towers and a
subsequent change in canopy structure (NRC 1996). Acorn viability was also found to be low,
although acorn production appeared normal. In 1984, Prairie Island stopped operating the
cooling towers during the winter, which eliminated these impacts. At Catawba, researchers
observed the browning of the needles on several loblolly pines (Pinus taeda) within 200 ft
(61 m) of the mechanical draft cooling towers that was attributed to possible icing effects (NRC
1996). During license renewal, the NRC anticipated no additional impacts associated with
cooling tower drift at either of these nuclear power plants (NRC 2011a, NRC 2002b).
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The 1996 LR GEIS contemplated that salt deposition could be a concern at coastal nuclear
power plants that use estuarine or marine water for cooling. The only such plant is Hope Creek
in New Jersey, whose natural draft cooling towers withdraw cooling water from the Delaware
River estuary (see Section 3.3.2 for a discussion of Hope Creek cooling tower drift emissions).
However, no measurable effects on plant communities near Hope Creek’s cooling towers have
been observed (NRC 1996), and the NRC anticipated none during the license renewal period
(NRC 2011b). Soil salinization associated with cooling tower drift is also not expected to be an
issue because rainfall is sufficient to leach salts from the soil profile.
45
46
47
In summary, vegetation near nuclear power plant cooling towers has been exposed to many
years of cooling tower operation and have acclimated to any minor effects associated with
cooling tower drift. Icing effects would continue to be rare, minor, and localized. All nuclear
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-64
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
power plants at which effects of cooling tower drift were observed during the initial period of
operation have modified operations to mitigate these effects.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Initial LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors
rather than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and
license renewal on vegetation would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of cooling towers
on plants would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important
attribute of plant populations during initial LR or SLR terms at nuclear power plants with cooling
towers. The staff reviewed information in scientific literature and from SEISs (for initial LRs and
SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
11
12
13
The NRC concludes that cooling tower impacts on terrestrial plants during the license renewal
term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for all nuclear power plants with cooling towers. This
is a Category 1 issue.
14
4.6.1.1.5 Bird Collisions with Plant Structures and Transmission Lines
15
16
17
18
This issue concerns the risk of birds colliding with plant structures and transmission lines during
an initial LR or SLR term. Tall structures on nuclear power plant sites, such as cooling towers,
meteorological towers, and transmission lines, create collision hazards for birds that can result
in injury or death.
19
20
21
22
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that the impacts of bird collisions with
plant structures and transmission lines would be SMALL. Therefore, this was considered a
Category 1 issue for all nuclear power plants. The 1996 LR GEIS evaluated this issue as two
separate issues; the 2013 LR GEIS consolidated them into one issue.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Throughout the United States, millions of birds are killed each year when they collide with
human-made objects, including buildings, windows, vehicles, transmission lines, communication
towers, wind turbines, cooling towers, and numerous other objects (Erickson et al. 2001).
Associated bird mortality is of concern if the stability of the population of a species is threatened
or if the reduction in numbers within any bird population significantly impairs its function within
the ecosystem. Table 4.6-2 shows estimated annual bird collision mortality in the United States
from several categories of human-made objects. Collisions with buildings and windows account
for the greatest number of collision mortalities annually (365 to 988 million). Transmission lines
account for 12 to 64 million mortalities per year (Table 4.6-2).
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
As of April 2022, more than 133,000 standing communication towers (32 to 3,280 ft (10 to
1,000 m) in height) are registered with the Federal Communications Commission Antenna
Structure Registration database (FCC Undated), some of which have caused large numbers of
avian collision mortalities (Able 1973; Kemper 1996; Crawford and Engstrom 2001). Most large
mortality events occur at night during spring and fall migration periods and involve songbirds
that appear to become confused by tower lights (Taylor and Kershner 1986; Larkin and Frase
1988; Manville 2005). For example, at a single television tower in northern Florida, Crawford
and Engstrom (2001) reported more than 44,000 bird collision mortalities over a 29-year period.
Communication towers involved with the most bird collisions are tall (exceeding 1,000 ft
[305 m]), illuminated at night with incandescent lights, guyed, and located near wetlands and
migration pathways (Manville 2005). During nights of heavy cloud cover or fog, the
incandescent lights illuminating the communication towers may attract migrating songbirds to
the towers, increasing the likelihood of collisions.
February 2023
4-65
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
Table 4.6-2
Estimated Annual Bird Collision Mortality in the United States
Objects
Estimated Annual Mortality (in millions)(a)
Buildings and windows(b)
365 to 988
Vehicles(c)
89 to 340
Transmission lines(d)
Communication towers
12 to 64
(e)
6.8
Wind generation facilities(f)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
0.415 to 1.4(g)
Estimated annual mortality was extrapolated from literature reviews.
Includes residences, low-rises, and high-rises. Source: Loss et al. 2014.
Includes automobiles on U.S. roadways. Source: Loss et al. 2014.
Includes all electric communication lines and transmission lines. Source: Loss et al. 2014.
Includes mortality estimates from communication towers in Canada. Source: Longcore et al. 2012.
Includes wind turbines and supporting structures.
Based on projections from two studies (Smallwood et al. 2020 and Erickson et al. 2014).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Compared to communication towers, cooling towers at nuclear power plants are shorter
(generally less than 500 ft [152 m]), which may reduce the likelihood that migrating birds would
encounter cooling towers while in flight. Mechanical draft cooling towers, which are smaller
(usually shorter than 100 ft [30 m]), are thought to cause negligible mortality (NRC 1996).
Cooling towers are usually illuminated with low-intensity light sources (1.0 ft-candle or less) at
night, although it is unknown whether this attracts or detracts birds. Several nuclear power
plants with natural draft cooling towers have studied bird mortality, including plants within three
of the four major United States flyways. These include plants in the Atlantic Flyway
(Susquehanna, Beaver Valley, and Three Mile Island [no longer operating] in Pennsylvania),
Mississippi Flyway (Davis-Besse in Ohio and Arkansas Nuclear One [Arkansas] in Arkansas),
and Pacific Flyway (Trojan [no longer operating] in Oregon).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
At the Susquehanna plant, researchers conducted bird mortality surveys during spring and fall
migration from 1978 through 1986. The plant’s natural draft towers are 165 m (540 ft) tall and
illuminated with 480V aircraft warning strobe lights. Researchers collected about 1,500 dead
birds representing 63 species during monitoring whose deaths were likely attributable to
collisions with the cooling towers. Most were songbirds. Fewer collisions occurred after
Susquehanna began commercial operations; researchers considered that cooling tower vapor
plumes and noise may have discouraged birds from entering the area (NRC 1996).
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
At the Davis-Besse plant, researchers conducted bird mortality surveys during spring and fall
migration from 1972 to 1979. During this period, early morning surveys were conducted almost
daily at the 152 m tall (499 ft tall) cooling tower. Researchers collected 1,561 dead birds,
including 1,229 at the cooling tower, 224 around Unit 1 structures, and 108 at the
meteorological tower. Notably, after the cooling tower began operating in the fall of 1976, some
dead birds were discovered in the water outlets of the tower basin. Most mortalities were of
night-migrating songbirds, particularly wood-warblers (family Parulidae), vireos (Vireo species),
and kinglets (Regulus species). Waterfowl, which were abundant in nearby marshes and
ponds, suffered little collision mortality. Most collision mortalities at the cooling tower occurred
during years when the tower was not well illuminated. After the completion of Unit 1 structures
and installation of many safety lights around the buildings in the fall of 1978, collision mortality
significantly decreased. Observed mortalities averaged 236 per year from 1974 through 1977,
135 in 1978, and 51 in 1979. This reduction was attributed to low-intensity light sources (1.0 ftcandle or less) that illuminated the cooling tower at night. Researchers concluded that lights at
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-66
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
nuclear power plants more successfully detract birds than do lights on communication towers
(NRC 2015e).
3
4
5
6
7
8
At the Fermi plant, researchers studied bird strikes from 2005 to 2014. The highest number of
bird strikes occurred in October 2007 when researchers found a total of 45 dead birds near the
south cooling tower (approximately 400 ft (122 m) tall) in a 1-week period. The licensee
conducted 2 years of followup monitoring in 2008 and 2009 to further investigate the numbers
and species of birds colliding with nuclear power plant structures. During this period,
researchers collected 31 dead birds and no more than 4 in any given week (NRC 2016c).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
At the Beaver Valley plant, researchers conducted surveys at the cooling tower during spring
and fall migration from 1974 to 1978. Researchers collected 27 dead birds over the five-year
period. At the Trojan plant (no longer operating) researchers conducted weekly surveys in 1984
and 1988 at the cooling tower, meteorological tower, switchyard, and generation building. No
dead birds were found. At the Three Mile Island plant, researchers collected 66 dead birds near
the cooling towers from 1973 to 1975. No dead birds were found at the Arkansas plant, where
cooling tower monitoring was conducted twice weekly from October through April from 1978 to
1980 (NRC 2013a).
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The available data on bird collision mortality associated with nuclear power plant cooling towers
and other structures suggest that nuclear power plants cause a small number of bird mortalities
annually. A large percentage of these mortalities occur during the spring and fall migratory
periods and primarily involve songbirds migrating at night. Natural draft cooling towers appear
to be the structures that pose the largest collision risk at nuclear power plant sites. Operating
cooling towers appear to detract birds; the vapor plume, noise, or lighting may mitigate the risk
of bird collision. Data are not available on bird injuries, but the NRC staff assumes that some
birds that collide with nuclear power plant structures are injured and either die later or suffer
reduced fitness until they recover. The relatively few nuclear power plants in the United States
that have natural draft towers, combined with the relatively low bird mortality at studied sites,
indicate that bird populations are unlikely to be measurably affected by collisions with nuclear
power plant structures and that the contribution of nuclear power plant sites to the cumulative
effects of bird collision mortalities in the United States is very small.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
The risk of bird collisions with site structures would remain the same for a given nuclear power
plant during an initial LR or SLR period. Because the number of associated bird mortalities is
small for any species, it is unlikely that losses would threaten the stability of local or migratory
bird populations or result in a noticeable impairment of the function of a species within the
ecosystem. Mitigation measures to reduce bird collisions may include illuminating natural draft
cooling towers and other tall structures at night with low-intensity lights so that birds can see the
structures and avoid colliding with them.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The potential for birds to collide with transmission lines depends on a number of factors, such
as species, migration behavior, and the location and physical characteristics of the transmission
line (Bevanger 1988; Janss 2000; Manville 2005). Larger-bodied bird species such as raptors
are more likely to collide with transmission lines (Harness and Wilson 2001; Manville 2005),
whereas smaller-bodied birds such as migrating songbirds are more likely to collide with towers
(Temme and Jackson 1979). This difference is most likely the result of differences in the
behaviors of raptors and songbirds. Raptors are known to use utility structures as perch
locations and nest sites more often than do songbirds (Blue 1996; Manville 2005), whereas
nocturnal migrating songbirds may become confused by the lights on communication towers
February 2023
4-67
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
(Crawford and Engstrom 2001). Lights are not a contributing factor in bird collisions at
transmission lines because lights are not generally used to mark transmission lines.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Transmission lines cause 12 million to 64 million bird mortalities per year (see Table 4.6-2).
However, no nuclear power plants have reported high bird collision mortality associated with
in-scope transmission lines. In a 1974 through 1978 study conducted at the Prairie Island plant,
a total of 453 bird deaths were attributed to collisions with transmission lines; most collisions
occurred during inclement weather (NRC 1996). Researchers collected dead mourning doves
(Zenaida macroura), starlings (family Sturnidae), red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus),
common grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), ring-necked
pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), American coots (Fulica americana), and sora rails (Porzana
carolina) (NSP 1978). This study was conducted along large tracts of transmission lines
constructed to connect the Davis-Besse plant to the regional electric grid upon initial operation.
As described in Section 3.1.6.5 and further in Section 3.1.1, transmission lines relevant to initial
LR or SLR include only those lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the first substation
that feeds into the regional power distribution system. This substation is frequently, but not
always, located on the plant property. Many of the transmission lines that were constructed with
nuclear power plants are now interconnected with the regional electric grid and would remain
energized regardless of license renewal. Thus, the length of transmission lines directly
associated with nuclear power plants is a small fraction of the total length of transmission lines
in the United States (Manville 2005). Therefore, transmission lines associated with nuclear
power plants are likely responsible for a negligible number of bird collision mortalities per year.
22
23
24
25
26
The risk of bird collisions with transmission lines associated with nuclear power plants would
remain the same for a given nuclear power plant during an initial LR or SLR period. Because
the number of associated bird mortalities is negligible for any species, it is unlikely that losses
would threaten the stability of resident or migratory bird populations or result in a noticeable
impairment of the function of a species within the ecosystem.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Initial LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors
rather than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and
license renewal on birds would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of bird collisions with
plant structures and transmission lines would be minor and would neither destabilize nor
noticeably alter any important attribute of bird populations during initial LR or SLR terms at
nuclear power plants. The staff reviewed information in scientific literature and from SEISs (for
initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new
information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR
or SLR term. The NRC concludes that the impacts of bird collisions with plant structures or
transmission lines during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for all
nuclear power plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
38
39
4.6.1.1.6 Water Use Conflicts with Terrestrial Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling
Towers Using Makeup Water from a River)
40
41
42
This issue concerns water use conflicts that may arise at nuclear power plants with cooling
ponds or cooling towers that use makeup water from a river and how those conflicts could affect
terrestrial resources during an initial LR or SLR term.
43
44
45
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that the impacts of water use conflicts on
terrestrial resources would be SMALL at many nuclear power plants but that these impacts
could be MODERATE at some plants. Therefore, this was considered a Category 2 issue for
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-68
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river.
The 1996 LR GEIS addressed cooling towers that withdraw water from small rivers with low
flow; the 2013 LR GEIS expanded this issue to include all cooling towers that withdraw water
from rivers. Notably, this issue also applies to nuclear power plants with hybrid cooling systems
that withdraw makeup water from a river (i.e., once-through cooling systems with helper cooling
towers) (e.g., NRC 2020g).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Nuclear power plant cooling systems may compete with other users relying on surface water
resources, including downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users. Closed-cycle
cooling is not completely closed because the system discharges blowdown water to a surface
water body and withdraws water for makeup of both the consumptive water loss due to
evaporation and drift (for cooling towers) and blowdown discharge. For plants using cooling
towers, while the volume of surface water withdrawn is substantially less than once-through
systems for a similarly sized nuclear power plant, the makeup water needed to replenish the
consumptive loss of water to evaporation can be significant. Cooling ponds also require
makeup water. Section 4.5.1 addresses factors relevant to water use conflicts at nuclear power
plants in detail. Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources, especially riparian communities,
could occur when water that supports these resources is diminished by a combination of
anthropogenic uses.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Consumptive use by nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup
water from a river during the license renewal term is not expected to change unless power
uprates, with associated increases in water use, occur. Such uprates would require separate
NRC review and approval. Any river, regardless of size, can experience low-flow conditions of
varying severity during periods of drought and changing conditions in the affected watershed,
such as upstream diversions and use of river water. However, the direct impacts on instream
flow and potential water availability for other users from nuclear power plant surface water
withdrawals are greater for small (i.e., low-flow) rivers.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
To date, the NRC has identified water use conflicts with terrestrial resources at only one nuclear
power plant: Wolf Creek plant in Kansas. This plant uses Coffee County Lake for cooling, and
makeup water for the lake is drawn from the Neosho River downstream of John Redmond
Reservoir (NRC 2008a). The Neosho River is a small river with especially low water flow during
drought conditions. Riparian communities downstream of this reservoir may be affected by Wolf
Creek makeup water withdrawals from the Neosho River during periods when the lake level is
low. During the license renewal review, the NRC found that water use conflicts would be
SMALL to MODERATE for this nuclear power plant. As part of the NRC’s ESA consultation with
the FWS, Wolf Creek developed and implemented a water level management plan for Coffey
County Lake, which includes withdrawing makeup water proactively during high river flows to
support downstream populations of the federally endangered Neosho madtom (Noturus
placidus), a small species of catfish (FWS 2012). This plan effectively mitigated not only water
use conflicts that the Neosho madtom might experience, but also the effects that downstream
riparian communities might experience from the plant’s cooling water withdrawals. The NRC
has identified no concerns about water use conflicts with terrestrial resources at any other
nuclear power plant with cooling ponds or cooling towers.
43
44
45
46
47
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. In summary, water use conflicts during an initial LR or SLR
term depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the nuclear
power plant; the consumptive use of other municipal, agricultural, or industrial water users; and
the plants and animals present in the area. Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources would
February 2023
4-69
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
be SMALL at most nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that withdraw
makeup from a river, but may be MODERATE at some plants. Therefore, a generic
determination of potential impacts on terrestrial resources from continued operations during a
license renewal term is not possible.
5
6
7
The NRC concludes that water use conflicts on terrestrial resources during the license renewal
term (initial LR or SLR) could be SMALL or MODERATE at nuclear power plants with cooling
ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river. This is a Category 2 issue.
8
9
4.6.1.1.7 Transmission Line Right-of-Way (ROW) Management Impacts on Terrestrial
Resources
10
11
This issue concerns the effects of transmission line ROW management on terrestrial plants and
animals during an initial LR or SLR term.
12
13
14
15
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that transmission line ROW maintenance
impacts would be SMALL at all nuclear power plants. Therefore, this was considered a
Category 1 issue for all nuclear power plants. The 1996 LR GEIS evaluated this issue as two
separate issues; the 2013 LR GEIS consolidated them into one issue.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
When this issue was originally contemplated in the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC considered as part
of its plant-specific license renewal reviews all transmission lines that were constructed to
connect a nuclear power plant to the regional electric grid. However, in the 2013 GEIS, the
NRC clarified that the transmission lines relevant to license renewal include only the lines that
connect the nuclear power plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power
distribution system (see Section 3.1.6.5 and 3.1.1). Typically, the first substation is located on
the nuclear power plant property within the primary industrial-use area. This decision was
informed by the fact that many of the transmission lines that were constructed with nuclear
power plants are now interconnected with the regional electric grid and would remain energized
regardless of initial LR or SLR. Accordingly, the discussion of this issue in this LR GEIS is brief
because in-scope transmission lines for license renewal tend to occupy only industrial-use or
other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites. Therefore, effects on terrestrial plants
and animals are generally negligible. The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs provide further background
about this issue and discuss it in more detail.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Utilities maintain transmission line ROWs so that the ground cover is composed of low-growing
herbaceous or shrubby vegetation and grasses. Generally, ROWs are initially established by
clear-cutting during transmission line construction and are subsequently maintained by physical
(e.g., mowing and cutting) and chemical (e.g., herbicides or pesticides) means. These activities
alter the composition and diversity of plant communities and generally result in lower-quality
habitat for wildlife. Heavy equipment used for ROW maintenance can crush vegetation and
compact soils, which can affect soil quality and reduce infiltration to shallow groundwater. This
is especially of concern in sensitive habitats, such as wetlands. Chemical herbicides can be
transported to neighboring undisturbed habitats through precipitation and runoff. Disturbed
habitats often favor non-native or nuisance species and can lead to their proliferation.
40
41
42
43
44
Noise and general human disturbance during ROW management can temporarily disturb wildlife
and affect their behaviors. The presence of ROWs can favor wildlife species that prefer edge or
early successional habitats. Some species, such as neotropical migrating songbirds that prefer
interior forest habitat may be adversely affected by the increase in edge habitat. These species
require large blocks of forest for successful reproduction and survival (Wilcove 1988). Studies
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-70
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
have found that nests of these bird species placed near edges are more likely to fail as a result
of predation or nest parasitism than nests located near the forest interior (Paton 1994; Robinson
et al. 1995). Transmission line ROWs may represent a barrier for species, such as large
mammalian carnivores, that require large tracts of contiguous forested habitat (Crooks 2002).
Maintenance of ROWs may also have negative effects on smaller, less mobile wildlife species.
For example, studies have shown that some amphibian species have difficulty crossing
disturbed habitat and may experience increased rates of mortality as a result of physiological
stress (Gibbs 1998; Rothermel 2004). Other wildlife may benefit from ROW habitat. For
instance, in a study of rodent populations in Oregon, Wolff et al. (1997) found higher densities of
gray-tailed voles (Microtus canicaudus) in disturbed open habitats than in other habitats.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Most nuclear power plants maintain procedures to minimize or mitigate the potential impacts of
ROW management. For instance, heavy machinery and herbicide use is often prohibited in or
near wetlands or surface waters. Procedures often include checklists to ensure that workers
obtain the necessary local, State, or Federal permits if work could affect protected resources.
At the Millstone Power Station (Millstone) in Connecticut, mowing is conducted only from
November through April to protect saturated soils and minimize loss of fruit and seeds (NRC
2005d). At the Seabrook plant in New Hampshire, workers are trained to recognize Federally or
State-protected species to avoid impacts on them (NRC 2015b). At Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
(Browns Ferry) in Alabama, all vegetation clearing in sensitive habitats is done by hand, and
vehicle and machinery use is prohibited (NRC 2005b).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Terrestrial communities in transmission line ROWs have been exposed to many years of
transmission line operation and have acclimated to regular ROW maintenance. License
renewal would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather than
introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and license renewal
on terrestrial resources would be similar. Further, and as stated above, in-scope transmission
lines for license renewal tend to occupy only industrial-use or other developed portions of
nuclear power plant sites and, therefore, the effects of ROW maintenance on terrestrial plants
and animals during an initial LR or SLR term would be negligible. The staff reviewed
information in scientific literature and from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would
result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
32
33
34
The NRC concludes that the transmission line ROW maintenance impacts on terrestrial
resources during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for all nuclear
power plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
35
4.6.1.1.8 Electromagnetic Field Effects on Terrestrial Plants and Animals
36
37
This issue concerns the effects of EMFs on terrestrial plants and animals, including agricultural
crops, honeybees, wildlife, and livestock, during an initial LR or SLR term.
38
39
40
41
42
43
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that the impacts of EMFs on terrestrial
plants and animals would be SMALL at all nuclear power plants. Therefore, this was
considered a Category 1 issue for all nuclear power plants. This LR GEIS refines the title of this
issue from “electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees,
wildlife, livestock)” to “electromagnetic fields on terrestrial plants and animals” for clarity and
consistency with other ecological resource LR GEIS issue titles.
February 2023
4-71
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
When this issue was originally contemplated in the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC considered as part
of its plant-specific license renewal reviews all transmission lines that were constructed to
connect a nuclear power plant to the regional electric grid. However, in the 2013 LR GEIS, the
NRC clarified that the transmission lines relevant to license renewal include only the lines that
connect the nuclear power plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power
distribution system (see Section 3.1.6.5 and 3.1.1). Typically, the first substation is located on
the nuclear power plant property within the primary industrial-use area. This decision was
informed by the fact that many of the transmission lines that were constructed with nuclear
power plants are now interconnected with the regional electric grid and would remain energized
regardless of initial LR or SLR. Accordingly, the discussion of this issue in this LR GEIS is brief
because in-scope transmission lines for license renewal tend to occupy only industrial-use or
other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites. Therefore, the effects of EMFs on
terrestrial plants and animals are generally negligible. The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs provide
further background about this issue and discuss it in more detail.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Operating transmission lines produce electric and magnetic fields, collectively referred to as
EMFs. EMF strength at the ground level varies greatly but is generally stronger for highervoltage lines. Corona is the electrical discharge occurring in air from EMFs; it can be detected
adjacent to phase conductors. Corona is generally not an issue for transmission lines of 345 kV
or less. Corona results in audible noise, radio and television interference, energy losses, and
ozone and nitrogen oxide production. Studies investigating the effects of EMFs produced by
operating transmission lines up to 1,100 kV have generally not detected any ecologically
significant impact on terrestrial plants and animals.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Miller (1983) determined that minor damage to plant foliage and buds can occur from coronarelated heat. Exhibited damage is like what plants might exhibit in response to drought. In one
experiment under an 1,100 kV prototype line, alder (Alnus species) and Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees exhibited reduced upward growth (Rogers et al. 1984). The
crowns of the trees became somewhat flattened on top and the overall crown developed a
broader appearance than usual. Growth of the lower parts of the trees and of lower-growing
plants, such as pasture grass, barley, and peas, were unaffected (Rogers and Hinds 1983).
Studies of agricultural crops, including corn, bluegrass, alfalfa, and sunflower, have detected no
effects or minor effects that did not ultimately affect germination or crop yield (Bankoske et al.
1976; Lee et al. 1989; Poznaniak and Reed 1978).
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The literature on the effect of EMF on wildlife is somewhat mixed, although most studies have
detected virtually no concern about the impacts of EMFs on animals. For instance,
Kroodsma (1984, 1987) found that the density of breeding birds under 500 kV lines in eastern
Tennessee is greater than that in adjacent forests and in most grassland habitats or agricultural
fields. A Minnesota study of a 500 kV line found little evidence of either a positive or negative
effect of the power line on bird populations (Niemi and Hanowski 1984). Schreiber et al. (1976)
as cited in the 2013 LR GEIS found that the density of small mammal populations near
transmission lines appears to depend on habitat type rather than on the presence of the lines.
Bird and small mammal populations under an 1,100 kV line in Oregon were also apparently
unaffected by line operation (Rogers and Hinds 1983). In a review of numerous studies on
livestock, Lee et al. (1989) found no evidence that the growth, production, or behavior of beef
and dairy cattle, sheep, hogs, or horses are affected by EMFs.
45
46
47
Other studies have observed the impacts of EMFs on animals. They showed that EMFs
influence the development, reproduction, and physiology of insects (Greenberg et al. 1981) and
mammals (Burchard et al. 1996). Fernie and Reynolds (2005) determined that EMF exposure
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-72
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
can alter the behavior, physiology, endocrine system, and the immune function of birds,
including passerines, birds of prey, and chickens studied in laboratory and field situations.
Nonetheless, birds often nest on transmission line structures. However, on high-voltage lines
supported by metal lattice towers, birds usually nest on the top bridge of the tower where EMF
strength is minimal (e.g., 5 kV/m or less) (Lee, Jr. 1980). The success of nests on transmission
line structures appears to be no different from nests in areas not exposed to EMFs (e.g., Gilmer
and Stewart 1983; Lee, Jr. 1980; Steenhof et al. 1993).
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Honeybees in hives under transmission lines can suffer increased propolis (a resin-like material
produced to build hives) production, reduced growth, greater irritability, and increased mortality
(Greenberg and Bindokas 1985; Rogers and Hinds 1983). Bindokas et al. (1988) determined
that these impacts were the result of voltage buildup and electric currents within the hives.
Bees kept in moisture-free nonconductive conditions were not adversely affected, even in
electric fields as strong as 100 kV/m. These effects can also be mitigated by shielding hives
with a grounded metal screen or by moving them away from transmission lines (Rogers and
Hinds 1983; Lee, Jr. 1980).
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plants and animals near transmission lines have been exposed to many years of transmission
line operation and associated EMFs and have acclimated to regular ROW maintenance. Initial
LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather than
introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and initial LR or
SLR on terrestrial resources would be similar. Further, and as stated above, in-scope
transmission lines for license renewal tend to occupy only industrial-use or other developed
portions of nuclear power plant sites and, therefore, the effects of EMF plants and animals
during an initial LR or SLR term would be negligible. The staff reviewed information in scientific
literature and from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013
LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for
this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. The NRC concludes that the effects of EMFs on
plants and animals during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for all
nuclear power plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
29
4.6.1.2
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Continued operation of a nuclear power plant during a license renewal term involves continued
cooling water intake system operation, including source water withdrawals and effluent
discharges; gaseous and liquid effluent releases; facility upkeep, including transmission line
maintenance; and construction or ground-disturbing activities, in cases where license renewal
necessitates refurbishment. Aquatic organisms would continue to be subject to the effects of
impingement, entrainment, thermal discharges, chemical and radiological contaminants, and
erosion and sedimentation.
Aquatic Resources
February 2023
4-73
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
This section considers the effects that aquatic resources may experience as a result of initial LR
or SLR. These issues are as follows:
3
4
•
impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling ponds);7,8
5
•
impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers);7,8
6
•
entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton;9
7
8
•
effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems
or cooling ponds);9
9
•
effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers);9
10
•
infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents;10
11
•
effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms;
12
•
exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides;
13
•
effects of dredging on aquatic resources;9
14
15
•
water use conflicts with aquatic resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using
makeup water from a river);
16
•
non-cooling system impacts on aquatic resources; and9
17
•
impacts of transmission line right-of-way (ROW) management on aquatic resources.
18
Impingement and Entrainment
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Impingement occurs when organisms are trapped against the outer part of an intake structure’s
screening device (79 FR 48300). The force of the intake water traps the organisms against the
screen, and individuals are unable to escape. Impingement can kill organisms immediately or
cause exhaustion, suffocation, injury, and other physical stresses that contribute to later
mortality. The potential for injury or death is generally related to the amount of time an
organism is impinged, its fragility (susceptibility to injury), and the physical characteristics of the
screen wash and fish return systems of the intake structure. Because some individuals may
survive impingement, this effect is often assessed in terms of impingement mortality. The EPA
has found that impingement mortality is typically less than 100 percent if the cooling water
intake system includes fish return or backwash systems. Because impingeable organisms are
typically fish with fully formed scales and skeletal structures and well-developed survival traits,
such as behavioral responses to avoid danger, many impinged organisms can survive under
proper conditions.
7
This issue was modified from the 2013 LR GEIS to address updated regulatory criteria under CWA
Section 316(b).
8
This issue was consolidated to include the impingement component of the 2013 LR GEIS issue, “losses
from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses.”
9
Issue retitled from the 2013 LR GEIS for clarity and consistency with other ecological resource issues.
No substantive changes to this issue have been made.
10
Issue consolidated to include the 2013 LR GEIS issue, “effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved
oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication,” and the thermal effluent component of the 2013 LR
GEIS issue, “losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal
stresses.”
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-74
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Depending on the configuration of the cooling water intake system, impinged organisms may
also become entrapped. Entrapment occurs when impingeable fish and shellfish lack the
means to escape the cooling water intake. Entrapment includes but is not limited to organisms
caught in the bucket of a traveling screen and unable to reach a fish return; organisms caught in
the forebay of a cooling water intake system without any means of being returned to the source
water body without experiencing mortality; or cooling water intake systems where the velocities
in the intake pipes or in any channels leading to the forebay prevent organisms from being able
to return to the source water body through the intake pipe or channel (40 CFR 125.92(j)).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Entrainment occurs when organisms pass through the screening device and travel through the
entire cooling system, including the pumps, condenser or heat exchanger tubes, and discharge
pipes (79 FR 48300). Organisms susceptible to entrainment are of smaller size, such as
ichthyoplankton, meriplankton, zooplankton, and phytoplankton. During travel through the
cooling system, entrained organisms experience physical trauma and stress, pressure changes,
excess heat, and exposure to chemicals (Mayhew et al. 2000). Because entrainable organisms
generally consist of fragile life stages (e.g., eggs, which exhibit poor survival after interacting
with a cooling water intake structure, and early larvae, which lack a skeletal structure and
swimming ability), the EPA has concluded that, for purposes of assessing the impacts of a
cooling water intake system on the aquatic environment, all entrained organisms die (79 FR
48300).
20
21
22
23
24
Entrainment susceptibility is highly dependent upon life history characteristics. For example,
broadcast spawners with nonadhesive, free-floating eggs that drift with water current may become
entrained in a cooling water intake system. Nest-building species or species with adhesive,
demersal eggs are less likely to become entrained during their early life stages. The susceptibility
of larval life stages to entrainment depends on body morphometrics and swimming ability.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
If several life stages of a species occupy the source water, that species can be susceptible to
both impingement and entrainment. For instance, adults and juveniles of a given species of fish
may be impinged against the intake screens, while larvae and eggs may pass through the
screening device and be entrained through the cooling system. The susceptibility to either
impingement or entrainment is related to the size of the individual relative to the size of the
mesh on the screening device. By definition, the EPA considers aquatic organisms that can be
collected or retained on a sieve that has 0.56 in. (1.4 centimeters [cm]) diagonal openings to be
susceptible to impingement (79 FR 48300). This equates to screen device mesh openings of
1/2 in. by 1/4 in. (1.3 cm by 0.635 cm), which is slightly larger than the openings on the typical
3/8-in. (0.95-cm) square mesh found at many nuclear power plants. Organisms smaller than
the 0.56 in. (1.4 cm) mesh are considered susceptible to entrainment.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The magnitude of impact that impingement mortality and entrainment (IM&E) creates on the
aquatic environment depends on the nuclear power plant-specific characteristics of the cooling
system as well as characteristics of the local aquatic community. Relevant nuclear power plant
characteristics include the location of the cooling water intake structure, intake velocities,
withdrawal volumes, screening device technologies, and the presence or absence of a fish
return system. Impingement and impingement mortality reduction technologies can greatly
reduce the likelihood of impingement mortality of susceptible organisms. Relevant
characteristics of the aquatic community include species present in the environment, life history
characteristics, population abundances and distributions, special species statuses and
designations, and regional management objectives.
February 2023
4-75
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
The most visible direct impacts of IM&E are the losses of large numbers of aquatic organisms,
distributed nonuniformly among fish, benthic invertebrates, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and
other susceptible aquatic taxa (e.g., sea turtles). These losses have immediate and direct
effects on the population size and age distribution of affected species and may cascade through
food webs (79 FR 48300).
Ichthyoplankton are early life stages of finfish, including eggs, yolk-sac larvae, and post
yolk-sac larvae.
Meriplankton are larval stages of shellfish and other macroinvertebrates.
Zooplankton are animals that either spend their entire lives as plankton (holoplankton) or
exist as plankton for a short time during development (meroplankton).
Phytoplankton are single-celled plant plankton and include diatoms (single-celled yellow
algae) and dinoflagellates (a single-celled organism with two flagella).
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
In some cases, IM&E have been shown to be a significant source of anthropogenic mortality of
depleted stocks of commercially targeted species. For example, approximately 5.4 percent of
the estimated A1E population of the Southern New England/Massachusetts stock of winter
flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) is lost to IM&E (NEFSC 2011). IM&E also increase
the pressure on native freshwater species, such as lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformi) and
yellow perch (Perca flavescens), whose populations have seen dramatic declines in recent
years (79 FR 48300).
13
14
15
16
17
18
IM&E are also likely to contribute to reduced population sizes of species targeted by commercial
and recreational fishers, particularly for stocks that are being harvested at unsustainable levels
or that are undergoing rebuilding. Thus, reducing IM&E may lead to more rapid stock recovery,
a long-term increase in commercial fish catches, increased population stability following periods
of poor recruitment and, as a consequence of increased resource utilization, an increased ability
to minimize the invasion of exotic species (Stachowicz and Byrnes 2006).
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Table 4.6-3 lists taxa commonly impinged or entrained at nuclear power plants by ecosystem
type. Specific species vary by region. For instance, in northeastern estuaries, common
herrings (family Clupidae) include alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring
(A. aestivalis), and American shad (A. sapidissima). In southeastern estuaries, skipjack herring
(A. chrysochloris) and threadfin shad (D. petenense) are prevalent. Gizzard shad
(D. cepedianum) are found in estuarine waters all along the eastern coast and the Gulf of
Mexico.
26
27
Table 4.6-3
Commonly Impinged and Entrained Taxa at Nuclear Power Plants by
Ecosystem Type
Family
Carangidae
Common Name
jacks and pompanos
Ocean
x
Estuaries
-
Rivers
-
Great Lakes
-
Centrarchidae
sunfishes and crappies
-
-
x
-
Clupeidae
herrings
-
x
x
x
Cottoidei
sculpins
-
-
-
x
Cyprinidae
carps and minnows
-
-
x
-
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-76
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
Family
Engraulidae
Common Name
anchovies
Ocean
x
Estuaries
x
Rivers
-
Great Lakes
-
Ephippidae
x
-
-
-
Gobiidae
spadefishes, batfishes,
and scats
gobies
x
-
-
-
Ictaluridae
catfish
-
x
x
-
Lutjanidae
snappers
-
-
-
-
Moronidae
temperate basses
-
-
x
-
Osmeridae
smelts
-
-
-
x
Percidae
perch
-
-
x
x
Pleuronectidae
flounders
-
x
-
-
Pleuronectiformes
flatfishes
x
-
-
-
Sciaenidae
drums and croakers
x
x
x
-
Penaeidae
penaeid shrimp
x
-
-
-
Portunidae
swimming crabs
x
-
-
-
No entry has been denoted by “-”.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
IM&E are more of a concern at nuclear power plants that withdraw large volumes of water at
higher velocities. In general, this means that plants with once-through cooling water intake
systems impinge and entrain more organisms than plants with closed-cycle cooling systems,
such as cooling towers because the former require more water to operate. The Palisades plant
(no longer operating), which lies on Lake Michigan on the Michigan coast, demonstrates this
difference. In 1972, the plant began operating with a once-through cooling system. In 1976, the
plant transitioned to a closed-cycle system after cooling towers were constructed. An
impingement study found that with the once-through cooling system, Palisade withdrew
400,000 gpm and impinged 654,000 fish annually (Consumers Energy Company and Nuclear
Management Company 2001 as cited in the 2013 LR GEIS). Once cooling towers were
installed, the plant withdrew only 78,000 gpm annually, and impingement dropped to 7,200 fish
per year.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Impingement risk is also related to a fish’s ability to avoid the flow of water into the cooling water
intake system. Fish swimming speeds are typically characterized as burst, prolonged, or
sustained. Burst speeds are the highest speeds a fish can attain over very short periods of time
(typically less than 20 seconds). Burst speeds are exhibited when an individual is capturing
prey, avoiding a predator, or negotiating high water velocities, such as those associated with
riffles and eddies in a fast-flowing river or the draw of a power plant’s intake. Sustained speeds
are low speeds fish can maintain indefinitely without fatigue. These speeds are observed during
routine activities, including foraging, holding, and schooling. Prolonged (or critical) speeds are
those of intermediate endurance that a fish could endure for approximately 20 to 30 minutes
before ending in fatigue. If a species’ reported swimming ability indicates that individuals can
typically swim faster than a nuclear power plant’s intake velocity, the species would exhibit a low
likelihood of being impinged. Certain species may not be capable of maintaining a sustained
speed that would allow escape from an intake velocity, but an individual could swim in a burst to
avoid impingement. Many fish can avoid becoming impinged when intake velocities are less
than 0.5 feet per second (fps) (0.15 meters per second [m/s]). As discussed below, the EPA
has established this rate as one of the impingement mortality CWA Section 316(b) compliance
options for existing facilities.
February 2023
4-77
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
At the Turkey Point plant in Florida, the NRC found that all fish in the CCS would be susceptible
to impingement due to the 4.5 fps (1.4 m/s) intake velocity (NRC 2019c). Documented burst
speeds of the three known species in the canal system—sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon
variegatus), sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna), and eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki)—
were all significantly less than this value. Depending on the ecosystem of the source water,
however, fish may be capable of navigating much higher flows than 0.5 fps (0.1-5 m/s) because
the environment they live in requires this capacity. For instance, unimpounded rivers can flow
at several feet per second during high seasonal flows. Fish and other aquatic organisms in
these rivers are likely already navigating waters of higher velocities than the draw of a cooling
water intake system, and this physiological capability of local populations reduces the risk of
impingement.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Intake velocities and swimming ability is not relevant to entrainment because early life stages of
fish and other organisms susceptible to entrainment are either not motile or are semi-motile.
Therefore, all organisms in the water column from which a cooling water intake structure draws
water are susceptible to entrainment. However, some nuclear power plants seasonally reduce
water consumption during periods of high entrainment. Several nuclear power plants operate a
once-through cooling system but have helper cooling towers that are seasonally operated to
reduce thermal load to the receiving water body, reduce entrainment during peak spawning
periods, or reduce consumptive water use during periods of low river flow. These seasonal
reductions are often conditions of NPDES permits or agreements made with regional water
quality control boards. Plants with helper cooling towers include the Dresden plant on the
Kankakee River in Illinois, Browns Ferry plant on the Tennessee River in Alabama, Monticello
Nuclear Generating Plant (Monticello) and Prairie Island plant on the Mississippi River in
Minnesota, Peach Bottom plant on Conowingo Pond in Pennsylvania, and Sequoyah plant on
the Chickamauga Reservoir in Tennessee.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
IM&E often varies by season. Impingement can occur year-round, but it is often correlated with
seasonal movements and migrations of species, especially for plants located on estuaries and
bays. Entrainment is primarily of concern in the spring and summer when many species spawn
and early life stages of fish are present in the water column. For instance, Surry withdraws
cooling water from the James River in Virginia at the transitional zone between the tidally
influenced freshwater river upstream and the saline estuary downstream. Because of its
location, freshwater, estuarine, and marine fishes may all be found in the river near the plant
depending on season and salinity conditions. The local finfish community includes permanent
residents that occur year-round and diadromous species that pass through the region
seasonally during migrations to and from spawning grounds. Therefore, impingement frequency
for many migrating species is expected to be highly seasonal. Impingement studies confirm this
assumption. During impingement studies conducted at the plant, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
and Atlantic menhaden (Brevvortia tyrannus) impingement was highest in summer and early fall,
which correlates with the seasonal movements of juveniles between oceanic spawning grounds,
inshore nurseries, and overwintering areas (NRC 2020f). In contrast, white perch (Morone
americana), blueback herring, and threadfin shad were primarily impinged in late fall and winter.
Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) and Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus) impingement
was prominent only in the spring. The catfishes (Ictalurus and Pylodictis species), which are
resident species, were impinged at relatively constant levels throughout the year. At Point
Beach plant on Lake Michigan in Wisconsin, approximately 96 percent of estimated
impingement occurs from late April through early August, which mirrors the annual die-offs of
alewife in the lake as well as the species’ offshore/onshore movement patterns (NextEra Energy
2021; NRC 2021f). Alewife accounts for more than 99 percent of impingement at this plant
annually. Entrainment is also highly seasonal at Point Beach. Several studies have observed
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-78
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
that fish eggs and larvae are entrained in highest densities from early June to early August.
Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax) dominate the early sample period, while burbot (Lota lota)
become more abundant in the mid-season, correlating with these species’ spawning habits
(NextEra Energy 2021; NRC 2021f). The 2013 LR GEIS discusses several additional examples
of seasonal impingement at the Quad Cities plant in Illinois, McGuire plant in North Carolina,
and Summer plant in South Carolina.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
If a facility withdraws cooling water farther from shore, at greater depths, or otherwise in a less
biologically productive area of the source water, IM&E may be less than if the facility were to
withdraw water from elsewhere in the water body. In many water bodies, cooling water
withdrawal from shoreline locations can result in greater environmental impacts because
shoreline areas are typically the most biologically productive waters and contain a high density
of early life stage organisms. The lowest potential for impingement and entrainment is often at
far offshore locations at distances of several hundred feet (79 FR 48300). Although offshore
areas may exhibit a lower density of organisms, the species found will also change as a function
of the distance of the intake from the shoreline and the depth of the intake within the water
column. Thus, the assemblage of impingeable and entrainable organisms, in addition to the
sheer number of organisms, changes with distance from the shoreline. At the Point Beach
plant, fish and other aquatic organisms in the source water first interact with the cooling water
intake system at an intake crib that lies 1,750 ft (533 m) offshore at an approximate depth of
22 ft (7 m) below the lake’s surface (NRC 2021f). A study conducted in 2007 determined that
the offshore location of Point Beach’s intake reduces impingement by 79 percent and
entrainment by 89 percent relative to if the intake were to be located in the shallow nearshore
waters of Lake Michigan (NextEra Energy 2021). At the LaSalle plant on the Illinois River in
Illinois, estimated annual entrainment is 38 million organisms (EA Engineering 2015). However,
researchers estimated that this rate is 28 to 38 percent of annual entrainment at the Dresden
plant, which is located downstream at the confluence of the Kankakee and Illinois Rivers in a
more biologically rich region.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Some nuclear power plants have exclusion technologies that divert organisms that would have
otherwise been subject to impingement and entrainment away from the intake. Collection and
return technologies allow organisms to be impinged, but these technologies collect and return
the organisms to the source water, thereby reducing or preventing impingement mortality.
Collection and return technologies do not affect entrainment. The Surry plant’s cooling water
intake system includes a fish return system that returns impinged fish to the James River. The
system includes continuously rotating Ristroph traveling screens, low-pressure spray washes,
steel fish buckets, and a return trough. Researchers determined that 56 of the 70 taxa impinged
at Surry during a 2015–2016 study exhibited an impingement survival rate of 70 percent or
greater (HDR 2017). This included many species that the EPA defines as fragile, such as
Atlantic menhaden and gizzard shad. The NRC staff calculated impingement mortality for all
taxa (fragile and nonfragile) at Surry to be between 2.03 percent (using 2015–2016 data) and
5.60 percent (1974–1978 data), which demonstrates the effectiveness of the fish return system
(NRC 2020f). The Columbia plant, which lies on the Columbia River in Washington, is equipped
with cylindrical intake screens, which could hydraulically deflect fish and stimulate the fish’s
behavior to avoid the intake screens. Thus, there is low likelihood of impingement and
entrainment in nearly all river flow and direction cases due to the generally high ratio of
tangential (sweeping) flow to normal (approach) flow toward the screens (Anchor QEA, LLC
2020).
47
48
Impinged organisms that are returned to the source water body may experience stunning,
disorientation, or injury. These sublethal effects can subsequently affect an organism’s
February 2023
4-79
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease. The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs reported that
neither scientific literature reviews nor consultations with agencies or utilities yielded clear
evidence of sublethal effects on fish or finfish resulting in noticeable increases in impinged
organisms’ susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease. Since the publication of the
2013 LR GEIS, the NRC has determined that the impacts of impingement and entrainment at
four nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds could be SMALL
to MODERATE (2 plants), MODERATE (1 plant), or SMALL to LARGE (1 plant) during the
license renewal term (see Table 4.6-4). However, increased susceptibility to predation,
parasitism, or disease or predation resulting from impingement was not found to be an issue in
any of these reviews. The available information indicates that these secondary impacts of
impingement are not expected to be of concern during initial LR or SLR terms at any nuclear
power plants. As stated earlier in this section, because entrainable organisms generally consist
of fragile life stages, all entrained organisms are assumed to die (79 FR 48300). Therefore,
sublethal effects of entrainment do not apply.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
At some nuclear power plants, marine reptiles and marine mammals can be impinged or
entrained by the cooling water intake system in addition to finfish and shellfish. For instance, at
the Salem plant in New Jersey, sea turtles from the Delaware Estuary can become impinged in
the trash bars. When discovered, plant personnel remove the sea turtles and assess their
condition. Live, healthy turtles are returned to the estuary. At St. Lucie Nuclear Plant
(St. Lucie) in Florida, sea turtles and other marine organisms can enter one of three intake pipes
located in the Atlantic Ocean and be drawn into the intake canal where they become entrapped.
Because marine organisms that enter the intake canal cannot return to the ocean on their own,
divers capture sea turtles, transport them over the beach dunes, and release them back to the
ocean. Injured or sick sea turtles are sent to a rehabilitation facility. Sea turtle impingement or
entrainment has also occurred at the Diablo Canyon plant and San Onofre plant (no longer
operating) on the Pacific Ocean in California; Oyster Creek plant (no longer operating) on
Barnegat Bay in New Jersey; Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (Brunswick) on the Cape Fear
River estuary in Virginia, and Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant (Crystal River) (no longer
operating) on the Gulf Coast in Florida. Sea turtles are federally protected under the ESA.
Sections 3.6.3 and 4.6.1.3 address these species.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
At Seabrook on the Gulf of Main in New Hampshire, harbor (Phoca vitulina), gray (Halichoerus
grypus), harp (Pagophilus groenlandicus), and hooded (Cystophora cristata) seals have been
entrained into the intake tunnels. From 1993 through 1998, approximately 55 seals drowned
from entrainment into the intake tunnels. In 1999, following coordination with NMFS, the plant
installed seal deterrents that included vertical barriers on each of the three intake structures that
reduced the vertical spacing of the bars to less than 5 in. (13 cm) (NRC 2015b). Since
installment of these barriers, no seals have been entrained at Seabrook (NRC 2015b). At
Diablo Canyon, several California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and harbor seals and one
elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) have become entrapped in the cooling water intake
system. All of the California sea lions and harbor seals were discovered dead against the intake
trash bars or in one of the traveling screen forebays, and plant personnel removed the
carcasses from the intake structure in accordance with Diablo Canyon’s Marine Mammal
Protection Act letter of authorization (PG&E 2007, PG&E 2008a, PG&E 2008c, PG&E 2008d,
PG&E 2009a, PG&E 2009b, PG&E 2014a, PG&E 2014b, PG&E 2015a, PG&E 2015b, PG&E
2015c). Most of these animals were in some state of decomposition, and their deaths were not
attributed to plant operation. The elephant seal, a juvenile, was discovered in a recess between
concrete tri-bars on the intake cover breakwater; plant personnel successfully returned it to the
intake cove (PG&E 2008b). The Diablo Canyon plant has not reported any marine mammal
impingements or strandings since 2015.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-80
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
Table 4.6-4 summarizes the results of the NRC’s impingement and entrainment analyses for
initial LR and SLR environmental reviews conducted since the 2013 LR GEIS was published.
The 2013 LR GEIS discusses impingement and entrainment findings from reviews prior to 2013
and includes many additional examples relevant to this issue.
5
6
Table 4.6-4 Results of NRC Impingement and Entrainment Analyses at Nuclear Power
Plants, 2013–Present
Nuclear Power
Plant
Cooling Water Source
Impingement and
Entrainment Conclusion
Braidwood
Cooling pond
Constructed cooling pond
SMALL to MODERATE(a)
with makeup water from the
Kankakee River
Byron
Cooling towers (ND)
Rock River
SMALL
Callaway
Cooling towers (ND)
Missouri River
SMALL
Davis-Besse
Cooling towers (ND)
Lake Erie
SMALL
Fermi
Cooling towers (ND)
Lake Erie
SMALL
Grand Gulf
Cooling towers (ND)
Mississippi River
SMALL
Indian Point(b)
Once-through
Hudson River
MODERATE(c)
LaSalle
Cooling pond
Constructed cooling pond
with makeup from the
Illinois River
SMALL
Cooling towers (ND)
Schuylkill River
SMALL
Cooling pond
Lake Anna
SMALL
Limerick
North Anna
(d)
Peach Bottom(d)
Hybrid: once-through (Unit
Conowingo Pond
2); once-through and cooling
towers (MD) (Unit 3)
SMALL
Point Beach(d)
Once-through
Lake Michigan
SMALL
River Bend
Cooling towers (MD)
Mississippi River
SMALL
Seabrook
Once-through
Gulf of Maine
SMALL to LARGE(e)
Sequoyah
Hybrid: once-through and
cooling towers (ND)
Chickamauga Reservoir
SMALL
South Texas
Cooling pond
Constructed cooling
reservoir with makeup
water from the Colorado
River
SMALL
Surry(b)
Once-through
James River
SMALL
Turkey Point
Cooling pond
Constructed CCS with
makeup from the Upper
Floridan aquifer
SMALL to MODERATE(f)
Waterford
Once-through
Mississippi River
SMALL
(b)
7
8
9
10
Cooling System Type
MD = mechanical draft; ND = natural draft; CCS = cooling canal system.
(a) Impingement and entrainment effects would be SMALL for aquatic resources in the Kankakee River as a whole.
Impacts on cyprinids, especially uncommon cyprinids (pallid shiner [Notropis amnis], mimic shiner [N. volucellus],
and ghost shiner [N. buchanani]); darters; and Percina species would be MODERATE. The NRC cannot make a
February 2023
4-81
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
determination on the impact of impingement and entrainment on the aquatic resources in the cooling pond
because no studies exist on impingement and entrainment at the lake screen house.
(b) This evaluation was a part of a review that supplemented the NRC's final SEIS.
(c) While most aquatic organisms would experience SMALL effects, some would experience noticeable effects as a
result of impingement and entrainment. These organisms include blueback herring, rainbow smelt, and
hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus).
(d) This review evaluated a subsequent license renewal term.
(e) Impingement and entrainment would be SMALL for most aquatic resources in the Gulf of Maine. Impacts on
winter flounder would be LARGE because monitoring data indicate that the abundance of winter flounder has
decreased to a greater and observable extent near the Seabrook plant compared to reference sites. The local
decrease suggests that local subpopulations of this species have been destabilized through operation of
Seabrook’s cooling water system.
(f) Impingement and entrainment effects would be SMALL to MODERATE for aquatic organisms of the CCS.
Impingement and entrainment do not apply to aquatic organisms in Biscayne Bay and connected water bodies
(e.g., Card Sound, the Atlantic Ocean) because these organisms never interact with the Turkey Point intake
structure.
Sources: NRC 2013b, NRC 2014d, NRC 2014e, NRC 2014f, NRC 2015b, NRC 2015c, NRC 2015d, NRC 2015e,
NRC 2015f, NRC 2016c, NRC 2016d, NRC 2018c, NRC 2018e, NRC 2020f, NRC 2020g, NRC 2021f, NRC 2021g.
19
20
IM&E of aquatic organisms would continue throughout the license renewal term for any
operating nuclear power plant. The effects of IM&E are discussed below as three issues:
21
22
•
impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling ponds);
23
24
•
impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers);
and
25
•
entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
A number of mitigative measures can reduce the effects of IM&E. These include withdrawal of
water at rates of 0.5 fps (0.15 m/s) or less, seasonal reductions in intake volume during peak
periods of entrainment; locating the cooling water intake system in a less biological productive
area of the source water, and use of exclusion technologies or fish return systems. Additionally,
Section 316(b) of the CWA addresses these effects and requires that cooling water intake
structures of regulated facilities must reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing
IM&E, as discussed below.
33
Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Requirements for Minimizing IM&E at Existing Facilities
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Section 316(b) of the CWA addresses the adverse environmental impacts caused by the intake
of cooling water from waters of the United States. This section of the CWA grants the EPA the
authority to regulate cooling water intake structures to minimize adverse impacts on the aquatic
environment. In 2014, pursuant to CWA Section 316(b), the EPA issued regulations for existing
facilities at 40 CFR 122 and 40 CFR 125, Subpart J (79 FR 48300). Existing facilities include
power generation and manufacturing facilities that are not new facilities as defined at
40 CFR 125.83 and that withdraw more than 2 Mgd of water from waters of the United States
and use at least 25 percent of the water they withdraw exclusively for cooling purposes.
42
43
44
45
Under the CWA Section 316(b) regulations, the location, design, construction, and capacity of
cooling water intake structures of regulated facilities must reflect the BTA for minimizing IM&E.
The EPA, or authorized States and Tribes, impose BTA requirements through NPDES
permitting programs.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-82
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
With respect to impingement mortality, the BTA standard requires that existing facilities comply
with one of the following seven alternatives (40 CFR 125.94(c)):
3
•
operate a closed-cycle recirculating system as defined at 40 CFR 125.92(c)
4
5
•
operate a cooling water intake structure that has a maximum through-screen design intake
velocity of 0.5 fps (0.15 m/s)
6
7
•
operate a cooling water intake structure that has a maximum through-screen intake velocity
of 0.5 fps (0.15 m/s)
8
9
•
operate an offshore velocity cap as defined at 40 CFR 125.92 that is installed before
October 14, 2014
10
11
12
•
operate a modified traveling screen that the NPDES Permit Director determines meets the
definition at 40 CFR 125.92(s) and that the NPDES Permit Director determines is the BTA
for impingement reduction at the site
13
14
•
operate any other combination of technologies, management practices, and operational
measures that the NPDES Permit Director determines is the BTA for impingement reduction
15
•
achieve the specified impingement mortality performance standard.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Options 1, 2, and 4 above are essentially preapproved technologies requiring no demonstration
or only a minimal demonstration that the flow reduction and control measures are functioning as
EPA envisioned. Options 3, 5, and 6 require that more detailed information be submitted to the
permitting authority before the permitting authority may specify it as BTA for a given facility.
Under Option 7, the permitting authority may also review plant-specific data and conclude that a
de minimis rate of impingement exists and, therefore, no additional controls are warranted to
meet the BTA impingement mortality standard.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
With respect to entrainment, the CWA Section 316(b) regulations do not prescribe a single
nationally applicable entrainment performance standard because the EPA did not identify a
technology for reducing entrainment that is effective, widely available, feasible, and does not
lead to unacceptable non-water quality impacts. Instead, the permitting authority must establish
the BTA entrainment requirement for each facility on a plant-specific basis. In establishing
plant-specific requirements, the regulations direct the permitting authority to consider the
following factors (40 CFR 125.98(f)(2)):
30
31
32
•
the numbers and types of organisms entrained, including, specifically, the numbers and
species (or lowest taxonomic classification possible) of federally listed, threatened and
endangered species, and designated critical habitat (e.g., prey base);
33
34
•
the impact of changes in particulate emissions or other pollutants associated with
entrainment technologies;
35
•
the land availability inasmuch as it relates to the feasibility of entrainment technology;
36
•
the remaining useful plant life; and
37
38
•
the quantified and qualitative social benefits and costs of available entrainment technologies
when such information about both benefits and costs is of sufficient rigor to make a decision.
39
40
In support of entrainment BTA determinations, facilities must conduct plant-specific studies and
provide data to the permitting authority to aid in its determination of whether plant-specific
February 2023
4-83
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
controls would be required to reduce entrainment and which controls, if any, would be
necessary.
3
4
The NRC considers whether nuclear power plants have implemented BTA when assessing the
impacts of IM&E, as discussed below.
5
Thermal Impacts
6
7
8
9
10
11
Thermal impacts associated with thermal effluent discharges from cooling water systems
include acute effects, sublethal effects, and community-level effects. Acute effects cause
immediate or latent death of aquatic organisms. Sublethal effects include stunning,
disorientation, or injury that affect an organism’s fitness, behavior, or susceptibility to predation,
parasitism, or disease. Community-level effects can include reduced habitat availability or
quality and reduced species diversity.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The primary thermal impact of concern at operating nuclear power plants is the acute effect of
heat shock. Heat shock occurs when water temperatures meet or exceed the thermal tolerance
of a species for some duration of exposure. In most situations, fish can move out of an area
that exceeds their thermal tolerance limits, although some aquatic species lack such mobility.
Heat shock is typically observable only for finfish, particularly those that float when dead. In
addition to heat shock, thermal plumes resulting from thermal effluents can create barriers to
fish passage, which is of particular concern for migratory species. Thermal effluents are not as
likely to affect shellfish because plumes tend to rise to the surface of the water and shellfish
typically inhabit the benthic zone. In addition to having direct effects on aquatic organisms,
thermal plumes can also reduce the available aquatic habitat or alter habitat characteristics in a
manner that results in cascading effects on the local aquatic community.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
The magnitude of thermal impacts on the aquatic environment depends on the plant-specific
characteristics of the cooling system as well as the characteristics of the local aquatic
community. Relevant plant characteristics include discharge location, temperature of the
effluent when it enters the receiving water body, thermal plume characteristics, and any
technologies that assist in mixing or otherwise reducing thermal impacts. Relevant
characteristics of the aquatic community include the species present in the environment, life
history characteristics, population abundances and distributions, special species statuses and
designations, and regional management objectives, as well as the characteristics of the
receiving water, such as ambient temperatures and typical flow of water near the discharge
point.
33
34
35
36
Thermal effects are more of a concern at nuclear power plants that discharge large volumes of
heated effluents. In general, this means that plants with once-through cooling water intake
systems or cooling ponds have a larger thermal impact than plants with closed-cycle cooling
systems, such as cooling towers, because the former require more water to operate.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Fish kills are an acute thermal effect that is typically observed only at plants with cooling ponds.
This may be because heat dissipation of the thermal effluent is limited by the size of the
receiving water body and because aquatic organisms in cooling ponds are unable to escape
thermal plumes. Many freshwater fish, such as those species that inhabiting cooling ponds,
experience thermal stress and can die when they encounter water temperatures at or above
95 °F (35 °C). Fish kills tend to occur when water temperatures rise above this level for some
prolonged period of time and fish are unable to tolerate the higher temperatures or cannot
retreat into cooler waters. Fish that experience thermal effects within the region of a receiving
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-84
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
water body that is thermally affected by a nuclear power plant’s effluent discharge are
experiencing effects that are, at least in part, attributable to plant operation.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Fish kills have been observed in the summer months at several midwestern plants with cooling
ponds, including the Braidwood and LaSalle plants in Illinois. Such events tend to be correlated
with periods of high ambient air temperatures, low winds, and high humidity. For instance, six
reportable fish kill events occurred in the Braidwood cooling pond from 2001 through 2015. The
fish kill events, which occurred in July 2001, August 2001, June 2005, August 2007, June 2009,
and July 2012, primarily affected threadfin shad and gizzard shad, although bass, catfish, carp,
and other game fish were also affected (NRC 2015d). Reported peak temperatures in the
cooling pond during these events ranged from 98.4 °F (36.9 °C) to over 100 °F (37.8 °C), and
each event resulted in the death of between 700 to as many as 10,000 fish. During the July
2012 event, cooling pond temperatures exceeded 100 °F (37.8 °C), which resulted in the death
of approximately 3,000 gizzard shad and 100 bass, catfish, and carp. This event coincided with
the NRC's granting of Enforcement Discretion to allow the Braidwood plant to continue to
operate above the technical specification limit of less than or equal to 100 °F (37.8 °C) (NRC
2021b). At the LaSalle plant, Exelon has reported four fish kill events since 2001. The events
occurred in July 2001, June 2005, June 2009, and August 2010, and primarily affected gizzard
shad. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources identified other dead fish to include carp
(Cyprinus carpio), smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus
grunniens), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), striped bass hybrid (Morone chrysops x M.
saxatilis), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), walleye (Sander vitreus), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), white bass (Morone chrysops), yellow bullhead catfish (Ameiurus natalis), and
yellow bass (M. mississippiensis) (NRC 2016d). The temperature in the cooling pond during
these events ranged from 93 °F (33.9 °C) to 101 °F (38.3 °C), and each event resulted in the
death of approximately 1,500 to 94,500 fish (NRC 2021a).
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Fish kill events have rarely been reported at nuclear power plants without cooling ponds. Two
fish kills occurred at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station (Pilgrim) on Cape Cod in Massachusetts in
the 1970s, but no such events have been reported since then. In 1975, about 3,000 Atlantic
menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) were killed, and in 1978, about 2,300 Clupeidae (herrings,
shads, sardines, and menhadens) were killed (NRC 2007c). After several fish kills at the
Summer plant on the Monticello Reservoir in South Carolina in the 1980s, the licensee modified
the discharge to reduce the likelihood of future fish kills by removing a hump in the discharge
canal, dredging the canal, and limiting reservoir drawdowns (NRC 2004b).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Thermal effluents of nuclear power plants can also contribute to sublethal effects, such as the
stunning or disorientation of fish and other aquatic organisms exposed to elevated water
temperatures. Such effects can increase the susceptibility of affected individuals to predation.
Schubel et al. (1977) concluded that the exposure of blueback herring, American shad, and
striped bass (Morone saxatilis) larvae to an excess of 59 °F (15 °C) would significantly increase
their vulnerability to predation. However, such effects are difficult to prove from field studies.
The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs did not report such effects, and no license renewal environmental
reviews since the publication of the 2013 LR GEIS have identified this issue to be of concern.
42
43
44
45
46
47
Aquatic organisms overwintering within thermal plumes can also experience chronic malnutrition
(Hall et al. 1978). Thermal discharges can also increase the susceptibility of fish to disease and
parasites because of a combination of increased density of fish within the thermal plume
(potentially leading to an increased risk of exposure to infectious diseases or other stresses)
and the proliferation of many diseases and parasites in warmer water. Examples of other
temperature-related impacts on aquatic resources could include the loss of smolt characteristics
February 2023
4-85
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
in salmon (McCormick et al. 1999) and premature spawning (Hall et al. 1978). However, none
of these effects have been specifically linked to operation of any nuclear power plants.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Community-level effects of thermal effluent discharges can include reduced habitat availability
or quality and reduced species diversity. These effects are typically localized and often only
affect certain microhabitats, species, or taxa groups. For instance, at the Peach Bottom plant,
which discharges to Conowingo Pond in Pennsylvania, the NRC found that thermal effluents
would result in no noticeable effect on the aquatic community during most of the year and in
most areas of the cooling pond (NRC 2020g). However, during summer months, thermal
studies indicated that a narrow 12 ac (4.9 ha) band of shallow water habitat downstream of the
discharge canal exhibited short-term, observable changes, including reduced macroinvertebrate
community health and lower fish diversity. The NRC determined that these impacts would likely
continue during the license renewal term because the characteristics of thermal discharges
would remain the same as those during the initial period of operation. As a result, aquatic
organisms in this shallow water habitat would seasonally experience thermal stress and might
exhibit avoidance behaviors.
16
17
18
19
Table 4.6-5 summarizes the results of the NRC’s thermal analyses for initial LR and SLR
environmental reviews conducted since the publication of the 2013 LR GEIS. The 2013 LR
GEIS discusses thermal findings from reviews prior to 2013 and includes many additional
examples relevant to this issue.
20
Table 4.6-5
Nuclear Power
Plant
Results of NRC Thermal Analyses at Nuclear Power Plants, 2013–Present
Cooling System Type
Cooling Water Source
Thermal Impact
Conclusion
Braidwood
Cooling pond
Constructed cooling pond
with makeup water from
the Kankakee River
SMALL to MODERATE(a)
Byron
Cooling towers (ND)
Rock River
SMALL
Callaway
Cooling towers (ND)
Missouri River
SMALL
Davis-Besse
Cooling towers (ND)
Lake Erie
SMALL
Fermi
Cooling towers (ND)
Lake Erie
SMALL
Grand Gulf
Cooling towers (ND)
Mississippi River
SMALL
Indian Point(b)
Once-through
Hudson River
SMALL
LaSalle
Cooling pond
Constructed cooling pond
with makeup from the
Illinois River
SMALL to MODERATE(c)
Limerick
Cooling towers (ND)
Schuylkill River
SMALL
North Anna(d)
Cooling pond
Lake Anna
SMALL
Peach Bottom(d)
Hybrid: once-through
(Unit 2); once-through and
cooling towers (MD)
(Unit 3)
Conowingo Pond
SMALL to MODERATE(e)
Point Beach(d)
Once-through
Lake Michigan
SMALL
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-86
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
Nuclear Power
Plant
Cooling System Type
River Bend
Cooling towers (MD)
Cooling Water Source
Mississippi River
Thermal Impact
Conclusion
SMALL
Seabrook
Once-through
Gulf of Maine
SMALL
Sequoyah
Hybrid: once-through and
cooling towers (ND)
Chickamauga Reservoir
SMALL
South Texas
Cooling pond
Constructed cooling
reservoir with makeup
water from the Colorado
River
SMALL
Surry(b)
Once-through
James River
SMALL
Turkey Point(b)
Cooling pond
Constructed CCS with
makeup from the Upper
Floridan aquifer
SMALL to MODERATE(f)
Waterford
Once-through
Mississippi River
SMALL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MD = mechanical draft; ND = natural draft; cooling canal system = CCS.
(a) Thermal impacts associated with license renewal would result in SMALL impacts on aquatic resources in the
Kankakee River and SMALL to MODERATE impacts on aquatic resources in the cooling pond. MODERATE
impacts would primarily be experienced by gizzard shad and other non-stocked and low-heat tolerant species.
(b) This evaluation was a part of a review that supplemented the NRC's final SEIS.
(c) Thermal impacts would be SMALL for all aquatic resources in the Illinois River and SMALL for aquatic resources
in the cooling pond, except for gizzard shad and threadfin shad. Gizzard shad and threadfin shad would
experience MODERATE thermal impacts in the cooling pond.
(d) This review evaluated a subsequent license renewal term.
(e) During most of the year and in most areas of Conowingo Pond, the thermal effluent would not noticeably affect
the aquatic community and its impact would be SMALL. However, during summer months, a narrow 12 ac
(4.9 ha) band of shallow water habitat downstream of the discharge canal would exhibit short-term, observable
changes, including reduced macroinvertebrate community health and lower fish diversity. Seasonal impacts in
this region would be MODERATE because water temperatures would result in thermal stress and avoidance
behaviors.
(f) Thermal impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE for aquatic organisms because the thermal effluent may result
in some degree of physiological stress on cooling canal system aquatic organisms. However, thermal impacts
are unlikely to create effects great enough to destabilize important attributes of the aquatic environment over the
course of the subsequent license renewal term because the cooling canal system aquatic community is
composed of species that exhibit no unique ecological value or niche and have no commercial or recreational
value. Aquatic organisms inhabiting Biscayne Bay are not subject to thermal impacts associated with Turkey
Point because there are no surface water connections that allow flow between these waters and the cooling
canal system.
Sources: NRC 2013b, NRC 2014d, NRC 2014e, NRC 2014f, NRC 2015b, NRC 2015c, NRC 2015d, NRC 2015e,
NRC 2015f, NRC 2016c, NRC 2016d, NRC 2018c, NRC 2018e, NRC 2020f, NRC 2020g, NRC 2021f, NRC 2021g.
26
27
28
Thermal effluent discharges would continue throughout the license renewal term for any
operating nuclear power plant. The effects of thermal effluent discharges are discussed below
as three issues:
29
30
•
effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems
or cooling ponds);
31
•
effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers); and
32
•
infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents.
February 2023
4-87
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Several mitigative measures can reduce thermal effects. These include routing effluent through
discharge canals or settling ponds that dissipate heat before the effluent enters the receiving
water body and using high-velocity discharge jets that disperse thermal effluents and promote
rapid mixing. Additionally, Section 316(a) of the CWA addresses thermal effects and requires
that facilities operate under effluents limitations that assure the protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving body of
water, as discussed below.
8
Clean Water Act Section 316(a) Requirements for Point Source Discharges
9
10
11
12
13
CWA Section 316(a) (79 FR 48300) addresses the adverse environmental impacts associated
with thermal discharges into waters of the United States. Under this section of the Act, the EPA,
or authorized States and Tribes, establish thermal surface water quality criteria for waters of the
United States within their jurisdiction. States have established standards that incorporate
several different types of temperature criteria. These criteria include the following:
14
15
•
Maximum temperature limit: a limit on the maximum temperature in a water body. This is
the core of temperature standards in nearly every state.
16
17
18
•
Temperature rise above ambient: a limit on the temperature rise above ambient or natural
conditions. This criterion is common among states and is usually specific to habitat type,
seasons, designated uses, or specific water body.
19
20
21
•
Abrupt temperature change: a restriction in the rate of temperature change over a brief
period of time to protect aquatic life from heat shock that can result in lethal or sub-lethal
effects.
22
23
•
Diel and seasonal variability: an allowance for varied temperature depending on the time of
day or season. This type of standard is usually narrative rather than quantitative.
24
25
26
•
Species diversity: a standard that ensures that the aquatic ecosystem continues to provide
an array of microhabitats with a range of temperatures to promote species and spatial
diversity. This type of standard is usually narrative.
27
28
29
30
•
Other criteria: other types of temperature criteria have been established in certain states.
For instance, California has established a limit on the difference between the discharge
temperature and the receiving water body temperature. Florida maintains a maximum
temperature of the discharge itself.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Additionally, water quality criteria typically address thermal mixing zones, which the EPA (2017)
defines as “a limited area or volume of water where initial dilution of a discharge takes place and
where numeric water quality criteria can be exceeded but acutely toxic conditions are
prevented.” Mixing zones should provide a continuous zone of passage that meets water
quality criteria for free-swimming and drifting organisms and that prevents impairment of critical
resource areas. An example of State standards where the mixing zone is specified is in Illinois,
where the specified temperature criteria must be met outside the mixing zone, defined as no
greater than a circle with a radius of 1,000 ft (305 m) or equivalent simple shape.
39
40
41
42
43
44
Under CWA Section 316(a), the EPA, or authorized States and Tribes, also have the authority
to impose alternative, less-stringent, facility-specific effluent limits (called “variances”) on the
thermal component of individual point source discharges. To be eligible, regulated facilities
must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the NPDES permitting authority, that facility-specific
effluent limitations will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving body of water. CWA
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-88
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
Section 316(a) variances are valid for the term of the NPDES permit (i.e., 5 years). Facilities
must reapply for variances with each NPDES permit renewal application. The EPA has issued
regulations under CWA Section 316(a) at 40 CFR 125, Subpart H.
4
5
6
The NRC considers whether nuclear power plants have valid CWA 316(a) variances when
assessing the impacts of thermal discharges on aquatic organisms, as discussed later in this
section (see Section 4.6.1.2.4).
7
8
4.6.1.2.1 Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with OnceThrough Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
This issue pertains to IM&E of finfish and shellfish at nuclear power plants with once-through
cooling systems and cooling ponds during an initial LR or SLR term. This includes plants with
helper cooling towers that are seasonally operated to reduce thermal load to the receiving water
body, reduce entrainment during peak spawning periods, or reduce consumptive water use
during periods of low river flow. IM&E of finfish and shellfish at nuclear power plants with
cooling towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode is addressed in Section 4.6.1.2.2.
Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton is addressed in Section 4.6.1.2.3. Impingement
and entrainment of federally protected species subject to interagency consultation, such as sea
turtles and sturgeon, is addressed in Section 4.6.1.3.2.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that the impacts of impingement and
entrainment of aquatic organisms would be SMALL at many nuclear power plants with oncethrough cooling systems or cooling ponds, as well as plants that operate in a hybrid mode
(i.e., once-through cooling with cooling towers that operate intermittently), but that these impacts
could be MODERATE or LARGE at some plants. Therefore, impingement and entrainment
were considered Category 2 issues for these plants. The 1996 LR GEIS addressed
impingement and entrainment as two distinct issues. The 2013 LR GEIS combined the two
issues into one issue titled, “impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with
once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds).”
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
In this LR GEIS, the NRC refines the title of this issue to include impingement mortality, rather
than simply impingement. This change is consistent with the EPA’s 2014 CWA Section 316(b)
regulations and the EPA’s assessment that impingement reduction technology is available,
feasible, and has been demonstrated to be effective. For example, and as described above,
impingement mortality at the Surry plant is estimated at between 2.03 and 5.60 percent (NRC
2020f). Therefore, although the plant’s once-through cooling system impinges a large number
of organisms, the highly effective fish return system ensures that the majority of organisms are
returned back to the river unharmed. Additionally, the EPA’s 2014 CWA Section 316(b)
regulations establish BTA standards for impingement mortality based on the fact that survival is
a more appropriate metric for determining environmental impact than simply looking at total
impingement. Survival studies typically take into account latent mortality associated with
stunning, disorientation, or injury. Such effects can result from the injury itself or from increased
susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease that results from the sublethal effects of
impingement. Therefore, this LR GEIS also consolidates the impingement component of the
February 2023
4-89
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
issue of “losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal
stresses,”11 for plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds into this issue.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
As a result of the 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations, nuclear power plants must submit
detailed information about their cooling water intake systems as part of NPDES permit renewal
applications to support the permitting authority in making BTA determinations. Of note, for
existing facilities that withdraw greater than 125 Mgd of water for cooling purposes, 40 CFR
122.21(r)(9) requires these facilities to submit an entrainment characterization study, and 40
CFR 122.21(r)(6) requires these facilities to submit their chosen method(s) of compliance with
the impingement mortality standard, including supporting studies and data for Options (3), (5),
and (6) listed above. In NPDES permits issued since 2014, permitting authorities have typically
included a timeline for submittal of this information as special conditions of the permit, and the
permitting authority has used this information to make final BTA determinations during the
subsequent five-year NPDES permitting cycle. Thus, some nuclear power plants have received
final BTA determinations under the 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations. Many others have
submitted the required information and are awaiting final determinations. The NRC staff
expects that most operating nuclear power plants will have final BTA determinations within the
next several years.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
When available, the NRC staff relies on the expertise and authority of the NPDES permitting
authority with respect to the impacts of IM&E. Therefore, if the NPDES permitting authority has
made BTA determinations for a nuclear power plant pursuant to CWA Section 316(b) in
accordance with the current regulations at 40 CFR Part 122 and 40 CFR Part 125, which were
promulgated in 2014, and that plant has implemented any associated requirements or those
requirements would be implemented before the license renewal period, then the NRC staff
assumes that adverse impacts on the aquatic environment would be minimized (see 10 CFR
51.10(c); 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B); 10 CFR 51.71(d)). In such cases, the NRC staff concludes
that the impacts of either impingement mortality, entrainment, or both would be SMALL over the
course of the initial LR or SLR renewal term for these nuclear power plants.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
In cases where the NPDES permitting authority has not made BTA determinations, the NRC
staff analyzes the potential impacts of impingement mortality, entrainment, or both using a
weight-of-evidence approach. In this approach, the staff considers multiple lines of evidence to
assess the presence or absence of ecological impairment (i.e., noticeable or detectable impact)
on the aquatic environment. For instance, as its lines of evidence, the staff might consider
characteristics of the cooling water intake system design, the results of impingement and
entrainment studies performed at the facility, and trends in fish and shellfish population
abundance indices. The staff then considers these lines of evidence together to predict the
level of impact (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) that the aquatic environment is likely to
experience over the course of the initial LR or SLR term.
38
39
40
41
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. In summary, the potential effects of IM&E during an initial
LR or SLR term depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the
plant; the characteristics of the cooling system; and the characteristics of the fish, shellfish, and
11
The potential for thermal effluents to cause sublethal stresses that increase the susceptibility of
aquatic organisms to predation, parasitism, or disease is evaluated in Section 4.6.1.2.6. The potential for
impingement to cause sublethal stresses at plants with cooling towers is addressed in Section 4.6.1.2.2.
Entrainment would not result in sublethal stresses because entrainable organisms generally consist of
fragile life stages, and all entrained organisms are assumed to die (79 FR 48300).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-90
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
other aquatic organisms present in the area (e.g., life history, distribution, population trends,
management objectives, etc.). Additionally, whether the NPDES permitting authority has made
BTA determinations pursuant to CWA Section 316(b) and whether the nuclear power plant has
implemented any associated requirements is also a relevant factor. In general, if the NPDES
permitting authority has made such determinations and the nuclear power plant has
implemented any associated requirements, then the NRC staff assumes that adverse impacts
on the aquatic environment will be minimized and that the impacts of IM&E will be SMALL; if this
is not the case, impacts could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.
9
10
11
The NRC concludes that the impacts of IM&E of aquatic organisms during the license renewal
term (initial LR or SLR) at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling
ponds could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. This is a Category 2 issue.
12
13
4.6.1.2.2 Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling
Towers)
14
15
16
17
18
19
This issue pertains to IM&E of finfish and shellfish at nuclear power plants with cooling towers
that operate in a fully closed-cycle mode during an initial LR or SLR term. IM&E of finfish and
shellfish at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds is
addressed in Section 4.6.1.2.1. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton is addressed in
Section 4.6.1.2.3. Impingement and entrainment of federally protected species subject to
interagency consultation, such as sea turtles and sturgeon, are addressed in Section 4.6.1.3.2.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that the impacts of impingement and
entrainment of aquatic organisms would be SMALL at all nuclear power plants with cooling
towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode. Therefore, impingement and entrainment were
considered Category 1 issues for these plants. The 1996 LR GEIS addressed impingement and
entrainment as two distinct issues. The 2013 LR GEIS combined the two issues into one issue
titled, “impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers).” In this
LR GEIS, the NRC refines the title of this issue to include impingement mortality, rather than
simply impingement. This change is consistent with the EPA’s 2014 CWA Section 316(b)
regulations and because assessing survival of impinged organisms is a more appropriate metric
for determining environmental impact than simply looking at total impingement. Survival studies
typically take into account latent mortality associated with stunning, disorientation, or injury.
Such effects can result from the injury itself or from increased susceptibility to predation,
parasitism, or disease that results from the sublethal effects of impingement. Therefore, this LR
GEIS also consolidates the impingement component of the issue of “losses from predation,
parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses,”12 for plants with
cooling towers into this issue.
36
37
38
39
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC found that impingement and entrainment of finfish
and shellfish at plants with cooling towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode did not result in
noticeable effects on finfish or shellfish populations within source water bodies, and this impact
was not expected to be an issue during the license renewal term. This finding was based, in
12
The potential for thermal effluents to cause sublethal stresses that increase the susceptibility of
aquatic organisms to predation, parasitism, or disease is evaluated in Section 4.6.1.2.6. The potential for
impingement to cause sublethal stresses at plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds is
addressed in Section 4.6.1.2.1. Entrainment would not result in sublethal stresses because entrainable
organisms generally consist of fragile life stages, and all entrained organisms are assumed to die (79 FR
48300).
February 2023
4-91
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
part, on the lower rates of water withdrawal at plants with cooling towers that operate in a fully
closed-cycle mode. Of the various factors that can influence IM&E, the volume of water
withdrawn by a cooling water intake system relative to the size of the source water body
appears to be the best predictor of the quantity of organisms that would be impinged or
entrained within a given aquatic system (Henderson and Seaby 2000). Because cooling towers
minimize the volume of water withdrawn by a nuclear power plant, the impacts of IM&E from a
plant with cooling towers that operates in a fully closed-cycle mode would generally be smaller
than the impacts from a plant with a once-through cooling system or a cooling pond. This
finding is further supported by the EPA’s 2014 CWA Section 316(b) regulations for existing
facilities at 40 CFR 122 and 40 CFR 125, Subpart J (79 FR 48300). As described in
Section 4.6.1.2 under “Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Requirements for Minimizing IM&E at
Existing Facilities,” operation of a closed-cycle recirculating system is an essentially
preapproved technology for achieving impingement mortality BTA. This finding does not apply
to nuclear power plants that seasonally or intermittently use cooling towers in a helper mode to
mitigate thermal effects, entrainment, or consumptive water use, but that otherwise operate as
once-through system. These hybrid systems are included under the evaluation of once-through
cooling water intake systems above.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs determined that impingement may result in sublethal effects that
could increase the susceptibility of fish or shellfish to predation, disease, or parasitism.
However, only once-through cooling systems were anticipated to be of concern for this issue.
The lower volume of water required by nuclear power plants with cooling towers that operate in
a fully closed-cycle mode would also minimize this potential effect. The 1996 and 2013 LR
GEISs reported that neither scientific literature reviews nor consultations with agencies or
utilities yielded clear evidence of sublethal effects on fish or finfish resulting in noticeable
increases in impinged organisms’ susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease, regardless
of cooling system type. Since the publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC has identified no
information about this issue for plants with cooling towers. The available information indicates
that these secondary impacts of impingement are not expected to be of concern during initial LR
or SLR terms at nuclear power plants with cooling towers. As stated earlier in this section,
because entrainable organisms generally consist of fragile life stages, all entrained organisms
are assumed to die (79 FR 48300). Therefore, sublethal effects of entrainment do not apply.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
In considering the effects of IM&E of closed-cycle cooling systems on aquatic ecology, the NRC
evaluated the same issues that were evaluated for nuclear power plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling ponds in Section 4.6.1.2.1. No significant impacts on aquatic
populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power plants with cooling towers
operating in a closed-cycle mode in scientific literature or in license renewal SEISs published to
date. Initial LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors
rather than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and
license renewal on aquatic resources would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of IM&E
on aquatic organisms at plants with cooling towers would be minor and would neither destabilize
nor noticeably alter any important attribute of finfish or shellfish populations in source water
bodies during initial LR or SLR terms. As part of obtaining BTA determinations under CWA
316(b), permitting authorities may require some nuclear power plants to implement additional
plant-specific controls to reduce IM&E. Implementation of such controls would further reduce or
mitigate IM&E during the license renewal term. The staff reviewed information in scientific
literature and from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013
LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for
this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. The NRC concludes that the impacts of IM&E on
aquatic organisms during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-92
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
nuclear power plants with cooling towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode. This is a
Category 1 issue.
3
4.6.1.2.3 Entrainment of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton
4
5
6
7
This issue pertains to the entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton during an initial LR or
SLR term. The IM&E of fish and shellfish, including ichthyoplankton and larval stages of
shellfish, are addressed above in two issues based on cooling water intake system type in
Sections 4.6.1.2.1 and 4.6.1.2.2.
8
9
10
11
12
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that entrainment of phytoplankton and
zooplankton would be SMALL at all nuclear power plants. Therefore, this was considered a
Category 1 issue for all plants regardless of cooling water intake system type. Impingement
does not apply to phytoplankton or zooplankton because these organisms are too small to be
trapped against intake structure screening devices.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Most nuclear power plants were required to monitor for entrainment effects during the initial
years of operation. The effects of entrainment on phytoplankton and zooplankton are
considered to be of SMALL significance if monitoring indicates no evidence that nuclear power
plant operation has reduced or otherwise affected populations of these organisms in the source
water body. For example, about 70 percent of the copepods (a group of planktonic
crustaceans) entrained at the Millstone plant in Connecticut suffered mortality, but this loss only
represented 0.1 to 0.3 percent of the copepod production of eastern Long Island Sound
(Carpenter et al. 1974). At the Calvert Cliffs plant, which withdraws cooling water from the
Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, entrainment survival for the five most abundant zooplankton
species was 65 to 100 percent (NRC 1999c). At the D.C. Cook plant on Lake Michigan,
researchers determined that zooplankton losses associated with entrainment were too small to
be detected in the lake. Researchers concluded that fish predation, rather than entrainment,
was the major source of zooplankton mortality in inshore waters during most of the year (Evans
et al. 1986). At the Seabrook plant on the Gulf of Maine in New Hampshire, researchers
compared the densities of holoplankton, meroplankton, and hyperbenthos taxa prior to and
during operation at nearfield and farfield sites and found no significant differences in densities
prior to and during operations or between the sampling sites (NAI 1998). Researchers also
found no significant differences in phytoplankton abundance or chlorophyll concentrations
between the nearfield and farfield sites, nor was there any significant difference prior to and
during operations (NAI 1998). Based on these results, the NRC (NRC 2015b) found that
Seabrook operation had not noticeably altered zooplankton or phytoplankton abundance near
the Seabrook site.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Initial LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors
rather than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and
license renewal on aquatic resources would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of
entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton would be minor and would neither destabilize nor
noticeably alter any important attribute of populations of these organisms in source water bodies
during the initial LR or SLR terms of any nuclear power plants. As part of obtaining BTA
entrainment determinations under CWA 316(b), permitting authorities may require some nuclear
power plants to implement additional plant-specific controls to reduce entrainment.
Implementation of such controls would further reduce or mitigate entrainment of phytoplankton
and zooplankton. The staff reviewed information in scientific literature and from SEISs (for initial
LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new
information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR
February 2023
4-93
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
or SLR term. The NRC concludes that the impacts of entrainment of phytoplankton and
zooplankton during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for all nuclear
power plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
4
5
4.6.1.2.4 Effects of Thermal Effluents on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-Through Cooling
Systems or Cooling Ponds)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
This issue pertains to acute, sublethal, and community-level effects of thermal effluents on
finfish and shellfish from operation of nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems
and cooling ponds during an initial LR or SLR term. This includes plants with helper cooling
towers that are seasonally operated to reduce thermal load to the receiving water body, reduce
entrainment in the during peak spawning periods, or reduce consumptive water use during
periods of low river flow. The effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms at nuclear power
plants with cooling towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode are addressed in
Section 4.6.1.2.5. Infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents are addressed in
Section 4.6.1.2.6.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that the effects of thermal effluents on
aquatic organisms would be SMALL at many nuclear power plants with once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds, as well as plants that operate in a hybrid mode (i.e., once-through
cooling with cooling towers that operate intermittently), but that these impacts could be
MODERATE or LARGE at some plants. Therefore, this was considered a Category 2 issue for
these plants. In the 1996 LR GEIS, this issue was evaluated as “heat shock.” The 2013 LR
GEIS retitled this issue to “thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling ponds)” to acknowledge that, in addition to acute effects, aquatic
organisms could suffer sublethal effects from exposure to thermal effluents. For instance,
during some license renewal environmental reviews, thermal effluents have been found to
seasonally affect the geographic distribution or diversity of aquatic organisms (see Table 4.6-5
and the discussion concerning Peach Bottom plant’s thermal effluent in Section 4.6.1.2 under,
“Thermal Impacts”). This LR GEIS refines the title of this issue from “thermal impacts on
aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)” to “effects of
thermal effluents on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling
ponds)” for clarity and consistency with other ecological resource LR GEIS issue titles.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
When available, the NRC staff relies on the expertise and authority of the NPDES permitting
authority with respect to thermal impacts on aquatic organisms. Therefore, if the NPDES
permitting authority has made a determination under CWA Section 316(a) that thermal effluent
limits are sufficiently stringent to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced,
indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving body of water, and
the nuclear power plant has implemented any associated requirements, then the NRC staff
assumes that adverse impacts on the aquatic environment will be minimized (see
10 CFR 51.10(c); 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B); and 10 CFR 51.71(d) [10 CFR Part 51]). In such
cases, the NRC staff concludes that thermal impacts on aquatic organisms would be SMALL
over the course of the initial LR or SLR term for these nuclear power plants.
41
42
43
44
45
46
In cases where the NPDES permitting authority has not granted a CWA Section 316(a)
variance, the NRC staff analyzes the potential impacts of thermal discharges using a weight-ofevidence approach. In this approach, the staff considers multiple lines of evidence to assess
the presence or absence of ecological impairment (i.e., noticeable or detectable impact) on the
aquatic environment. For instance, as its lines of evidence, the staff might consider the
characteristics of the cooling water discharge system design, the results of thermal studies
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-94
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
performed at the facility, and the trends in fish and shellfish population abundance indices. The
staff then considers these lines of evidence together to predict the level of impact (SMALL,
MODERATE, or LARGE) that the aquatic environment is likely to experience over the course of
the initial LR or SLR term.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. In summary, the potential effects of thermal effluent
discharges during an initial LR or SLR term depends on numerous site-specific factors,
including the ecological setting of the nuclear power plant; the characteristics of the cooling
system and effluent discharges; and the characteristics of the fish, shellfish, and other aquatic
organisms present in the area (e.g., life history, distribution, population trends, management
objectives, etc.). Additionally, whether the NPDES permitting authority has granted a 316(a)
variance is also a relevant factor. In general, if the NPDES permitting authority has granted such
a variance and the nuclear power plant has implemented any associated requirements, then the
NRC staff assumes that adverse impacts on the aquatic environment will be minimized and that
thermal impacts will be SMALL; if this is not the case, impacts could be SMALL, MODERATE,
or LARGE.
17
18
19
The NRC concludes that the effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms during the license
renewal term (initial LR or SLR) at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling or cooling
ponds could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. This is a Category 2 issue.
20
4.6.1.2.5 Effects of Thermal Effluents on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Cooling Towers)
21
22
23
24
25
26
This issue pertains to acute, sublethal, and community-level effects of thermal effluents on
finfish and shellfish from operation of nuclear power plants with cooling towers operated in a
fully closed-cycle mode during an initial LR or SLR term. The effects of thermal effluents on
aquatic organisms at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds
are addressed in Section 4.6.1.2.4. Infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents are
addressed in Section 4.6.1.2.6.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that the effect of thermal effluents on
aquatic organisms would be SMALL at all nuclear power plants with cooling towers operated in
a fully closed-cycle mode. Therefore, this was considered a Category 1 issue for these plants.
In the 1996 LR GEIS, this issue was evaluated as “heat shock.” The 2013 LR GEIS retitled this
issue to “thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers)” to acknowledge
that, in addition to acute effects, aquatic organisms could suffer sublethal effects from exposure
to thermal effluents. This LR GEIS refines the title of this issue from “thermal impacts on
aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers)” to “effects of thermal effluents on aquatic
organisms (plants with cooling towers)” for clarity and consistency with other ecological
resource LR GEIS issue titles.
37
38
39
40
41
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC found that the effects of thermal effluents on aquatic
organisms at plants with cooling towers operated in a fully closed-cycle mode did not result in
noticeable effects on aquatic populations within receiving water bodies, and this impact was not
expected to be an issue during the license renewal term. This finding was based, in part, on the
presence of smaller thermal plumes at plants with closed-cycle cooling systems.
42
43
44
When considering the effects of thermal effluents of closed-cycle cooling systems on aquatic
organisms, the NRC evaluated the same issues that were evaluated for plants with oncethrough cooling systems or cooling ponds in Section 4.6.1.2.4. No significant impacts on
February 2023
4-95
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
aquatic populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power plants with cooling towers
operating in a closed-cycle mode in scientific literature or in license renewal SEISs published to
date. Initial LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors
rather than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and
initial LR or SLR on aquatic resources would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of
thermal effluents on aquatic organisms at plants with cooling towers would be minor and would
neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of aquatic populations in receiving
water bodies during initial LR or SLR terms. As part of obtaining a variance under CWA
Section 316(a), permitting authorities may impose conditions concerning thermal effluent
discharges at some nuclear power plants. Implementation of such conditions would further
reduce or mitigate thermal impacts during the license renewal term. The staff reviewed
information in scientific literature and from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would
result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
15
16
17
The NRC concludes that the effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms during the license
renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for nuclear power plants with cooling towers
operated in a fully closed-cycle mode. This is a Category 1 issue.
18
4.6.1.2.6 Infrequently Reported Effects of Thermal Effluents
19
20
21
22
23
24
This issue concerns the infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents during an initial LR or
SLR term. These effects include cold shock, thermal migration barriers, accelerated maturation
of aquatic insects, and proliferated growth of aquatic nuisance species, as well as the effects of
thermal effluents on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication. This issue also
considers sublethal stresses associated with thermal effluents that can increase the
susceptibility of exposed organisms to predation, parasitism, or disease.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that the infrequently reported effects of
thermal effluents would be SMALL at all nuclear power plants. Therefore, this was considered a
Category 1 issue. The 1996 LR GEIS evaluated this issue as eight separate issues; the 2013
LR GEIS consolidated these issues into two issues titled “infrequently reported thermal impacts
(all plants)” and “effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation,
and eutrophication.” This LR GEIS further consolidates these two issues, as well as the thermal
effluent component of the issue of “losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among
organisms exposed to sublethal stresses,”13 (a Category 1 issue in both the 1996 and 2013 LR
GEISs) into one issue. This LR GEIS refines the title of this issue to “infrequently reported
effects of thermal effluents” for clarity and consistency with other ecological resource LR GEIS
issue titles.
36
Cold Shock
37
38
39
Cold shock occurs when an organism has been acclimated to a specific water temperature or
range of temperatures and is subsequently exposed to a rapid decrease in temperature. This
can result in a cascade of physiological and behavioral responses and, in some cases, death
13
The potential for impingement to cause sublethal stresses that increase the susceptibility of aquatic
organisms to predation, parasitism, or disease is evaluated in Section 4.6.1.2.1 (plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling ponds) and Section 4.6.1.2.2 (plants with cooling towers). Entrainment would
not result in sublethal stresses because entrainable organisms generally consist of fragile life stages, and
all entrained organisms are assumed to die (79 FR 48300).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-96
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
(Donaldson et al. 2008). Rapid temperature decreases may occur from either natural sources
(e.g., thermocline temperature variation and storm events) or anthropogenic sources (e.g.,
thermal effluent discharges). The magnitude, duration, and frequency of the temperature
change, as well as the initial acclimation temperatures of individuals, can influence the extent of
the consequences of cold shock on fish and other aquatic organisms (Donaldson et al. 2008).
At nuclear power plants, cold shock could occur during refueling outages, reductions in power
generation level, or other situations that would quickly reduce the amount of cooling capacity
required at the plant. Cold shock is most likely to be observable in the winter. The 1996 LR
GEIS reports that cold shock events have only rarely occurred at nuclear power plants
(e.g., Haddam Neck [no longer operating] in Connecticut, Prairie Island and Monticello in
Minnesota, and Oyster Creek [no longer operating] in New Jersey). Fish mortalities usually
involved only a few fish and did not result in population-level effects. Gradual depowering or
shutdown of plant operations, especially in winter months, can mitigate the effects of cold shock.
No cold shock events have been reported since the events described in the 1996 LR GEIS
occurred, and no noticeable or detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at
any existing nuclear power plants related to this issue in scientific literature or in license renewal
SEISs published to date. The available information indicates that cold shock resulting from
thermal effluents of nuclear power plants is not of concern for initial LR or SLR.
19
Thermal Migration Barriers
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Thermal effluents have the potential to create migration barriers if the thermal plume covers an
extensive cross-sectional area of a river and temperatures within the plume exceed a species’
physiological tolerance limit. This impact has been examined at several nuclear power plants,
but it has not been determined to result in observable effects. For example, at Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee) (no longer operating) on the Connecticut River in
Vermont, the NRC examined the potential for the plant’s thermal plume to affect the
outmigration of American shad and Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). This potential effect was of
particular concern because the fish passage facility was located on the same side of the river as
the plant’s discharge, and a hydroelectric facility was located immediately downstream (NRC
2007d). However, the licensee’s CWA Section 316(b) demonstration found that smolt migration
of these species would not be affected because the thermal plume covered only a small crosssectional area of the river. The NRC staff also examined this potential effect related to
migration of federally endangered sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum and A. oxyrinchus
oxyrinchus) past the Surry plant on the James River in Virginia (NRC 2019d) and past the
Indian Point plant (no longer operating) on the Hudson River in New York (NRC 2018e). To
date, thermal effluents of nuclear power plants have resulted in no noticeable or detectable
impacts on the migrations of fish. The available information indicates that migration barriers
resulting from thermal effluents of nuclear power plants are not of concern for initial LR or SLR.
38
Accelerated Maturation of Aquatic Insects
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs determined that the heated effluents of nuclear power plants
could accelerate the maturation of aquatic insects in freshwater systems and cause premature
emergence. The maturation and emergence of aquatic insects are often closely associated with
water temperature regimes. If insects develop or emerge early in the season, they may be
unable to feed or reproduce or they may die because the local climate is not warm enough to
support them. Premature emergence has been observed in laboratory investigations
(e.g., Nebeker 1971) but not in field investigations (e.g., Langford 1975). To date, thermal
effluents of nuclear power plants have resulted in no noticeable or detectable impacts on the life
cycles of aquatic insects. The available information indicates that accelerated maturation of
February 2023
4-97
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
aquatic insects resulting from thermal effluents of nuclear power plants is not of concern for
initial LR or SLR.
3
Proliferation of Aquatic Nuisance Organisms
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs also considered that heated effluents could proliferate the growth
of aquatic nuisance organisms. Aquatic nuisance species are organisms that disrupt the
ecological stability of infested inland (e.g., rivers and lakes), estuarine, or marine waters (EPA
2022b). The previous LR GEISs discuss zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and Asiatic
clam (Corbicula fluminea), two bivalves that are of particular concern in many freshwater
systems because they can cause significant biofouling of industrial intake pipes at power and
water facilities. These species are also of ecological concern because they outcompete and
lead to the decline of native freshwater mussels. Nuclear power plants that withdraw water from
water bodies in which these species are known to occur often periodically chlorinate intake
pipes or have other procedures in place to mitigate the spread of these bivalves. There is no
evidence, however, that thermal effluent leads to these species’ proliferation. No noticeable or
detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power
plants related to this issue in scientific literature or in license renewal SEISs published to date.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Langford (1983) reports several instances in which wood-boring crustaceans and mollusks,
notably “shipworms,” have caused concern in British waters. Although increased abundance of
shipworms in the area influenced by heated power plant effluents caused substantial damage to
wooden structures, replacement of old wood with concrete or metal structures eliminated the
problem. Langford concluded that increased temperatures could enhance the activity and
reproduction of wood-boring organisms in enclosed or limited areas but that elevated
temperature patterns were not sufficiently stable to cause widespread effects. The influence of
the operation of the Oyster Creek plant (no longer operating) on Barnegat Bay on the
abundance and distribution of the shipworm Teredo bartschi has been extensively studied (see
summary by Kennish and Lutz 1984). Although studies have varied somewhat in their
conclusions, researchers have agreed that heated effluents from the Oyster Creek plant
increased the distribution and abundance of these organisms (Kennish and Lutz 1984). This
species has not been found in Barnegat Bay since 1982, perhaps because of reduced water
temperatures during a station outage in the winter of 1981-82 and the pathological effects of a
parasite, as well as the removal of substantial amounts of driftwood and the replacement of
untreated structural wood in the area of concern (NRC 1996). The NRC has identified no other
concerns about nuisance aquatic organisms associated with nuclear power plant thermal
effluents in scientific literature or in license renewal SEISs published to date. The available
information indicates that proliferation of nuisance organisms resulting from thermal effluents of
nuclear power plants is not of concern for initial LR or SLR.
37
Dissolved Oxygen
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Aerobic organisms, such as fish, require oxygen, and the concentration of dissolved oxygen in a
water body is one of the most important ecological water quality parameters. Dissolved oxygen
also influences several inorganic chemical reactions. In general, dissolved oxygen
concentrations of less than 3 ppm in warmwater habitats or less than 5 ppm in cold-water
habitats can adversely affect fish (Morrow and Fischenich 2000). Oxygen dissolves into water
via diffusion, aeration, and as a product of photosynthesis. The amount of oxygen water can
absorb depends on temperature; the amount of oxygen that can dissolve in a volume of water
(i.e., the saturation point) is inversely proportional to the temperature of the water. Thus, when
other chemical and physical conditions are equal, the warmer the water is, the less dissolved
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-98
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
oxygen it can hold. Increased water temperatures also affect the amount of oxygen that aquatic
organisms need by increasing metabolic rates and chemical reaction rates. The rates of many
chemical reactions in water approximately doubles for every 18 °F (10 °C) increase in
temperature.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The thermal effluent discharges of nuclear power plants have the potential to stress aquatic
organisms by simultaneously increasing these organisms’ need for oxygen and decreasing
oxygen availability. Aquatic organisms are more likely to experience adverse effects from
thermal effluents in ecosystems where dissolved oxygen levels are already approaching
suboptimal levels as a result of other factors in the environment. This is most likely to occur in
ecosystems where increased levels of detritus and nutrients (e.g., eutrophication), low flow, and
high ambient temperatures already exist. These conditions can occur as a result of drought
conditions or in hot weather, especially in lakes, reservoirs, or other dammed freshwaters.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Although the thermal effluents of nuclear power plants may contribute to reduced dissolved
oxygen in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point, as the effluent disperses, diffusion and
aeration from turbulent movement introduces additional oxygen into the water. As the water
cools, the saturation point increases, and the water can absorb additional oxygen as it is
released by aquatic plants and algae through photosynthesis, which is a continuously ongoing
process during daylight hours. Therefore, lower dissolved oxygen is generally only a concern
within the thermal mixing zone, which is typically a small area of the receiving water body. As
described earlier in Section 4.6.1.2 under “Clean Water Act Section 316(a) Requirements for
Point Source Discharges,” many states address thermal mixing zones in State water quality
criteria to ensure that mixing zones provide a continuous zone of passage for aquatic
organisms. Additionally, the EPA, or authorized States and Tribes, often impose conditions
specifically addressing dissolved oxygen through NPDES permits to ensure that receiving water
bodies maintain adequate levels of oxygen to support aquatic life. These conditions are
established pursuant to CWA Section 316(a), which requires that regulated facilities operate
under effluents limitations that assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving water body. No noticeable or
detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any existing nuclear power
plants related to oxygen availability in scientific literature or in license renewal SEISs published
to date. The available information indicates that reduced dissolved oxygen resulting from
thermal effluents of nuclear power plants is not of concern for initial LR or SLR.
33
Gas Supersaturation
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Rapid heating of cooling water can also affect the solubility and saturation point of other
dissolved gases, including nitrogen. As water passes through the condenser cooling system, it
can become supersaturated with gases. Once the supersaturated water is discharged in the
receiving water body, dissolved gas levels equilibrate as the effluent cools and mixes with
ambient water. This process is of concern if aquatic organisms remain in the supersaturated
effluent for a long enough period to become equilibrated to the increased pressure associated
with the effluent. If these organisms then move into water of lower pressure too quickly when,
for example, swimming out of the thermal effluent or diving to depths, the dissolved gases within
the affected tissues may come out of solution and form embolisms (bubbles). The resulting
condition is known as gas bubble disease. In fish, it is most noticeable in the eyes and fins.
Affected tissues can swell or hemorrhage and result in behavioral abnormalities, increased
susceptibility to predation, or death (Noga 2000). Mortality in fish generally occurs at gas
supersaturation levels above 110 or 115 percent (EPA 1986). Aquatic insects and crustaceans
appear to be more tolerant of supersaturated water (Nebeker et al. 1981).
February 2023
4-99
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
The ability to detect and avoid supersaturated waters varies among species. A fish can avoid
supersaturated waters by either not entering the affected area or by diving to avoid the onset of
supersaturated conditions near the surface. Some species, however, may not avoid
supersaturated waters until symptoms of gas bubble disease occur; at that point, some fish may
already be lethally exposed. Other species may be attracted to supersaturated waters because
it is often warmer (Gray et al. 1983).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
As reported in the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, fish mortality from gas bubble disease has been
reported at hydroelectric dams and coal-fired power plants. Typically, gas bubble disease is of
concern at facilities where the configuration of the discharge allows organisms to reside in the
supersaturated effluent for extended periods of time (e.g., discharge canals that fish can freely
enter). Fish mortality from gas bubble disease has been observed at one nuclear power plant:
the Pilgrim plant (no longer operating) on Cape Cod in Massachusetts. In 1973 and 1976,
43,000 and 5,000 Atlantic menhaden deaths, respectively, were attributed to gas bubble
disease because of individuals entering and residing in the discharge canal for a prolonged
period (McInerny 1990). Some sources reported that other species of fish may also have been
affected (Fairbanks and Lawton 1977). After these events, the Pilgrim plant installed a barrier
net to prevent fish from entering the discharge canal, and no such events occurred again
following implementation of this mitigation. Discharges that promote the rapid mixing of effluent
into receiving waters, such as those equipped with multiport or jet diffusers, can also be
effective in preventing gas bubble disease mortalities because they limit the extent of the
thermal plume and promote rapid mixing (Lee and Martin 1975).
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
No noticeable or detectable impacts on aquatic populations have been reported at any other
nuclear power plants related to gas supersaturation in scientific literature or in license renewal
SEISs published to date. The one plant for which this was of concern (Pilgrim) successfully
mitigated the issue in the 1970s and did not report any other such events for the remainder of its
operating period (i.e., through 2019, when the plant permanently shut down). Additionally,
NPDES permit conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(a) may also address
thermal effluent factors that would reduce the potential for aquatic organisms to experience gas
bubble disease as a result of nuclear power plant thermal effluents. The available information
indicates that gas supersaturation resulting from thermal effluents of nuclear power plants is not
of concern for initial LR or SLR.
32
Eutrophication
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
An early concern about nuclear power plant discharges was that thermal effluents would cause
or speed eutrophication by stimulating biological productivity in receiving water bodies (NRC
1996). Eutrophication is the gradual increase in the concentration of phosphorus, nitrogen, and
other nutrients in a slow-flowing or stagnant aquatic ecosystem, such as a lake. These nutrients
enter the ecosystem primarily through runoff from agricultural land and impervious surfaces.
The increase in nutrient content allows alga to proliferate on the water’s surface, which reduces
light penetration and oxygen absorption necessary for underwater life. The 1996 LR GEIS
reports that several nuclear power plants conducted long-term monitoring to investigate this
potential effect, including the McGuire plant on Lake Norman in North Carolina and Oconee
plant on Lake Keowee in South Carolina. No evidence of eutrophication was detected. No
such effects have been reported in scientific literature or in license renewal SEISs to date.
Therefore, eutrophication is not expected to be of concern during initial LR or SLR terms at any
nuclear power plants.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-100
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
Susceptibility to Predation, Parasitism, and Disease
2
3
4
Fish and shellfish that are exposed to the thermal effluent of a nuclear power plant may
experience stunning, disorientation, or injury. These sublethal effects can subsequently affect
an organism’s susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
With respect to susceptibility to predation, laboratory studies of the secondary mortality of fish
following exposure to heat or cold shock demonstrate increased susceptibility of these fish to
predation; however, field evidence of such effects is often limited to anecdotal information, such
as observations of increased feeding activity of seagulls and predatory fish near effluent outfalls
(e.g., Cada et al. 1981). For example, Barkley and Perrin (1971) and Romberg et al. (1974)
reported increased concentrations of predators feeding on forage fish attracted to thermal
plumes. However, these studies did not quantify whether the observed behaviors resulted in
population-level effects on prey species.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
With respect to susceptibility to parasitism and disease, Langford (1983) found that the
tendency for fish to congregate in heated effluent plumes, the increased physiological stress
that higher water temperatures exert on fish, and the ability of some diseases and parasites to
proliferate at higher temperatures were all factors that could contribute to increased rates of
disease or parasitism in exposed fish. Some studies have suggested that crowding of fish
within the thermal plume, rather than the thermal plume itself, may lead to an increased risk of
exposure to infectious diseases (Coutant 1987).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs reported that neither scientific literature reviews nor consultations
with agencies or utilities yielded clear evidence of sublethal effects on fish or finfish resulting in
noticeable increases in exposed organisms’ susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease.
Since the publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC has determined that thermal effects on
aquatic organisms at four nuclear power plants could be SMALL to MODERATE during the
license renewal term (see Table 4.6-5). At three of the four plants (i.e., Braidwood, LaSalle, and
Turkey Point), these impacts were limited to species confined to cooling pond environments. In
the fourth example (Peach Bottom), the adverse effects were found to be confined to a narrow
band of shallow water habitat downstream of the discharge canal during the summer months.
However, increased susceptibility to predation, parasitism, or disease or predation resulting
from exposure to thermal effluent was not found to be responsible for these small to moderate
findings. Rather, these effects were attributed to other acute (i.e., heat shock) or communitylevel effects (i.e., reduced habitat availability or quality and reduced species diversity over time)
of thermal effluents evaluated as part of the former Category 2 issue, “Thermal impacts on
aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds).” This Category
2 issue has been renamed in this LR GEIS (see Section 4.6.1.2.4). The available information
indicates that this issue is not expected to be of concern during initial LR or SLR terms at any
nuclear power plants.
38
Conclusion
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Initial LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors
rather than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and
license renewal on aquatic resources would be similar. For these reasons, the infrequently
reported effects of thermal effluents discussed in this section would be minor and would neither
destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of aquatic populations in receiving water
bodies during initial LR or SLR terms of any nuclear power plants. As part of obtaining a
variance under CWA Section 316(a), permitting authorities may impose conditions concerning
February 2023
4-101
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
thermal effluent discharges at some nuclear power plants. Implementation of such conditions
would further reduce or mitigate thermal impacts during the license renewal term. The staff
reviewed information in scientific literature and from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed
since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that
would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. The NRC
concludes that infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents during the license renewal term
(initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for all nuclear power plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
8
4.6.1.2.7 Effects of Nonradiological Contaminants on Aquatic Organisms
9
10
This issue concerns the potential effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms
that could occur as a result of nuclear power plant operations during an initial LR or SLR term.
11
12
13
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that the effects of nonradiological
contaminants on aquatic resources would be SMALL. Therefore, this was considered a
Category 1 issue.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
This issue was originally of concern because some nuclear power plants used heavy metals in
condenser tubing that could leach from the tubing and expose aquatic organisms to these
contaminants. Because aquatic organisms can bioaccumulate heavy metals, even when
exposed at low levels, this can cause toxicity in fish and other animals that consume
contaminated organisms. Section 4.6.1.1.3 describes instances in which copper contamination
was an issue at operating nuclear power plants. Heavy metals have not been found to be of
concern other than these few instances, and in all cases, the nuclear power plants eliminated
leaching by replacing the affected piping.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
In addition to heavy metals, nuclear power plants often add biocides to cooling water to kill
algae, bacteria, macroinvertebrates, and other organisms that could cause buildup in plant
systems and structures. For example, zebra mussels and Asiatic clams within the intake pipes
or cooling systems can cause partial to full blockage of grates and pipes or otherwise damage
the integrity of pipes and other cooling system components. Nuclear power plants in areas
where these mollusks are an operating concern typically treat cooling water with nonoxidizing
molluscicides that may include chlorine, chlorine dioxide, chloramines, ozone, bromine,
hydrogen peroxide and potassium permanganate. Most molluscicides have very restricted uses
due to their toxic effects on non-target organisms and are primarily used in closed systems.
Nuclear power plants typically maintain site procedures that specify when and how to treat the
cooling water system with such chemicals and BMPs to minimize impacts on the ecological
environment. For instance, plants use only EPA-approved biocides according to label
instructions. Some plants with cooling towers discharge blowdown to settling ponds to allow
heat and chemicals to dissipate before discharging the effluent to surface waters. NPDES
permits mitigate potential effects of chemical effluents by limiting the allowable concentrations in
effluent discharges to ensure the protection of the aquatic community within the receiving water
body. Some nuclear power plants also use physical deterrents to reduce the need for chemical
treatment. For instance, the Browns Ferry plant in Alabama recirculates small sponge balls
through the condenser tubes to keep them clear of Asiatic clams (NRC 2005b).
41
42
43
44
45
Initial LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors
rather than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and
license renewal on aquatic resources would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of
nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms would be minor and would neither
destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of populations of these organisms in
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-102
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
source water bodies during initial LR or SLR terms of any nuclear power plants. Continued
adherence of nuclear power plants to chemical effluent limitations established in NPDES
permits would minimize the potential impacts of nonradiological contaminants on the aquatic
environment. The staff reviewed information in scientific literature and from SEISs (for initial
LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new
information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR
or SLR term. The NRC concludes that the effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic
organisms during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for all nuclear
power plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
10
4.6.1.2.8 Exposure of Aquatic Organisms to Radionuclides
11
12
This issue concerns the potential impacts on aquatic organisms from exposure to radionuclides
from routine radiological effluent releases during an initial LR or SLR term.
13
14
15
16
17
18
As explained in Section 4.6.1.1.2, radionuclides may be released from nuclear power plants into
the environment through several pathways, including via gaseous and liquid emissions. Aquatic
plants can absorb radionuclides that enter shallow groundwater or surface waters through their
roots. Aquatic animals can be exposed externally to ionizing radiation from radionuclides in
water, sediment, and other biota and can be exposed internally through ingested food, water,
and sediment and absorption through the integument and respiratory organs.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
As discussed in Section 4.6.1.1.2, the DOE has produced a standard on a graded approach for
evaluating radiation doses to aquatic and terrestrial biota (DOE 2019). The DOE standard
provides methods, models, and guidance that can be used to characterize radiation doses to
terrestrial and aquatic biota exposed to radioactive material (DOE 2019). For aquatic animals,
the DOE guidance dose rate is 1 rad/d (0.1 Gy/d), which represents the level below which no
adverse affects to resident populations are expected. The DOE also recommends that the
screening-level concentrations of most radionuclides in aquatic environments should be based
on internal exposure as well as external exposure to contaminated sediments, rather than
external exposure to contaminated water (DOE 2019).
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Previously, in the early 1990s, the IAEA (1992) and the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements (NCRP) (1991) also concluded that a chronic dose rate of no
greater than 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d) to the maximally exposed individual in a population of aquatic
organisms would ensure protection of the population. The United Nations Scientific Committee
on the Effects of Atomic Radiation concluded in 1996 and re-affirmed in 2008 that chronic dose
rates less than 0.4 mGy/hr (1.0 rad/day or 0.01 Gy/day) to the most highly exposed individuals
would be unlikely to have significant effects on most aquatic communities (UNSCEAR 2010).
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
In the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC estimated the total radiological dose that aquatic biota would be
expected to receive during normal nuclear power plant operations using plant-specific
radionuclide concentrations in water and sediments at 15 nuclear power plants using Argonne
National Laboratory’s RESRAD-BIOTA dose evaluation model. The NRC found that total
calculated dose rates for aquatic animals at all 15 plants were all less than 0.2 rad/d
(0.002 Gy/d), which is less than the guideline value of 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d). As a result, the NRC
anticipated in the 2013 LR GEIS that normal operations of these facilities would not result in
negative effects on aquatic biota. The 2013 LR GEIS concluded that the impact of
radionuclides on aquatic biota from past operations would be SMALL for all nuclear power
plants and would not be expected to change appreciably during the license renewal period.
February 2023
4-103
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
In this revision, the NRC staff conducted an updated and expanded analysis of this issue
relative to the 2013 LR GEIS. As part of this expanded analysis, the staff reviewed a subset of
operating nuclear power plants14 to evaluate the potential impacts of radionuclides on biota from
continued operations. Section 4.6.1.1.2 describes the NRC staff’s methods, which included
reviewing effluent release reports, a RESRAD-BIOTA analysis, and an ICRP biota dose
calculator analysis (see Section D.5 in Appendix D for full description of methodology). Results
can be found in Section 4.6.1.1.2 and are summarized in this section.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Table 4.6-1 in Section 4.6.1.1.2 shows the estimated radiation dose rates to four ecological
receptors (i.e., riparian animal, terrestrial animal, terrestrial plant, and aquatic animal) resulting
from the staff’s RESRAD-BIOTA dose modeling. Based on the staff’s RESRAD-BIOTA
analysis, it is unlikely that radionuclide releases during normal operations of these nuclear
power plants would have adverse effects on resident populations of aquatic animals because
the calculated doses are well below DOE protective guidelines.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In addition to the RESRAD-BIOTA analysis discussed above, the NRC staff estimated dose
rates to a riparian organism using the ICRP biota dose calculator (ICRP 2022) (see
Section 4.6.1.1.2 and Section D.5 in Appendix D for full description of ICRP BiotaDC
methodology). The dose rates calculated for a riparian organism ranged between 2E-4 and 2E5 rad per day which is orders of magnitude lower than the DOE guideline dose rate. None of
the radionuclides evaluated singly, or in common, produced dose rates that approached the
DOE’s guidance dose rate of 0.1 rad/d for riparian animals using the ICRP BiotaDC tool (DOE
2019). Additionally, the calculated dose rates did not approach the level advocated by the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements to initiate additional evaluation
(Cool et al. 2019). In fact, the dose rates for the riparian organism calculated using the ICRP’s
calculator were lower than the RESRAD conservative analysis, and both were well below the
DOE guideline values.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Initial LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors
rather than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and
initial LR or SLR on aquatic organisms would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of
exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides would be minor and would neither destabilize
nor noticeably alter any important attribute of populations of exposed organisms during initial LR
or SLR terms of any nuclear power plant. Continued adherence of nuclear power plants to
regulatory limits on radioactive effluent releases would minimize the potential impacts on the
aquatic environment. Doses to aquatic organisms would be expected to remain below the
DOE’s dose limits and, therefore, impacts to aquatic communities are not expected. The staff
reviewed information in scientific literature and from SEISs (for initial LRs or SLRs) completed
since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that
would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
38
39
40
The NRC concludes that the impacts of exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides during
the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for all nuclear power plants. This
is a Category 1 issue.
14
The subset of plants included the following PWR plants: Comanche Peak, D.C. Cook, Palo Verde 1-3,
Robinson, Salem 1-2, Seabrook, and Surry; and the following BWR plants: Fermi 2, Hatch 1-2, Hope
Creek, Limerick, and Columbia.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-104
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.6.1.2.9 Effects of Dredging on Aquatic Resources
2
3
This issue concerns the effects of dredging at nuclear power plants on aquatic resources during
an initial LR or SLR term.
4
5
6
In the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC determined that the effects of dredging on aquatic resources
would be SMALL at all nuclear power plants. Therefore, this was considered a Category 1
issue for all nuclear power plants. The 1996 LR GEIS did not address this issue.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Small-particle sediment, such as sand and silt, that enters water bodies through erosion can
subsequently deposit and accumulate along shorelines and in shallow water areas. If sediment
deposition affects cooling system function or reliability, a nuclear power plant may need to
periodically dredge to improve intake flow and keep the area clear of sediment. Nuclear power
plants where dredging may be necessary are typically located along fast-flowing waters with
sandy or silty bottoms, such as large rivers or the ocean. In some instances, dredging may be
performed to maintain barge slips for transport of materials and waste to and from the site.
Dredging entails excavating a layer of sediment from the affected areas and transporting that
sediment to onshore or offshore areas for disposal. The three main types of dredges are
mechanical dredges, hydraulic dredges, and airlift dredges. The selection of dredge type
generally is related to the sediment type, the size of the area to be dredged, and the aquatic
resources present.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
At operating nuclear power plants, dredging is performed infrequently, if at all. For example,
dredging at the Peach Bottom plant is performed approximately once every 20 years over a total
area of approximately 6 ac (2.4 ha) (NRC 2003b). When it was operating, the Oyster Creek
plant dredged portions of either the intake or the discharge canals approximately every 10 years
(NRC 2007b). The Monticello plant requires dredging every 6 to 8 years (NRC 2006c). The
Surry plant is one exception; because of the tidal influence of the James River near the plant
and the site’s location on a peninsula within the river, Surry dredges every 3 to 4 years (NRC
2020f).
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Dredging results in the direct removal of soft bottom substrates along with infaunal and
epifaunal organisms of limited mobility inhabiting those substrates. Small organisms living
within and on the affected sediments are likely to be killed in the process. Smaller benthic
invertebrates, such as mollusks and crustaceans, may also be susceptible to entrainment into
the dredge head. Larger benthic individuals or those that are farther from the dredge head
could move away from the suction flow field to avoid being entrained. Thus, dredging can be
expected to cause short-term reductions in the biomass of benthic organisms. Dredging also
creates sediment plumes that increase water turbidity, which can adversely affect aquatic biota
and create short-term decreases in habitat quality during and after dredging. Turbidity primarily
affects liquid-breathing organisms, such as fish and shellfish, as well as aquatic plants, because
turbid conditions typically decrease photosynthetic capabilities. Turbidity levels associated with
the sediment plumes of cutterhead dredges typically range from 11.5 to 282.0 milligrams per
liter (mg/L) with decreasing concentrations at greater distances from the dredge head
(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001). Studies of benthic community recovery following dredging
indicate that species abundance and diversity can recover within several years of dredging
(Michel et al. 2013). Specifically, within temperate, shallow water regions containing a
combination of sand, silt, or clay substrate, benthic communities can recover in 1 to 11 months,
according to studies reviewed by Wilber et al. (2006). Recovery of benthic communities
following dredging also tends to be faster in areas exposed to periodic disturbances, such as
tidally influenced habitats (Diaz 1994).
February 2023
4-105
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
With respect to turbidity and sedimentation caused by dredging, studies of the effects of turbid
waters on fish suggest that concentrations of suspended solids can reach thousands of
milligrams per liter before an acute toxic reaction occurs (Burton 1993 as cited in NMFS 2014a).
In a literature review, Burton (1993 as cited in NMFS 2014a) demonstrated that lethal effects on
fish due to turbid waters can occur at levels between 580 mg/L and 700,000 mg/L, depending
on the species. Studies of striped bass, an anadromous species, showed that pre-spawners did
not avoid concentrations of 954 to 1,920 mg/L to reach spawning sites (Summerfelt and Mosier
1976; Combs 1979). Sedimentation could also affect benthic macroinvertebrates. However,
these individuals could avoid the plume or uncover themselves from any sedimentation
experienced during dredging such that these impacts would be negligible and short term in
nature.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Sediments may be contaminated with a variety of pollutants from agricultural runoff and
stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces. These pollutants can also be introduced to
waterways from point sources, such as combined sewer overflows, municipal and industrial
discharges, and spills. Contaminants that have accumulated in buried layers of sediment are
often less readily bioavailable or less chemically active (EPA 2004). Depending on the
concentrations of specific contaminants in accumulated sediments, dredging could increase the
bioavailability of those contaminants if they are resuspended in the water column (Petersen
et al. 1997; Su et al. 2002; EPA 2004).
20
21
22
23
Dredging would require nuclear power plant licensees to obtain permits from the USACE under
CWA Section 404. BMPs and conditions associated with these permits would minimize impacts
on the ecological environment. The granting of such permits would also require the USACE to
conduct its own environmental reviews prior to undertaking dredging.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Initial LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors
rather than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and
license renewal on aquatic resources would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of
dredging on aquatic resources would be minor and would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter
any important attribute of the aquatic environment during initial LR or SLR terms of any nuclear
power plants. The NRC assumes that nuclear power plants would continue to implement site
environmental procedures and would obtain any necessary permits for dredging activities.
Implementation of such controls would further reduce or mitigate potential effects. The staff
reviewed information in scientific literature and from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed
since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that
would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
35
36
37
The NRC concludes that effects of dredging on aquatic resources during the license renewal
term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for all nuclear power plants. This is a Category 1
issue.
38
39
4.6.1.2.10 Water Use Conflicts with Aquatic Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling
Towers Using Makeup Water from a River)
40
41
42
The issue concerns water use conflicts that may arise at nuclear power plants with cooling
ponds or cooling towers that use makeup water from a river and how those conflicts could affect
aquatic resources during an initial LR or SLR term.
43
44
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that the impacts of water use conflicts on
aquatic resources would be SMALL at many nuclear power plants but that these impacts could
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-106
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
be MODERATE at some plants. Therefore, this was considered a Category 2 issue for nuclear
power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river. The 1996
LR GEIS addressed cooling towers that withdraw from small rivers with low flow; the 2013 LR
GEIS expanded this issue to include all cooling towers that withdraw from rivers. Notably, this
issue also applies to nuclear power plants with hybrid cooling systems that withdraw makeup
water from a river (i.e., once-through cooling systems with helper cooling towers) (e.g., NRC
2020g).
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Nuclear power plant cooling systems may compete with other users relying on surface water
resources, including downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users. Closed-cycle
cooling is not completely closed because the system discharges blowdown water to a surface
water body and withdraws water for makeup of both the consumptive water loss due to
evaporation and drift (for cooling towers) and blowdown discharge. For plants using cooling
towers, while the volume of surface water withdrawn is substantially less than once-through
systems for a similarly sized nuclear power plant, the makeup water needed to replenish the
consumptive loss of water to evaporation can be significant. Cooling ponds also require
makeup water. Section 4.5.1.1.9 addresses factors relevant to water use conflicts at nuclear
power plants in detail. Water use conflicts with aquatic resources could occur when water that
supports these resources is diminished by a combination of anthropogenic uses.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Consumptive use by nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup
water from a river during the license renewal term is not expected to change unless power
uprates, with associated increases in water use, occur. Such uprates would require separate
NRC review and approval. Any river, regardless of size, can experience low-flow conditions of
varying severity during periods of drought and changing conditions in the affected watershed,
such as upstream diversions and use of river water. However, the direct impacts on instream
flow and potential water availability for other users from nuclear power plant surface water
withdrawals are greater for small (i.e., low-flow) rivers.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
To date, the NRC has identified water use conflicts with aquatic resources at only one nuclear
power plant: the Wolf Creek plant in Kansas. This plant uses Coffee County Lake for cooling,
and makeup water for the lake is drawn from the Neosho River downstream of John Redmond
Reservoir (NRC 2008a). The Neosho River is a small river with especially low water flow during
drought conditions. During the license renewal review, the NRC found that the aquatic
communities in the Neosho River downstream included the federally endangered Neosho
madtom, a small species of catfish, and that this species could be adversely affected by the
nuclear power plant’s water use during periods when the lake level is low and makeup water is
obtained from the Neosho River. The NRC concluded that water use conflicts would be SMALL
to MODERATE for this nuclear power plant. As part of the NRC’s ESA consultation with the
FWS, the Wolf Creek plant developed and implemented a water level management plan for
Coffey County Lake, which includes withdrawing makeup water proactively during high river
flows in order to support downstream populations of the Neosho madtom (FWS 2012). This
plan effectively mitigated not only water use conflicts that the Neosho madtom might
experience, but also the effects that the entire downstream aquatic community might experience
from the plant’s cooling water withdrawals. The NRC has identified no concerns about water
use conflicts with aquatic resources at any other nuclear power plant with cooling ponds or
cooling towers.
45
46
47
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. In summary, water use conflicts during an initial LR or SLR
term depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the
February 2023
4-107
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
consumptive use of other municipal, agricultural, or industrial water users; and the aquatic
resources present in the area. Water use conflicts with aquatic resources would be SMALL at
most nuclear power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that withdraw makeup from a
river but may be MODERATE at some plants. Therefore, a generic determination of potential
impacts on terrestrial resources from continued operations during a license renewal term is not
possible.
7
8
9
The NRC concludes that water use conflicts on aquatic resources during the license renewal
term (initial LR or SLR) could be SMALL or MODERATE at nuclear power plants with cooling
ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river. This is a Category 2 issue.
10
4.6.1.2.11 Non-Cooling System Impacts on Aquatic Resources
11
12
13
14
15
16
This issue concerns the effects of nuclear power plant operations on aquatic resources during
an initial LR or SLR term that are unrelated to operation of the cooling system. Such activities
include landscape and grounds maintenance, stormwater management, and ground-disturbing
activities that could directly disturb aquatic habitat or cause runoff or sedimentation. These
impacts are expected to be like past and ongoing impacts that aquatic resources are already
experiencing at the nuclear power plant site.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
In the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC evaluated the impacts of refurbishment on aquatic resources. In
the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC expanded this issue to include impacts of other site activities,
unrelated to cooling system operation, that may affect aquatic resources. In both the 1996 and
2013 LR GEISs, the NRC concluded that effects would be SMALL at all nuclear power plants.
Therefore, these were considered Category 1 issues for all nuclear power plants. This LR GEIS
refines the title of this issue from “effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling system impacts)” to
“non-cooling system impacts on aquatic resources” for clarity and consistency with other
ecological resource LR GEIS issue titles.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Industrial-use portions of nuclear power plant sites are typically maintained as modified habitats
with lawns and other landscaped areas; these areas typically do not include natural aquatic
features. Nonindustrial-use portions of nuclear power plant sites may include natural aquatic
habitats, such as streams, ponds, lakes, and usually interface with larger water bodies, such as
rivers, reservoirs, estuaries, bays, or the ocean. These habitats may be undisturbed or in
various degrees of disturbance (e.g., dammed reservoirs, human-made cooling lakes, and
channelized rivers).
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Certain areas may also be managed to preserve natural resources, either privately by the
nuclear power plant operator or in conjunction with local, State, or Federal agencies. For
instance, approximately 13,000 ac (5,300 ha) of land to the south and west of the Turkey Point
site in Florida is part of the Everglades Mitigation Bank (NRC 2019c). Under the guidance of
Federal and State agencies, Florida Power and Light Company creates, restores, and enhances
this habitat to provide compensatory mitigation of wetland losses elsewhere. At the Harris plant
in North Carolina, Duke Energy leases land, including part of Harris Lake, to Wake County who
co-manages the area with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for natural
resource preservation and recreational opportunities (Duke Energy 2017). Continued
conservation efforts would have beneficial effects on the local aquatic ecology.
42
43
44
The characteristics of aquatic habitats and communities on nuclear power plant sites have
generally developed in response to many years of plant operations and maintenance. While
some communities may have reached a relatively stable condition, some may have continued to
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-108
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
change gradually over time. Operations and maintenance activities during the license renewal
term are expected to be like current activities (see Section 2.1).
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC staff anticipated that nuclear power plants may
require refurbishment to support continued operations during a license renewal term (see
Section 2.1.2). However, refurbishment has not typically been necessary for license renewal.
Only two nuclear power plants have undertaken refurbishment as part of license renewal
(Beaver Valley and Three Mile Island [no longer operating], both of which are located in
Pennsylvania) (NRC 2009a, NRC 2009b). In addition to refurbishment, license renewal could
require construction of additional onsite spent fuel storage. Refurbishment or spent fuel storage
construction could require new parking areas for workers as well as new access roads,
buildings, and facilities. Temporary project support areas for equipment storage, overflow
parking, and material laydown areas could also be required.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Any activities that require construction or involve ground disturbance could affect nearby aquatic
features and habitats. Surface water habitats could be directly affected if activities cause ponds
to be drained or blocked or streams to be redirected. Depending on the size and nature of the
water body affected, aquatic plants and animals could be displaced or killed, or the community
structure within the water body could be altered. Indirect effects include erosion and
sedimentation, both of which are typically proportional to the amount of surface disturbance,
slope of the disturbed land, condition of the area at the time of disturbance, and proximity to
aquatic habitats. Chemical contamination could also occur from fuel or lubricant spills. If
impacts to aquatic habitats are anticipated, these activities would require nuclear power plant
licensees to obtain applicable permits under the CWA, to develop stormwater management
plans and spill prevention plans, and to implement BMPs to minimize soil erosion and
deposition. Standard BMPs often include buffer zones surrounding waterways, aquatic
features, and wetlands. BMPs and conditions associated with necessary permits would
minimize impacts on the ecological environment. To date, the NRC staff has not identified
noticeable or detectable impacts on aquatic features or habitats in connection with construction
or ground disturbance during the license renewal period at any nuclear power plant.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Many nuclear power plant operators have developed site or fleet-wide environmental review
procedures that help workers identify and avoid impacts on the ecological environment when
performing site activities. These procedures generally include checklists to help identify
potential effects and required permits and BMPs to minimize the affected area. BMPs relevant
to aquatic resources may include measures to control runoff, erosion, and sedimentation from
project sites; revegetate disturbed areas to control future erosion; and avoid the use of
chemicals or machinery near waterways and aquatic features. Proper implementation of
environmental procedures and BMPs would minimize or mitigate potential effects on aquatic
resources during the license renewal term. Many activities that could affect aquatic habitats
would also require nuclear power plant licensees to obtain Federal permits under CWA
Section 404, which would include conditions to minimize or mitigate impacts on affected
waterways.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Some utilities are members of the Wildlife Habitat Council, which helps corporations manage
their land for broad-based biodiversity enhancement and conservation. As part of membership,
sites develop wildlife management plans that include a comprehensive strategy for enhancing
and conserving site ecological resources. For instance, at the Braidwood plant in Illinois,
Exelon places artificial habitats in Braidwood Lake to create microhabitats and support fish
populations, especially largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) (Exelon 2012). At the LaSalle
plant in Illinois, Exelon participates in supplemental stocking of a variety of warm and cool water
February 2023
4-109
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
fish that are raised in an onsite hatchery (Exelon 2012). To maintain membership, sites must
undertake projects that promote native biodiversity, gather data on conservation efforts, and
report on their progress. Other nuclear power plant sites that maintain Wildlife Habitat Council
membership include the Byron, Calvert Cliffs, Clinton, Dresden, Fitzpatrick, Ginna, Limerick,
Nine Mile Point, Peach Bottom, and Quad Cities plants. Continued participation in this or similar
environmental conservation organizations would minimize or mitigate potential effects on
aquatic resources during the license renewal term.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Initial LR or SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors
rather than introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and
license renewal on aquatic resources would be similar. For these reasons, the effects of site
activities, unrelated to cooling system operation, would be minor and would neither destabilize
nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the aquatic environment during initial LR or SLR
terms of any nuclear power plants. The NRC assumes that nuclear power plants would
continue to implement site environmental procedures and would obtain any necessary permits
for activities that could affect waterways or aquatic features. Implementation of such controls
would further reduce or mitigate potential effects. The staff reviewed information in scientific
literature and from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013
LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for
this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. The NRC concludes that non-cooling system
effects on aquatic resources during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) would be
SMALL for all nuclear power plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
22
23
4.6.1.2.12 Impacts of Transmission Line Right-of-Way (ROW) Management on Aquatic
Resources
24
25
This issue concerns the effects of transmission line ROW management on aquatic plants and
animals during an initial LR or SLR term.
26
27
28
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC determined that transmission line ROW maintenance
impacts would be SMALL at all nuclear power plants. Therefore, this was considered a
Category 1 issue for all nuclear power plants.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
When this issue was originally contemplated in the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC considered as part
of its plant-specific license renewal reviews all transmission lines that were constructed to
connect a nuclear power plant to the regional electric grid. However, in the 2013 LR GEIS, the
NRC clarified that the transmission lines relevant to license renewal include only the lines that
connect the nuclear power plant to the first substation that feeds into the regional power
distribution system (see Section 3.1.6.5 and 3.1.1). Typically, the first substation is located on
the nuclear power plant property within the primary industrial-use area. This decision was
informed by the fact that many of the transmission lines that were constructed with nuclear
power plants are now interconnected with the regional electric grid and would remain energized
regardless of initial LR or SLR. Accordingly, the discussion of this issue in this LR GEIS is brief
because in-scope transmission lines for license renewal tend to occupy only industrial-use or
other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites. Therefore, effects on aquatic plants and
animals are generally negligible. The 2013 LR GEIS provides further background about this
issue and discusses it in more detail.
43
44
45
Transmission line management can directly disturb aquatic habitats if ROWs traverse aquatic
features and heavy machinery is used in these areas. Heavy equipment can also compact
soils, which can affect soil quality and reduce infiltration to shallow groundwater, resulting in
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-110
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
runoff and erosion in nearby aquatic habitats. Chemical herbicides applied in ROWs can be
transported to nearby aquatic habitats through precipitation and runoff. For small streams, trees
may grow sufficiently between cutting cycles to provide shading and support microhabitats.
Tree removal to maintain appropriate transmission line clearance could alter the suitability of
habitats for fish and other aquatic organisms and locally increase water temperatures.
6
7
8
9
10
Most nuclear power plants maintain procedures to minimize or mitigate the potential impacts of
ROW management. For instance, heavy machinery and herbicide use is often prohibited in or
near wetlands or surface waters. Vegetated buffers are often maintained near surface waters.
Procedures also often include checklists to ensure that workers obtain necessary local, State, or
Federal permits if work could affect protected resources.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Aquatic communities in transmission line ROWs have been exposed to many years of
transmission line operation and have acclimated to regular ROW maintenance. Initial LR or
SLR would continue current operating conditions and environmental stressors rather than
introduce wholly new impacts. Therefore, the impacts of current operations and license renewal
on aquatic resources would be similar. Further, and as stated above, in-scope transmission
lines for license renewal tend to occupy only industrial-use or other developed portions of
nuclear power plant sites and, therefore, the effects of ROW maintenance on aquatic plants and
animals during an initial LR or SLR term would be negligible. The staff reviewed information in
scientific literature and from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of
the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different
impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. The NRC concludes that the
transmission line ROW maintenance impacts on aquatic resources during the license renewal
term (initial LR or SLR) would be SMALL for all nuclear power plants. This is a Category 1
issue.
25
4.6.1.3
26
27
28
29
The NRC must consider the effects of its actions on ecological resources protected under
several Federal statutes and must consult with the FWS or the NOAA prior to taking action in
cases where an agency action may affect those resources. These statutes include the
following:
30
•
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.),
31
32
•
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
(16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, and
33
•
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Section 3.6.3 describes each of these statutes and the ecological resources protected under
them. During initial LR and SLR reviews, the NRC may be required to consult under one or
more of these statutes depending on the ecological setting of the nuclear power plant and the
federally protected species and habitats that may be affected by continued operation of the
plant. Under the ESA, the NRC may be required to consult with FWS, NMFS, or both.
Individually, these agencies are also referred to as the Service or jointly as the Services. The
NRC addresses the ecological resources that each type of interagency consultation addresses
as four separate issues in the subsections below. These issues are:
Federally Protected Ecological Resources
February 2023
4-111
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
•
Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service jurisdiction;15
3
4
•
Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under National Marine
Fisheries Service jurisdiction;15
5
6
•
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: essential fish habitat;15
and
7
•
National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources.15
8
9
4.6.1.3.1 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats Under
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction
10
11
12
This issue concerns the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any
refurbishment during an initial LR or SLR term on federally listed species and critical habitats
protected under the ESA and under the jurisdiction of the FWS.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Under the ESA, the FWS is responsible for listing and managing terrestrial and freshwater
species and designating critical habitat of these species. Continued operation of a nuclear
power plant during an initial LR or SLR term could affect these species and their habitat. Listed
species are likely to occur near all operating nuclear power plants. However, the potential for a
given species to occur in the action area of a specific nuclear power plant depends on the life
history, habitat requirements, and distribution of the species and the ecological environment
present on or near the plant site. Section 3.6.3.1 describes some of the listed species and
critical habitats under FWS jurisdiction that the NRC has analyzed during past license renewal
reviews and the relevant environmental stressors related to license renewal.
22
23
Potential effects of particular concern for listed terrestrial species, including bats, birds,
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates, include the following:
24
25
•
habitat loss, degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation resulting from construction,
refurbishment, or other site activities, including site maintenance and infrastructure repairs
26
•
noise and vibration and general human disturbance
27
•
mortality or injury from collisions with plant structures and vehicles.
28
29
30
31
32
33
Additionally, terrestrial listed species and their habitats can be adversely affected by any of the
factors described in Section 4.6.1.1 relevant to terrestrial resources. However, the magnitude
and significance of such impacts can be greater for listed species because—by virtue of being
eligible for Federal listing—these species are significantly more sensitive to environmental
stressors because their populations are already in decline. Similarly, critical habitats are
afforded special protections because they are critical to the preservation of the listed species.
34
35
Potential effects of particular concern for listed aquatic species, including fish, shellfish and
other aquatic invertebrates, and sea turtles, include the following:
36
•
impingement (including entrapment) and entrainment
37
•
thermal effects
15
These issues have been separated from one 2013 LR GEIS issue into distinct issues that individually
address specific categories of federally protected ecological resources that may require separate
interagency consultation.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-112
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
•
exposure to radionuclides and other contaminants
2
•
reduction in available food resources due to IM&E or thermal effects on prey species
3
•
effects associated with maintenance dredging.
4
5
6
7
Additionally, aquatic listed species and their habitats can be adversely affected by any of the
factors described in Section 4.6.1.1.2 relevant to aquatic resources. As noted above, the
magnitude and significance of such effects can be greater for listed species and critical habitats
than for other aquatic resources.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
As established in the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC reports findings under the ESA in accordance
with terminology used in the ESA and its implementing regulations (see Table 4.6-6). Individual
effect determinations are made for each listed species and critical habitat, so the number of
ESA findings for a given license renewal will depend on the number of listed species and critical
habitats present in the action area. Table 3.6-2 and Table 3.6-4 identify the NRC’s findings for
listed species and critical habitats evaluated during initial LR and SLR environmental reviews
conducted since the 2013 LR GEIS.
15
Table 4.6-6
Listed Species
“may affect and is likely to
adversely affect”
“may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect”
“no effect”
Possible ESA Effect Determinations
Proposed Species
“may affect and is likely to
adversely affect”
“may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect”
“no effect”
Designated or Proposed Critical
Habitat
“is likely to destroy or adversely
modify”
“is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify”
“no effect”
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Depending on the NRC’s ESA effect determinations, the NRC may be required to consult with
the Services under ESA Section 7(a)(2). The Services maintain joint regulations that implement
ESA Section 7 at 50 CFR Part 402, “Interagency Cooperation – Endangered Species Act of
1973, as Amended.” Subpart B prescribes the Section 7 interagency consultation requirements.
The NRC also relies upon the Services’ detailed procedural guidance for conducting Section 7
consultation in Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting
Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (FWS
and NMFS 1998).
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Under ESA Section 7, Federal agencies must consult with the Services for actions that “may
affect” federally listed species and critical habitats and to ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of those species or destroy or adversely modify those
habitats. Section 7 consultation may be informal or formal. Generally, the appropriate type of
consultation is related to the effect determinations made by the Federal agency. For proposed
species and proposed critical habitats (the species or habitats for which the Services have
issued proposed listing or designation rules, but for which final rules have yet to be issued or
adopted), the regulations prescribe a process called a conference. NUREG-1555,
Supplement 1, Revision 2, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear
Power Plants for Operating License Renewal (NRC 2023), describes informal consultation,
formal consultation, and conference in detail. The Services’ regulations also allow for early,
special, and emergency consultations. However, instances that would necessitate these types
of consultation are unlikely to arise for license renewal. Table 4.6-7 summarizes the appropriate
type of consultation or conference for each possible effect determination.
February 2023
4-113
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
Table 4.6-7
Type of Consultation
Formal Consultation
Informal Consultation
Conference
No Consultation or
Conference
2
3
4
Appropriate Type of Consultation by ESA Effect Determination
Listed Species
“may affect and is
likely to adversely
affect”
“may affect but is
not likely to
adversely affect”
N/A
“no effect”
Proposed
Species
Designated
Critical Habitats
Proposed Critical
Habitats
“is likely to destroy
N/A
or adversely
modify”
N/A
“is not likely to
N/A
destroy or
adversely modify”
“may affect and is
N/A
“is likely to destroy
likely to adversely
or adversely
affect”
modify”
“may affect but is
“no effect”
“is not likely to
not likely to
destroy or
adversely affect”(a)
adversely modify”
or
or
“no effect”
“no effect”
N/A
N/A = not applicable
(a) Although not required, it is a best practice to confer with the Services when a proposed action may affect but is
not likely to adversely affect proposed species.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
In cases where adverse effects on listed species or critical habitats are possible, the NRC staff
has engaged the Services in formal ESA Section 7 consultation as part of the license renewal
review and obtained a biological opinion. The FWS has issued one biological opinion in
connection with initial LR and SLR environmental reviews conducted since the publication of the
2013 LR GEIS. This biological opinion is for continued operation of the Turkey Point plant
during an SLR term, and it addresses the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), its critical
habitat, and the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) (FWS 2019a, FWS 2022a).
The incidental take statement of the opinion allows for a specified amount of take of these
species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out the Federal action of license
renewal, as well as reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions to minimize
such take. In accordance with these requirements, the Turkey Point plant monitors and reports
the effects of continued operation under the license renewal term to the FWS and the NRC.
Section 3.6.3 discusses biological opinions in more detail.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. In summary, the potential effects of continued nuclear
power plant operation during an initial LR or SLR term depends upon numerous site-specific
factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the listed species and critical habitats
present in the action area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water
withdrawal, effluent discharges, and refurbishment and other ground-disturbing activities.
Section 7 of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult with the Services for actions that
“may affect” federally listed species and critical habitats. Additionally, listing status is not static,
and the Services frequently issue new rules to list or delist species and designate or remove
critical habitats. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on listed species and
critical habitats under FWS jurisdiction during a nuclear power plant’s license renewal term is
not possible. The NRC would need to perform a plant-specific impact assessment as part of
each initial LR or SLR environmental review to determine the potential effects on these
resources and consult with the FWS, as appropriate. Consequently, this is a Category 2 issue.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-114
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
4.6.1.3.2 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats Under
National Marine Fisheries Service Jurisdiction
3
4
5
This issue concerns the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any
refurbishment during an initial LR or SLR term on federally listed species and critical habitats
protected under the ESA and under the jurisdiction of NMFS.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Under the ESA, NMFS is responsible for listing and managing marine and anadromous species
and designating critical habitat of these species. Continued operation of a nuclear power plant
during an initial LR or SLR term could affect these species and their habitat. The potential for a
given species to occur in the action area of a specific nuclear power plant depends on the life
history, habitat requirements, and distribution of that species and the ecological environment
present on or near the power plant site. In general, listed species and critical habitats under
NMFS jurisdiction are only of concern at nuclear power plants that withdraw or discharge from
estuarine or marine waters. However, anadromous listed species under NMFS jurisdiction may
be seasonally present in the action area of plants located within freshwater reaches of rivers
well upstream of the saltwater interface. For instance, the Columbia plant in Washington
withdraws from and discharges to the Columbia River at approximately river mile 352 (river
kilometer 566). During the NRC’s license renewal review, the NRC consulted with NMFS
concerning Upper Columbia River spring run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and
Upper Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss) due to these species’ susceptibility to impingement
on the intake screens or entrainment into the intake system. These species migrate past the
plant seasonally as fry, which are only a few centimeters in length at this life stage (NRC 2012a,
NRC 2012b).
23
24
25
26
27
28
The discussion of potential effects on listed species and critical habitats under FWS jurisdiction
provided above in Section 4.6.1.3.1 also applies to this issue. As established in the 2013 LR
GEIS, the NRC reports findings under the ESA in accordance with terminology used in the ESA
and its implementing regulations (see Table 4.6-6). Depending on the NRC’s ESA effect
determinations, the NRC may be required to consult with NMFS under ESA Section 7 (see
Table 4.6-7).
29
30
31
Since the publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, NMFS has issued several biological opinions in
connection with nuclear power plant operation during a license renewal term. These include the
following:
32
33
34
35
36
•
Indian Point plant (no longer operating) biological opinion addressing the effects of
continued operation and decommissioning on shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum),
Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrinchus oxyrinchus), and critical habitat of the New York Bight
distinct population segment of Atlantic sturgeon (NMFS 2013, NMFS 2018a, NMFS 2018b,
NMFS 2020a)
37
38
39
40
•
Salem plant and Hope Creek plant biological opinion addressing the effects of continued
operation on Atlantic sturgeon; shortnose sturgeon; and green (Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s
(Lepidochelys kempii), and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles (NMFS 2014c, NMFS
2018c)
41
42
43
•
St. Lucie plant biological opinion addressing the effects of continued operation on green,
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), Kemp’s, leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and
loggerhead sea turtles and smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata) (NMFS 2016)
February 2023
4-115
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
•
Columbia plant biological opinion addressing the effects of continued operation on Upper
Columbia River spring run chinook salmon and Upper Columbia River steelhead (NMFS
2017)
4
5
6
•
Oyster Creek plant (no longer operating) biological opinion addressing the effects of
continued operation and decommissioning on green, Kemp’s, and loggerhead sea turtles
(NRC 2020b).
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
The incidental take statements of these opinions allow for a specified amount of take of listed
species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out the Federal action of license
renewal, as well as reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions to minimize
such take. In accordance with these requirements, these plants monitor and report the effects
of continued operation under the license renewal term to the NMFS and the NRC. Notably, two
of these opinions (for the Indian Point and Oyster Creek plants) also address the effects of
shutdown and decommissioning. Section 3.6.3 discusses these and other biological opinions in
more detail.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. In summary, the potential effects of continued nuclear
power plant operation during an initial LR or SLR term depend on numerous site-specific
factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the listed species and critical habitats
present in the action area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water
withdrawal, effluent discharges, and refurbishment and other ground-disturbing activities.
Section 7 of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult with the Services for actions that
“may affect” federally listed species and critical habitats. Additionally, listing status is not static,
and the Services frequently issue new rules to list or delist species and designate or remove
critical habitats. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on listed species and
critical habitats under NMFS jurisdiction during a nuclear power plant’s license renewal term is
not possible. The NRC would need to perform a plant-specific impact assessment as part of
each initial LR or SLR environmental review to determine the potential effects on these
resources and consult with NMFS, as appropriate. Consequently, this is a Category 2 issue.
29
4.6.1.3.3 Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat
30
31
32
This issue concerns the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any
refurbishment during an initial LR or SLR term on essential fish habitat (EFH) protected under
the MSA.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Under the MSA, the Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NMFS, designate areas
of EFH and manage marine resources within those areas. Within EFH, habitat areas of
particular concern (HAPCs) may be designated if the area meets certain additional criteria.
Continued operation of a nuclear power plant during an initial LR or SLR term could affect EFH,
including HAPCs. EFH may occur at nuclear power plants located on or near estuaries, coastal
inlets and bays, and the ocean. EFH is generally not relevant for license renewal reviews of
plants located on rivers well above the saltwater interface or confluence with marine waters;
plants located on freshwater lakes, including the Great Lakes; or at plants that draw cooling
water from human-made cooling ponds or canals that do not hydrologically connect to natural
surface waters. One exception is in cases where a plant draws cooling water from the
freshwater portion of a river that is inhabited by diadromous prey of federally managed species
(herein referred to as “EFH species”) with designated EFH downstream of the plant.
Section 3.6.3.2 discusses this in more detail and provides examples of license renewal reviews
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-116
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
where this caveat has applied; it also describes EFH that the NRC has analyzed during other
past license renewal reviews and the relevant environmental stressors related to license
renewal.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
EFH is assessed in terms of impacts on the habitat of each EFH species, life stage, and their
prey and each HAPC. Importantly, EFH effect determinations characterize the effects on the
habitat of the EFH species and their life stages. They do not characterize the effects on the
species or the life stages themselves. Similarly, effect determinations for EFH prey characterize
the effects on the prey as a food resource rather than the effects on the prey species
themselves. For instance, a proposed action that involves water withdrawal from a river for
cooling purposes could cause habitat loss (i.e., temporary or permanent physical loss of a
portion of the water column). Associated effluent discharge could cause chemical or biological
(i.e., temperature and dissolved oxygen content) alterations to the habitat. With respect to prey
species, water withdrawals could impinge or entrain prey organisms, which would represent a
reduction in available food resources for EFH species within that habitat. Potential effects of
particular concern for EFH include the following:
16
•
physical removal of habitat through cooling water withdrawals
17
•
physical alteration of habitat through heated effluent discharges
18
19
•
chemical alteration of habitat through radionuclides and other contaminants in heated
effluent discharges
20
•
physical removal of habitat through maintenance dredging
21
•
reduction in the prey base of the habitat.
22
23
24
25
26
27
Additionally, EFH can be adversely affected by any of the factors described in Section 4.6.1.2
relevant to aquatic resources. However, the magnitude and significance of such impacts can be
greater for EFH because—by virtue of being designated as EFH—these habitats are
significantly more sensitive to environmental stressors because the EFH species they support
are already experiencing many pressures that affect their spawning, breeding, feeding, or
growth.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
As established in the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC reports findings under the MSA in accordance
with terminology used in the MSA and its implementing regulations (see Table 4.6-8). Individual
effect determinations are made for the EFH of each life stage of each EFH species, so the
number of MSA findings for a given license renewal will depend on the number of EFH species
and life stages with EFH present in the area. For instance, a license renewal could result in no
adverse effects to EFH of eggs of Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) but could result in
minimal adverse effects to EFH of juveniles and adults of the same species. Table 3.6-5
identifies the NRC’s findings for EFH evaluated during initial LR and SLR environmental reviews
conducted since the publication of the 2013 LR GEIS.
February 2023
4-117
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
Table 4.6-8
EFH Effect Determinations
Possible EFH Effect Determinations
Spatial Extent
Duration
“substantial adverse effects”
“more than minimal, but less than
substantial adverse effects”
“minimal adverse effects”
surface area, depth, and
seasonality described in writing
with explicit measurements, to
the extent possible, or pictorially
on a map
temporary versus permanent
short-term versus long-term
“no adverse effects”
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Depending on the NRC’s EFH effect determinations, the NRC may be required to consult with
NMFS under MSA Section 305(b). The NMFS maintains regulations that implement MSA
Section 305 at 50 CFR Part 600, “Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions.” Subpart K of these
regulations prescribes the EFH interagency consultation requirements. Subpart J includes
definitions and other information relevant to EFH. The NRC also relies upon the NMFS’s
detailed procedural guidance for conducting EFH consultation in Essential Fish Habitat
Consultation Guidance (NMFS 2004a) and Preparing Essential Fish Habitat Assessments: A
Guide for Federal Action Agencies (NMFS 2004b).
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
EFH consultation may be abbreviated, expanded, or programmatic. Generally, the appropriate
type of consultation is related to effect determinations made by the Federal agency. NUREG1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear
Power Plants for Operating License Renewal (NRC 2023), describes informal consultation,
formal consultation, and conference in detail. The NMFS regulations also allow for general
concurrences concerning EFH. However, situations are rare in which a general concurrence
would apply to an NRC action. Table 4.6-9 summarizes the appropriate type of consultation for
each possible effect determination.
18
19
Table 4.6-9
Appropriate Type of Consultation by Type of Proposed Action and
EFH Effect Determination
Type of Proposed Action
EFH Effect Determination
Abbreviated Consultation
Types of Consultation
individual proposed action
Expanded Consultation
individual proposed action
“minimal adverse effects”
or
“more than minimal, but less
than adverse effects”(a)
“substantial adverse effects”
or
“more than minimal, but less
than adverse effects”(a)
no more than “minimal adverse
effects” either individually or
cumulatively
Programmatic Consultation
No Consultation
20
21
22
proposed actions with a large number
of individual actions, such as
rulemakings or those involving
development of a GEIS
any
“no adverse effects”
EFH = essential fish habitat; GEIS = generic environmental impact statement.
(a) For this finding, the NRC should work with NMFS to determine whether abbreviated or expanded consultation is
most appropriate.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-118
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
In cases where adverse effects on EFH are possible, the NRC staff has engaged NMFS in EFH
consultation as part of the license renewal review and obtained EFH conservation
recommendations. The NMFS has developed EFH conservation recommendations in
connection with four initial LR and SLR environmental reviews conducted since the publication
of the 2013 LR GEIS: the Columbia (NMFS 2017), Seabrook (NMFS 2011), Limerick (NMFS
2014b), and Surry (NMFS 2019) plant reviews. These recommendations are intended to help
an action agency avoid and minimize impacts on EFH, and when there is unavoidable impact,
offset this impact (NOAA 2021). For instance, NMFS (2014b) recommended restricting in-water
maintenance work during certain parts of the year during the Limerick license renewal term:
10
11
•
12
13
14
If EFH consultation is conducted concurrently with ESA consultation, NMFS may make
recommendations based on requirements of the biological opinion. For instance, NMFS (2017)
made the following recommendations with respect to the Columbia plant license renewal:
15
16
(a) “Minimize adverse effects on water quality by monitoring and reporting as stated in term
and condition #1 in the accompanying [biological] opinion.”
17
18
19
(b) “Minimize the risk of artificial obstruction by conducting the entrainment and
impingement studies as stated in term and condition #2 in the accompanying [biological]
opinion.”
“Avoid in-water maintenance work from March 1 to June 30 of each year to minimize
adverse effects on migrating and spawning activities of anadromous fish.”
20
21
22
23
24
The NRC has a statutory obligation to reply to EFH conservation recommendations within
30 days of receiving the recommendations (50 CFR 600.920(k)(1)). A response must be
provided at least 10 days prior to the NRC’s issuance of a renewed license renewal if the
response is inconsistent with any of NMFS's recommendations, unless NMFS and NRC agree
to an alternative timeline (50 CFR 600.920(k)(1)).
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. In summary, the potential effects of continued nuclear
power plant operation during an initial LR or SLR term depends upon numerous site-specific
factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the EFH present in the action area,
including HAPCs; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal,
effluent discharges, and any other activities that may affect aquatic habitats during the license
renewal term, such as refurbishment or any in-water activities. Section 305(b) of the MSA
requires that Federal agencies consult with NMFS for actions that may adversely affect EFH.
Additionally, EFH status is not static. NMFS and the Fishery Management Councils frequently
update management plans for EFH species and issue new rules to designate or modify EFH
and HAPCs. Therefore, a generic determination of potential impacts on EFH during a nuclear
power plant’s license renewal term is not possible. The NRC would need to perform a plantspecific impact assessment as part of each initial LR or SLR environmental review to determine
the potential effects on these resources and consult with NMFS, as appropriate. Consequently,
this is a Category 2 issue.
40
4.6.1.3.4 National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary Resources
41
42
43
This issue concerns the potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and any
refurbishment during an initial LR or SLR term on sanctuary resources protected under the
NMSA.
February 2023
4-119
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
Under the NMSA, NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) designates and
manages the National Marine Sanctuary System. Marine sanctuaries may occur near nuclear
power plants located on or near marine waters as well as the Great Lakes. Currently, five
operating nuclear power plants—Ginna, Nine Mile Point, and FitzPatrick on Lake Ontario; Point
Beach on Lake Michigan; and Turkey Point near Biscayne Bay—are located near designated or
proposed national marine sanctuaries (see Table 3.6-6).
7
8
9
Impacts on marine sanctuaries are broad-ranging because such resources include any living or
nonliving resource of a national marine sanctuary. With respect to ecological sanctuary
resources, potential effects of particular concern include the following:
10
•
impingement (including entrapment) and entrainment
11
•
thermal effects
12
•
exposure to radionuclides and other contaminants
13
•
reduction in available food resources due to IM&E or thermal effects on prey species
14
•
effects associated with maintenance dredging.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Additionally, sanctuary resources can be adversely affected by any of the factors described in
Section 4.6.1.2 relevant to aquatic resources or, in the case of certain sanctuary resources,
such as seabirds, the factors described in Section 4.6.1.1 relevant to terrestrial resources.
However, the magnitude and significance of such impacts can be greater for sanctuary
resources because—by virtue of being part of a national marine sanctuary—these resources
are more sensitive to environmental stressors. Notably, because sanctuary resources can
include those that contribute to the recreational, ecological, historical, educational, cultural,
archaeological, scientific, or aesthetic value of the sanctuary, proper assessment of potential
impacts may require coordination with other environmental resource areas, such as visual
resources, socioeconomics, and historical and cultural resources. Table 4.6-10 provides
examples of types of sanctuary resources included in the regulatory definition at 15 CFR 922.3.
26
Table 4.6-10
Types of Sanctuary Resources
substratum of the area of the Sanctuary
submerged features(a) and the surrounding seabed
carbonate rock, corals, and other bottom formations
coralline algae and other marine plants and algae
marine invertebrates
brine seep biota
phytoplankton and zooplankton
fish
seabirds
sea turtles and other marine reptiles
marine mammals
historic resources(b)
27
28
29
30
(a) Submerged features may include human-made features, such as artificial coral reef structures and shipwrecks.
(b) Because sanctuary resources include historic resources, this review necessitates coordination with the historic
and cultural resource review to determine whether any historic resources are present that would be relevant to
the NMSA consultation. In such cases, multiple NRC staff may be involved in discussions with the ONMS.
31
32
33
34
35
36
The NRC reports findings under the NMSA in accordance with terminology used in the NMSA
(see Table 4.6-11). Depending on the NRC’s effect determinations, the NRC may be required
to consult with ONMS under NMSA Section 304(d). Unlike ESA Section 7 or EFH consultation,
for which there are each several possible types of consultation depending on the specific
circumstances, the ONMS’s guidance prescribes only a single process for consultation. NMSA
consultation is required when a Federal agency determines that an action “is likely to destroy,
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-120
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
cause the loss of, or injure” a sanctuary resource. Federal actions subject to consultation may
be inside or outside the boundary of a national marine sanctuary.
3
Table 4.6-11
Possible NMSA Effect Determinations
“may affect and is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure”
“may affect but is not likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure”
“no effect”
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
The NOAA has not promulgated regulations concerning NMSA Section 304(d). In 2008, NOAA
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register soliciting comments
about whether development of regulations implementing certain aspects of the NMSA Section
304(d) consultation provisions is appropriate (73 FR 50259). The NOAA later withdrew its
proposal in 2011. However, the ONMS has issued guidance for conducting NMSA consultation,
which the NRC relies upon, in Overview of Conducting Consultation Pursuant to Section 304(d)
of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NOAA 2009). NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision
2, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants for Operating
License Renewal (NRC 2023), describes NMSA consultation in detail.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The NRC staff has evaluated the potential impacts of license renewal on national marine
sanctuaries in two environmental reviews conducted since the publication of the 2013 LR GEIS:
Turkey Point and Point Beach plants, both of which were subsequent license renewals.
Section 3.6.3.3 summarizes these reviews. Neither license renewal ultimately required NMSA
consultation with ONMS. However, these reviews highlighted the need for the NRC to consider
potential impacts on sanctuary resources within national marine sanctuaries in its license
renewal reviews and to consult with ONMS, as appropriate.
20
21
22
23
24
25
If the initial LR or SLR would injure sanctuary resources, the NRC would consult with ONMS,
and ONMS would formulate recommended reasonable and prudent alternatives. In the context
of NMSA Section 304(d), these alternatives can best be understood as the actions necessary to
protect sanctuary resources. Alternatives generally focus on the location, timing, and methods
of the proposed action. For example, the ONMS may recommend that the proposed action be
conducted:
26
•
at an alternate location, including a location outside the sanctuary(ies),
27
•
during a different season or that it be delayed for a specified period of time,
28
•
with alternative equipment or procedures, or
29
•
in some combination of these recommendations.
30
31
32
33
34
35
If the ONMS provides the NRC with recommended alternatives, the NRC must discuss the
recommendations with the ONMS. If the NRC (or applicant) plans to fully implement the
recommended alternatives and fully incorporate them into the proposed action, the NRC need
not take any further action beyond this discussion to conclude the consultation. If the NRC (or
applicant) does not follow the recommended alternatives, the NRC must prepare a written
response that describes the reasons for not implementing the alternatives.
36
37
38
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. In summary, the potential effects of continued nuclear
power plant operation during an initial LR or SLR term depends upon numerous site-specific
February 2023
4-121
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
factors, including the ecological setting of the plant; the sanctuary resources present in the
action area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent
discharges, and any other activities that may affect sanctuary resources during the license
renewal term, such as refurbishment or any in-water activities. Section 304(d) of the NMSA
requires that Federal agencies consult with the ONMS for actions that may injure sanctuary
resources. Additionally, national marine sanctuary status is not static. The geographic extent of
existing sanctuaries may change or expand in the future, and NOAA is likely to designate new
sanctuaries as additional areas of conservation need are identified and assessed. Therefore, a
generic determination of potential impacts on sanctuary resources during a nuclear power
plant’s license renewal term is not possible. The NRC would need to perform a plant-specific
impact assessment as part of each initial LR or SLR environmental review to determine the
potential effects on these resources and consult with NMFS, as appropriate. Consequently, this
new issue is being established as a plant-specific, or Category 2 issue.
14
4.6.2
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Construction – For all alternative energy technologies discussed in this section, the impacts of
construction on ecological resources would be similar but could vary considerably in magnitude.
For land-based facilities, land clearing, excavation work, and installation of impervious surfaces
could result in habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation as well as disturbance, displacement, or
mortality of animals. Potential ecological impacts would vary depending on the nature and
acreage of the land area disturbed and the intensity of the excavation work. At greenfield sites,
impacts would likely be greater than at brownfield and other developed sites because habitat
could be permanently lost. Surface water runoff over disturbed ground, construction laydown
areas, and material stockpiles could increase levels of dissolved and suspended solids and
other contaminants in nearby waterways and aquatic features. Terrestrial and aquatic habitats
could also be affected by spills and leaks of petroleum, oil, and lubricant products from
construction equipment that is conveyed in stormwater runoff or that otherwise enters nearby
water bodies. Noise, vibration, and human activity could alter wildlife behaviors and result in
avoidance of neighboring areas of otherwise suitable habitat. Dredging and other in-water work
could directly remove or alter the aquatic environment and disturb or kill aquatic organisms.
Because construction effects would be short term, some of these effects would be relatively
localized and temporary. Effects could be minimized by using existing infrastructure at an
existing site, such as retired intake and discharge systems, as well as by using existing
transmission lines, roads, parking areas, and certain existing buildings and structures on the
site. Co-location of utility and transmission line ROWs with other existing ROWs would
minimize the amount of habitat disturbance. Aquatic habitat alteration and loss could be
minimized by siting components of the alternatives farther from water bodies and away from
drainages and other aquatic features.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Water quality permits required through Federal and State regulations would control, reduce, or
mitigate potential effects on the aquatic environment. Through such permits, the permitting
agencies could include conditions requiring BMPs or mitigation measures to avoid adverse
impacts. For instance, the USACE oversees Section 404 permitting for dredge and fill activities,
and EPA, or authorized States and Tribes, oversee NPDES permitting and general stormwater
permitting. Companies would likely be required to obtain each of these permits to construct a
new replacement power alternative. Notably, the EPA final rule under Phase I of the CWA
Section 316(b) regulations applies to new facilities and sets standards to limit intake capacity
and velocity to minimize impacts on fish and other aquatic organisms in the source water
(40 CFR 125.84). Any new replacement power alternative subject to this rule would be required
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-122
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
to comply with the associated technology standards, so construction of once-through cooling
systems for alternatives that require cooling water is unlikely.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Operation – Many of the operational impacts of a fossil fuel-fired or nuclear power plant
alternative would be like those resulting from continued operation of a nuclear power plant
during an initial LR or SLR term. Impacts on the ecological environment would include cooling
tower deposition of salt and moisture on plants; bird collisions with plant structures and
transmission lines; impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms; thermal and chemical
effects related to cooling water effluent discharges; effects of periodic dredging; and potential
water use conflicts. Water quality permits required through Federal and State regulations would
control, reduce, or mitigate potential effects on the aquatic environment. The operational
impacts of other alternative energy technologies would differ and are presented in the following
sections.
13
14
15
16
17
The above-described impacts would apply generally to construction and operation of each of the
alternatives discussed below. Differences among alternatives would depend not only on the
selected technology but also on site-specific factors, which cannot be evaluated here.
Discussion of such differences is outside the scope of this LR GEIS but is considered in plantspecific SEISs.
18
4.6.2.1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The general impacts of the construction and operation of new fossil fuel energy technologies are
described above in Section 4.6.2. The magnitude of impacts on ecological resources would be
site-dependent. Impacts would depend on the type and location of a proposed facility, the size
of the area affected by construction, the type of cooling system, and the characteristics of the
ecological resources present on the site. The magnitude of potential impacts from a proposed
facility could be greater than or less than renewing the license for an existing nuclear power
plant depending upon site-specific and project-specific factors. Many of the potential ecological
impacts from operations of a new fossil fuel energy technologies (coal- or gas-fired) would
essentially be like those for a nuclear power plant.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Unique features of a coal-fired power plant that could affect ecological resources include coal
delivery, cleaning, and storage, which would involve periodic maintenance dredging (if coal is
delivered by barge); noise; dust; loss of habitat; sedimentation and turbidity; and introduction of
minerals and terrace elements (including contaminants that can cause impacts like acid mine
drainage). Limestone preparation and storage could result in fugitive dust and runoff. Air
emissions, most notably acid rain, can cause direct and indirect effects, including foliage injury,
nutrient leaching, and decreased biodiversity. Disposal of combustion waste can result in
habitat loss and potential seepage of trace and other elements into groundwater, soils, and
surface waters.
37
38
39
40
41
The unique features of a gas-fired power plant that could affect ecological resources would be
those associated with gas pipelines. Pipeline construction could result in the loss, modification,
and fragmentation of natural habitats. Co-location of these lines within existing utility ROWs
could minimize these impacts. Gas leaks and spills could also adversely affect terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems.
Fossil Energy Alternatives
February 2023
4-123
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.6.2.2
New Nuclear Alternatives
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Many of the impacts of construction and operation of new nuclear technologies are described
above in Section 4.6.2. The magnitude of these impacts on ecological resources would be sitedependent and would depend on the type and location of a proposed facility, the size of the
area affected by construction, the type of cooling system, and the characteristics of the
ecological resources present on the site. For instance, small modular reactors can be more
easily sited on existing industrial-use sites, which would minimize disturbance of natural habitats
and maximize the use of existing infrastructure. The impacts of operation of a new nuclear
power plant and operation of an existing nuclear power plant during an initial LR or SLR term
would be similar. However, impacts could be greater than or less than renewing the license for
an existing nuclear power plant depending upon site-specific and project-specific factors.
12
4.6.2.3
13
14
The impacts of renewal energy technologies on the ecological environment would vary based
on the technology.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Biomass-fired plants would require large amounts of land for cultivation of energy crops, which
would result in habitat alteration and loss. Over time, cultivation could deplete the quality of
soils. For biomass plants that use agricultural residues (e.g., corncobs, rice husk, jute sticks,
cotton stock, coffee prunings, and coconut shells that do not decompose easily and have
potential as energy sources), the impacts would potentially be smaller because the affected land
would already be in use for cultivation. For biomass plants that use municipal solid waste
feedstock, deposition of toxic constituents could adversely affect nearby ecosystems. Water
demands for cooling would be like those of fossil fuel-fired plants and, therefore, similar impacts
on the ecological environment would be expected (e.g., cooling tower deposition of salt and
moisture on plants; impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms; thermal and chemical
effects related to cooling water effluent discharges; effects of periodic dredging; and potential
water use conflicts).
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The effects of geothermal energy alternatives depend on how the geothermal energy is
converted to useful energy. Direct use applications and geothermal heat pumps have almost no
negative effects on the environment. Geothermal plants may release chemicals in liquid
fractions that could include various heavy metals, which could leach into nearby terrestrial and
aquatic habitats and bioaccumulate in plants and animals (Kristmannsdottir and Armannsson
2003). If makeup water is derived from natural water bodies, impacts would be like those of
fossil fuel-fired plants.
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Onshore wind projects could affect terrestrial species through mechanical noise, collision with
turbines and meteorological towers, and interference with migratory behavior. Bird and bat
collision mortality is an ongoing concern at operating wind projects, but recent developments in
turbine design have reduced strike risk. At 43 wind facilities in Canada, researchers estimated
bird fatality at 8.2 birds (plus or minus 1.4 birds) per turbine per year (Zimmerling et al. 2013).
Publications examining 2012 data from U.S. wind energy facilities estimated that in total, about
a quarter to a half-million birds are killed per year at U.S. wind turbines (Johnson et al. 2016).
Another estimate using data through 2014 estimated that U.S. wind turbines account for the
death of over a half-million birds per year (Loss et al. 2015). Numbers are likely higher now
because many new wind projects have been developed in the past 10 years. At a wind facility
in southern Texas, researchers estimated bat fatalities at 16 bats per megawatt per year across
all species (Weaver et al. 2020). Onshore wind projects are generally sited away from
Renewable Alternatives
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-124
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
waterways. Therefore, construction would be unlikely to disturb or otherwise affect aquatic
habitats or features. Operation would not require cooling or consumptive water use and, thus,
would not affect aquatic resources.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Offshore wind projects could cause increased turbidity, noise, vibration, and other physical
disturbances to the aquatic environment from pile-driving, turbine construction, and submarine
power cable installation associated with construction. Cable installation could disturb large
spans of aquatic habitat and would be especially detrimental to nearshore and estuarine
habitats used by early life stages of finfish and shellfish. Dredging would likely be necessary in
some areas to prepare for cable installation and would result in destruction of the existing
benthic habitat and temporary habitat loss until the benthic community could repopulate the
area. Increased vessel anchoring during survey activities, construction, installation, and
maintenance would increase turbidity and disturb the benthic environment. Accidental releases
of contaminants from fuel and chemical spills would also pose a hazard to the aquatic
environment and would be especially detrimental to nearshore, estuarine, and unique or
sensitive habitats (BOEM 2020b). During operation, fuel and chemical spills would remain a
potential hazard. The presence of permanent structures could lead to impacts on finfish and
aquatic invertebrates through entanglement from gear loss, hydrodynamic disturbance, fish
aggregation, habitat conversion, and migration disturbances. These impacts may arise from
buoys, meteorological towers, foundations, scour/cable protection, and transmission cable
infrastructure. However, structure-oriented or hard-bottom species could benefit from the new
structures because they would have new material upon which to anchor themselves and build
colonies. Bird and bat collisions would remain a concern for offshore wind projects, although
such effects are not well studied. Offshore wind projects are more likely to affect birds that
conduct transoceanic migrations.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Solar PV facilities occupy large areas of land that could reduce or preclude natural vegetation
communities and wildlife use. Misalignment of mirrors could also increase fire risk. Impacts on
terrestrial habitats could be largely avoided if solar installations were installed on the roofs of
existing residential, commercial, or industrial buildings or at existing standalone solar facilities.
Synthetic organic heat transfer fluids could affect surrounding vegetation. Utility-scale solar
facilities may also pose hazards to birds and their insect prey if individual birds or insects
mistake a facilities’ reflective panel arrays for water. Birds and insects may be injured or killed
by colliding with solar panels if they try to land on or enter what they interpret to be water, in
what has been termed by researchers as the “lake effect hypothesis” (Kosciuch et al. 2020).
The FWS is currently developing mitigation strategies and BMPs related to birds and solar
facilities (MASCWG 2016). Discussions with the FWS and other relevant agencies during the
planning phases of a new solar project could minimize impacts on birds and other wildlife by
incorporating mitigation and BMPs into the design of the facility and construction plans. Solar
projects are generally sited away from waterways. Therefore, construction would be unlikely to
disturb or otherwise affect aquatic habitats or features. Operation would not require cooling or
consumptive water use and, thus, would not affect aquatic resources.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
For hydroelectric power alternatives, construction of dams could fragment river and stream
habitat and convert these free-flowing ecosystems into lake-like ecosystems. As a result, native
riverine species could suffer because many typically cannot thrive in the altered environment.
Fish species that migrate through the area to feed and spawn would be prohibited from
migrating if fish passages are not installed. Temperature and nutrient stratification in the
reservoir and reduced levels of dissolved oxygen could result in hypotoxic or anoxic conditions
for aquatic organisms. Aquatic biodiversity would likely decline before reaching some new, less
diverse equilibrium within the newly created reservoir. Terrestrial animals that feed on fish and
February 2023
4-125
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
shellfish could experience reduced prey availability. Water use conflicts could affect
downstream conditions. Aquatic and riparian habitats and wetlands could experience
fluctuating water levels downstream of the dam. When river levels are low, aquatic organisms
would temporarily lose habitat or could become stranded. Downstream habitats would be
affected by a variety of other dam-induced conditions, such as changes in sediment transport
and deposition patterns and channel erosion or scouring.
7
4.7
8
9
4.7.1
Historic and Cultural Resources
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued Operations
and Refurbishment Activities
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
For the issue of historic and cultural resources, the NRC evaluated the impact of continued
operations and refurbishment activities during the license renewal term on historic and cultural
resources located onsite and in transmission line ROWs. This issue was addressed in the 2013
LR GEIS (NRC 2013a), and it is a Category 2 issue. The issue has been updated to include
discussion of impacts on cultural resources that are not eligible for or listed in the National
Register of Historic Places that would also need to be considered during license renewal
reviews.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings (e.g., initial LR
and SLR) on historic properties and consult with the appropriate parties as defined in 36 CFR
800.2. The NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their actions on
the “affected human environment,” which includes “aesthetic, historic, and cultural resources.”
As discussed in Section 3.7.2, the NRC fulfills its Section 106 requirements through the NEPA
process in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c).
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Historic and cultural resources, especially archaeological sites, are sensitive to ground
disturbance and are nonrenewable. Even a small amount of ground disturbance (e.g., ground
clearing and grading) could affect a significant resource. Much of the information contained in
an archaeological site is derived from the spatial relationships between soil layers and
associated artifacts. Once these spatial relationships are altered, they can never be reclaimed.
Aboveground resources and traditional cultural properties (TCPs) are sensitive to impacts from
alterations in the viewshed.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Continued operations and refurbishment activities during the renewal term (i.e., initial LR and
SLR) can affect historic and cultural resources through (1) ground-disturbing activities
associated with plant operations and ongoing maintenance (e.g., construction of new parking
lots or buildings), landscaping, agricultural or other use of plant property; (2) activities
associated with transmission line maintenance (e.g., maintenance of access roads or removal of
danger trees); and (3) changes in the appearance of nuclear power plants and transmission
lines. License renewal environmental reviews have shown that the appearance of nuclear
power plants and transmission lines has not changed significantly over time; therefore,
additional viewshed impacts on historic and cultural resources are not anticipated.
40
41
42
43
44
The NHPA requires the NRC to conduct a plant-specific assessment to determine whether
historic properties are present in the area of potential effect (APE), and if so, whether the
license renewal (initial LR or SLR) would result in any adverse effect upon such properties.
There are three potential determinations (see 36 CFR 800.4) for plant-specific license renewal
reviews:
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-126
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
•
no historic properties present, the undertaking will have no effect to historic properties
2
•
historic properties present, the undertaking will have no adverse effect upon them
3
4
•
historic properties present, the undertaking will have an adverse effect upon one or more
historic properties (see 36 CFR 800.5).
5
6
7
For historic or cultural resources that do not meet the criteria to be considered a historic
property under the NHPA, the NRC will assess whether there would or would not be any
potential significant impacts on these resource through the NEPA process.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. As discussed in Section 3.7, historic and cultural resources
vary widely from site to site; there is no generic way of determining their existence or
significance. Based on the information reviewed and the preceding discussion, the NRC
concludes that potential impacts from continued operations and refurbishment activities on
historic and cultural resources during the initial LR and SLR terms are unique to each nuclear
power plant site. Therefore, the impacts on historic and cultural resources cannot be
determined generically, and it is a Category 2 issue.
16
4.7.2
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
If construction and operation of replacement energy alternatives require a Federal undertaking
(e.g., license, permit), the Federal agency would need to make a reasonable effort to identify
historic properties within the direct and indirect effects APE and consider the effects of the
undertaking on historic properties, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. If historic
properties are present and are affected by the undertaking, adverse effects would be assessed,
and resolved in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer and any Indian Tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to
identified historic properties through the NHPA Section 106 process. Additionally, NEPA
requires Federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their actions on the “affected
human environment,” which includes “aesthetic, historic, and cultural resources.”
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Construction – Construction impacts would be similar regardless of the energy alternative
considered. Most impacts on historic and cultural resources would occur primarily from both
onsite and offsite preparation-related ground-disturbing activities (e.g., land clearing, grading
and excavation, and road work) and the construction of power-generating facilities and nonsafety-related facilities such as administration buildings, parking lots, switchyards, pipelines,
access roads, and transmission lines. Any land needed to support an alternative energy facility
including roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, or other ROWs would also need to be
assessed. Before constructing a new replacement power plant at a greenfield, brownfield, or
existing nuclear power plant site, cultural resource surveys would need to be performed by a
qualified cultural resource professional.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Operations – Operation of a replacement energy alternative can affect historic and cultural
resources through (1) ground-disturbing activities associated with plant operations and ongoing
maintenance (e.g., construction of new parking lots or buildings), landscaping, agricultural or
other use of plant property; (2) activities associated with transmission line maintenance (e.g.,
maintenance of access roads or removal of danger trees); and (3) changes in the appearance of
nuclear power plants and transmission lines. The appearance of the power-generating facility
and transmission lines could result in alterations to the visual setting, which, whether temporary
or permanent, could affect other types of historic and cultural resources such as cultural
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
February 2023
4-127
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
landscapes, architectural resources, or TCPs. Impacts would vary with plant heights and
associated exhaust stacks or cooling towers.
3
4.7.2.1
4
5
Impacts from operations of a fossil fuel power plant would be the same as those described in
Section 4.7.2.
6
4.7.2.2
7
8
Impacts from operations of a new nuclear power plant would be the same as those described in
Section 4.7.2.
9
4.7.2.3
Fossil Energy Alternatives
New Nuclear Alternatives
Renewable Alternatives
10
11
Impacts from operations of a new renewable energy facility would be the same as those
described in Section 4.7.2.
12
4.8
13
14
4.8.1
15
16
17
18
19
Environmental reviews have shown that continued operations and refurbishment activities in
support of license renewal have had little to no socioeconomic effect on communities near
nuclear plants. Socioeconomic effects of power plant operations have become well established
and normal fluctuations in employment, income, and tax revenue have not altered the quality
and availability of community services and housing or increased traffic volumes.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
License renewal applicants consistently indicate they have no plans to add operations workers,
and increased maintenance and safety inspection activities during the renewal term can be
managed using the current workforce. Consequently, people living near nuclear power plants
have not experienced any significant socioeconomic impact since construction and the onset of
reactor operations. In addition, refurbishment activities, including steam generator and vessel
head replacement, have been conducted during regularly scheduled power plant refueling and
maintenance outages.
27
28
The environmental review of socioeconomic impacts conducted for this LR GEIS revision
consists of five issues.
29
•
employment and income, recreation, and tourism
30
•
tax revenue
31
•
community services and education
32
•
population and housing
33
•
transportation
34
4.8.1.1
35
36
As explained in Section 3.8, the nuclear power plant and the communities that support it can be
described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The communities provide the people, goods,
Socioeconomics
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued Operations
and Refurbishment Activities
Employment and Income, Recreation, and Tourism
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-128
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
and services required to operate the nuclear power plant. Power plant operation, in turn,
provides employment and income and pays for goods and services from the communities.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Employees receive income from the nuclear power plant in the form of wages, salaries, and
benefits. Employees and their families, in turn, spend this income on goods and services within
the community, thereby creating additional employment opportunities and income. In addition,
people and businesses in the community receive income for the goods and services sold to the
nuclear power plant. Payments for these goods and services create additional employment and
income opportunities within the community.
9
10
11
12
13
14
As previously discussed, the number of nuclear plant operations workers is not expected to
change, and license renewal environmental reviews have shown no need for additional workers.
In addition, refurbishment activities, including steam generator and vessel head replacement,
are conducted during regularly scheduled refueling and maintenance outages. Consequently,
employment levels at a nuclear power plant are not expected to change as a result of license
renewal.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Some communities experience seasonal transient population growth due to local tourism and
recreational activities. Income from tourism and recreational activities creates employment and
income opportunities in the communities around nuclear power plants. Communities located
near nuclear power plants in coastal regions, notably the D.C. Cook and Palisades plants
(Palisades was shut down in May of 2022) on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan, experience
summer and weekend population increases due to the recreational and tourism activities that
attract visitors. Some communities attract visitors interested in outdoor recreational activities,
such as camping, hiking, and skiing.
23
24
25
26
27
28
As discussed in Section 4.2.1.2, the NRC considered the aesthetic impacts of nuclear plant
operations and refurbishment activities potentially affecting tourism and recreational business
interests. The NRC concluded in the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs that aesthetic impacts would be
SMALL for all nuclear plants and a Category 1 issue. This is primarily because the visual
impact occurred during and after construction, and the appearance of nuclear power plants is
not expected to change as a result of license renewal.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
However, a case study performed for the 1996 LR GEIS found situations where nuclear power
plants have had a negative effect on the public. Negative perceptions were based on aesthetic
considerations (for instance, the nuclear plant is out of character or scale with the community or
the viewshed), physical environmental concerns, safety and perceived risk issues, an antinuclear plant attitude, or an anti-nuclear outlook. It is believed that these negative perceptions
would persist regardless of any mitigation. Subsequently, license renewal environmental
reviews have not revealed any new information that would change this perception.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Nevertheless, the effects of power plant operations on employment, income, recreation, and
tourism are ongoing and have become well-established for all nuclear power plants. The
impacts from power plant operations during the license renewal term on employment and
income in communities near nuclear power plants are not expected to change from those
currently being experienced. In addition, tourism and recreational activities in the vicinity of
nuclear plants are not expected to change as a result of license renewal. Based on these
considerations, the NRC concludes impacts from continued nuclear plant operations during
initial LR and SLR terms and refurbishment on employment, income, recreation, and tourism
would be the same—SMALL for all nuclear plants. The staff reviewed information from SEISs
(for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no
February 2023
4-129
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
new information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an
initial LR or SLR term. Therefore, employment, income, recreation, and tourism impacts would
be SMALL for all nuclear plants and a Category 1 issue for both initial LRs and SLRs.
4
4.8.1.2
Tax Revenue
5
6
7
8
9
10
Nuclear power plants are an important source of tax revenue for many local governments and
public school districts. Property taxes or payments in lieu of (property) taxes (PILOTs) are the
principal source of tax revenue in many tax jurisdictions with nuclear power plants, although in
some jurisdictions energy production is also taxed. County and municipal governments and
public school districts receive tax revenue either directly from the licensee, owner of the nuclear
plant, or indirectly through State tax and revenue-sharing programs.
11
12
13
14
Counties and municipal governments also receive revenue from sales taxes and fees paid by
the nuclear plant and its employees. Changes in the workforce and property taxes or PILOTs
paid to local governments and public schools can directly affect socioeconomic conditions in the
counties and communities near the nuclear power plant.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Environmental reviews have shown that refurbishment activities, such as steam generator and
vessel head replacement, have not had a noticeable effect on the assessed value of nuclear
plants, thus changes in tax revenues are not anticipated from these activities. Refurbishment
involving the one-for-one replacement of existing nuclear plant components and equipment are
generally not considered a taxable improvement. Also, property tax assessments; proprietary
PILOT stipulations, settlements, and agreements; and State tax laws are continually changing
the amount of taxes paid to tax jurisdictions by nuclear plant owners. These tax revenue
changes are independent of license renewal and refurbishment activities.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
The primary impact of initial LR or SLR would be the continuation of the receipt of tax revenue
from nuclear plants to local governments and public school districts. The environmental impact
of continued power plant operations on tax revenue in local communities and the expenditure of
tax revenue are not expected to change appreciably. Tax payments during the license renewal
term would be similar to those already being paid. Based on these considerations, the NRC
concludes impacts from continued nuclear plant operations during initial LR and SLR terms and
refurbishment on tax revenue would be the same—SMALL for all nuclear plants. The staff
reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the
2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different
impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. Therefore, tax revenue impacts would
be SMALL for all nuclear plants and a Category 1 issue for both initial LRs and SLRs.
34
4.8.1.3
35
36
37
38
Impacts from continued power plant operations and refurbishment activities on public
(community) services and education were evaluated based on the projected number of “inmigrating” workers with families during the renewal term. Public safety, social services, and
public utility impacts were also considered.
39
40
41
42
Workforce changes at a nuclear plant can affect the demand for public services in local
communities. Environmental reviews have shown, however, that the number of operations
workers at nuclear plants has not changed significantly because of license renewal, so demandrelated impacts on community services and public utilities are not anticipated. In addition,
Community Services and Education
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-130
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
refurbishment activities, including steam generator and vessel head replacement, are being
conducted during regularly scheduled refueling and maintenance outages.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Tax payments support a range of community services, including public water, safety, fire
protection, health, social, and educational services. In some communities, tax revenue from
nuclear plants have had a noticeable beneficial impact on the quality and availability of public
services to local residents. Nevertheless, the impact of continued operations and refurbishment
activities on community services and education is SMALL and is not expected to change as a
result of license renewal.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Based on these considerations, the NRC concludes that impacts from continued nuclear plant
operations during initial LR and SLR terms and refurbishment on community services and
education would be the same—SMALL for all nuclear plants. The staff reviewed information
from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and
identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for
either an initial LR or SLR term. Therefore, community services and education impacts would
be SMALL for all nuclear plants and a Category 1 issue for both initial LRs and SLRs.
16
4.8.1.4
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Nuclear power plant-induced population changes, while not an impact in themselves, were
studied as a potential influence on a number of socioeconomic impact issues analyzed in the LR
GEIS. As previously discussed, however, employment levels at nuclear plants are not expected
to change. Therefore, the operational effects of continued operations and refurbishment
activities on population and housing values and availability are not expected to change from
what is already being experienced near nuclear power plants, and no changes in housing
demand is expected during the license renewal term.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The increased number of workers at nuclear power plants during regularly scheduled refueling
and maintenance outages increases the short-term demand for temporary (rental) housing units
near each nuclear plant. However, because of its short duration and repeated nature,
employment-related housing impacts have little or no long-term effect on the price and
availability of rental housing. In addition, refurbishment activities, including steam generator and
vessel head replacement, are being conducted during these refueling and maintenance
outages. Therefore, refurbishment-related housing demand impacts would be similar to what is
already being experienced during regularly scheduled refueling and maintenance outages.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Environmental reviews performed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS have shown that the
number of workers at nuclear plants are not expected to change because of license renewal, so
changes in population and housing availability and value are not anticipated. Based on these
considerations, the NRC concludes impacts from continued nuclear plant operations during
initial LR and SLR terms and refurbishment on population and housing would be the same—
SMALL for all nuclear plants. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and
SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
Therefore, population and housing impacts would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and a
Category 1 issue for both initial LRs and SLRs.
Population and Housing
February 2023
4-131
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.8.1.5
Transportation
2
3
4
5
Transportation impacts depend on the size of the workforce, the capacity of the local road
network, traffic patterns, and the availability of alternate commuting routes to and from the
nuclear plant. Because most nuclear power plants have a single access road, there is often
congestion during shift changes.
6
7
8
9
10
11
Transportation impacts are ongoing and have become well-established at all nuclear power
plants. As previously discussed, the number of workers is unlikely to change during the license
renewal term, and environmental reviews have shown little or no need for additional operations
workers. In addition, refurbishment activities, including steam generator and vessel head
replacement, are being conducted during regularly scheduled refueling and maintenance
outages.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The increased number of workers at nuclear power plants during refueling and maintenance
outages have caused short-term increases in traffic volumes on roads in the vicinity of each
plant. However, because of the relative short duration of these outages, increased traffic
volumes have had little or no lasting impact. Therefore, there would be no transportation
impacts during the license renewal term beyond those already being experienced. Based on
these considerations, the NRC concludes transportation impacts from continued nuclear plant
operations during initial LR and SLR terms and refurbishment would be the same—SMALL for
all nuclear plants. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs)
completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
Therefore, transportation impacts would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and a Category 1 issue
for both initial LRs and SLRs.
24
4.8.2
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Communities have the potential to be both directly and indirectly affected by the construction
and operation of a new power plant. The power plant and the communities that support it can
be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. Communities provide the people, goods,
and services needed to construct and operate the new power plant. The power plant, in turn,
provides employment and income (wages, salaries, and benefits) and pays for goods and
services. The measure of a communities’ ability to support the new power plant depends on its
ability to respond to changing environmental, social, economic, and demographic conditions.
32
33
34
35
36
Construction – The scale and duration of the socioeconomic impact is determined by the cost,
complexity, and size of the replacement energy-generating facility and the workforce needed to
construct the new power plant. Socioeconomic impacts may be greater at greenfield sites in
rural areas than at brownfield sites in urban areas. Overall, construction would have a
temporary effect on the local economy.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Some construction workers may temporarily relocate from outside the region depending on the
need for and the availability of skilled crafts and trades workers. Larger numbers of workers
would likely relocate to rural construction sites, while urban construction sites would likely see
workers commuting daily to the job site. Some construction material (e.g., sand, gravel, fill, etc.)
and equipment may be available locally. Other construction materials, equipment, and
components may need to be shipped in from outside the region. Transportation during
construction would include commuter vehicles and truck, barge, or rail material and equipment
delivery to and from the construction site.
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-132
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
Operations – Operating a new power plant would have a greater permanent effect on the local
economy than during construction. Socioeconomic impacts would be greater in rural areas and
may be less noticeable in urban areas. Local property values could be affected by the need for
permanent housing by power plant operations workers. Conversely, the visual industrial impact
of the power plant during operations, traffic, and noise, could negatively affect property values.
6
7
8
9
Depending on location, an operating power plant could also negatively affect recreation and
tourism interests, resulting in reduced employment and income opportunities in these sectors of
the economy. Transportation during power plant operations includes commuter vehicle and
material and equipment truck deliveries and removal of waste.
10
11
The following sections briefly highlight the socioeconomic impacts of replacement energy
alternatives.
12
4.8.2.1
13
14
15
16
17
18
Construction and operation of fossil fuel-fired power plants requires a very large workforce
compared to other types of power plants and renewable technologies. Differences between
natural gas- and coal-fired power plants include the transportation impacts associated with coal
deliveries (rail or barge) and the removal of coal ash, waste, and other byproducts that may
affect property values and, depending on location, recreation and tourism interests in the vicinity
of the power plant.
19
4.8.2.2
20
21
22
23
Similar to a fossil-fueled power plant, a large workforce would be required to construct and
operate a new nuclear power plant. The presence of a nuclear power plant could affect
property values and, depending on location, recreation and tourism interests in the vicinity of the
power plant.
24
4.8.2.3
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Construction and Operation – Compared to fossil fuel and new nuclear energy, renewable
energy production would require a very small construction and operation workforce. In addition,
the construction of a new reservoir and dam for hydroelectric power generation would create
new recreational employment and income opportunities based on park, campground, and boat
ramp visitors. Traffic would increase on roads in the vicinity of the reservoir. Wind, solar, and
geothermal power generation could adversely affect recreation interests and property values in
rural communities. Transportation impacts would be limited due to the small size of the
workforce.
33
34
35
36
Conversely, local transportation networks could be affected by truck and rail traffic delivering
biomass fuel and removing waste to offsite disposal facilities. Property values, recreation, and
tourism interests could be adversely affected near the biomass and municipal solid waste,
refuse-derived and landfill gas-fired power plants.
37
38
39
40
Tourist and recreational interests and commerce on coastal beaches could be affected by the
visual impact of offshore wind turbines and ocean wave and current power-generating facilities.
Wave energy devices on the ocean surface could affect navigation and waterborne recreational
and commerce activities.
Fossil Energy Alternatives
New Nuclear Alternatives
Renewable Alternatives
February 2023
4-133
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.9
2
3
4.9.1
Human Health
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued Operations
and Refurbishment Activities
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Human health conditions at all nuclear power plants and associated transmission lines have
been well established during the current licensing term. Based on past environmental
monitoring data and trends, no significant human health impacts are anticipated during the
license renewal (initial LR or SLR) term that would be different from those occurring during the
current license term. Certain operational changes (such as extended power uprates) that could
potentially affect human health would be evaluated by the NRC in a separate safety and
environmental review.
11
4.9.1.1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
This section provides an evaluation of the impacts of radiological, chemical, microbiological,
EMFs, and physical hazards on occupational personnel and members of the public from
continued operation and any refurbishment activities during the initial LR and SLR terms. This
evaluation extends to all U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors. For safe and reliable
operation of a nuclear power plant, it is necessary to perform routine maintenance on plant
systems and components. Maintenance activities conducted at nuclear power plants include
inspection, surveillance, and repair and/or replacement of material and equipment to maintain
the current licensing basis of the plant and maintain compliance with environmental and public
safety requirements. Certain activities can be performed while the reactor is operating, and
others require that the reactor be shut down. Long-term outages are scheduled for refueling
and for certain types of repairs or maintenance activities, such as the replacement of steam
generators for pressurized water reactors (PWRs).
24
4.9.1.1.1 Radiological Exposure and Risk
25
26
27
28
Two environmental issues related to radiological exposure and risk are reviewed here:
(1) radiation exposures to plant workers and (2) radiation exposures to the public, both of which
would result from continued operation and refurbishment activities during the initial LR or SLR
terms.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, impacts are considered to be SMALL if
releases and doses do not exceed the permissible levels in the NRC’s regulations. This
definition of SMALL applies to occupational doses as well as to doses to individual members of
the public. Accidental releases or noncompliance with the standards could conceivably result in
releases that would cause MODERATE or LARGE radiological impacts. Such conditions are
beyond the scope of regulations for controlling normal operations and providing an adequate
level of protection. Environmental consequences and the human health effects of potential
accidents are addressed in Section 4.9.1.2.
37
Radiation Exposures to Plant Workers
38
39
The occupational radiological exposures from current operations at nuclear power plants and
the risk estimates from this radiation exposure are discussed in Section 3.9.
40
41
In the 1996 LR GEIS, the impacts from occupational radiological exposure from refurbishment
and continued operations were evaluated separately. To estimate radiation-related impacts on
Environmental Consequences of Normal Operating Conditions
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-134
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
workers over the license renewal term, occupational radiation exposure was used as the
environmental impact initiator that was quantified. It was assumed that occupational radiation
exposure would change relative to current nuclear plant operations as a result of actions taken
to support license renewal. To evaluate the impacts, two types of license renewal programs
were considered: a “typical” or “mid-stream” license renewal program, and a “conservative” or
“bounding” program (NRC 1996). Each program applied to both PWRs and boiling water
reactors (BWRs). Thus, in all, four scenarios were considered. It was assumed that activities
carried out in support of license renewal would be performed primarily during selected outages.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Five types of outages were considered: normal refuelings, 5-year in-service inspection (ISI)
outages, 10-year ISI outages, current-term refurbishment outages, and major refurbishment
outages. The potential actions and activities that would be undertaken during these outages
were identified. All of the rules and regulations, in particular the Maintenance Rule
(10 CFR 50.65, “Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear
Power Plants”), were taken into account in developing typical license renewals or plant-life
extensions (NRC 1996). The occupational exposure for each of the five types of outages was
estimated for all four scenarios (see Table 4.9-1). This analysis is bounding for both the initial
LR and SLR terms as discussed below.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
For refurbishment efforts, collective occupational dose estimates for activities during each of the
four current-term refurbishment outages were 11 and 10 person-rem for PWRs and BWRs,
respectively, for the typical case; and 200 and 191 person-rem, respectively, for the
conservative case. Collective occupational dose estimates for the assumed single period of
major refurbishment were 79 and 153 person-rem for PWRs and BWRs, respectively, for the
typical case; and 1,380 and 1,561 person-rem, respectively, for the conservative case. The
individual occupational doses would be well below regulatory limits specified in Table 3.9-1 (i.e.,
the impact would be SMALL), and the issue was designated as a Category 1 issue.
26
27
28
Table 4.9-1
Additional Collective Occupational Dose (person-rem) for Different Actions
under Typical and Conservative Scenarios during the License Renewal
Term
Typical
BWR
Conservative
BWR
Typical
PWR
Conservative
PWR
Normal refueling(a)
4
10
3
7
5-yr ISI refueling(b)
71
27
30
35
91
108
51
66
Current-term refurbishment
10
191
11
200
Major refurbishment outage(e)
153
1,561
79
1,380
Total all occurrences
457
2,666
261
2,374
Outage Type
10-yr ISI refueling
(c)
(d)
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
BWR = boiling water reactor; ISI = in-service inspection; PWR = pressurized water reactor.
(a) 8 occurrences, 2-month duration each.
(b) 2 occurrences, 3-month duration each.
(c) 1 occurrence, 4-month duration for conservative and 3-month duration for typical scenario.
(d) 4 occurrences, 4-month duration for conservative and 3-month duration for typical scenario.
(e) 1 occurrence, 9-month for conservative and 4-month duration for typical scenario.
Sources: Tables 2.8 and 2.11 in the 1996 LR GEIS.
36
37
For continued operations during the license renewal term, the NRC observed in the 1996 LR
GEIS that the greatest increment to occupational dose over the present dose would occur
February 2023
4-135
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
during a 10-year ISI refueling. In a typical case, the collective occupational dose would increase
over the present dose by 91 person-rem for a BWR and by 51 person-rem for a PWR. In a
conservative case, the collective occupational dose would increase over the present dose by
108 person-rem and 66 person-rem, respectively, for BWRs and PWRs. The individual
occupational doses would be well below regulatory limits (i.e., the impact would be SMALL), and
the issue was designated as a Category 1 issue.
7
8
9
For estimating the impacts from continued operation and any refurbishment activities during the
initial LR or SLR term in this LR GEIS revision, the occupational exposure histories for all
commercial nuclear power plants were evaluated for trends.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Throughout the nuclear power industry, modification and upgrade activities have continued at
each operating plant. They have included a broad range of activities in response to NRC
requirements and industry initiatives, including post-Three Mile Island upgrades, radioactive
waste system modifications, and spent fuel storage upgrades. In addition, several nuclear
power plants have undergone major refurbishment efforts, such as PWR steam generator
replacement and the replacement of coolant recirculation piping in BWRs. These activities
offered a significant potential for occupational exposure. Thus, occupational exposure histories
accumulated to date reflect normal operation plus modifications and additions to existing
systems. This information forms the basis for evaluating the occupational doses that result from
refurbishment and continued operations during initial LR or SLR terms. The data in
Table 3.9-11, Table 3.9-12, Table 3.9-13, and Table 3.9-14 show that there are variations in
occupational dose from year to year, but there is no consistent trend that shows that
occupational doses are increasing over time.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Since 1996, 96 operating reactors at approximately 59 nuclear power plant sites have
undergone an environmental review for license renewal. Many nuclear power plants have
already replaced major components like steam generators during their current license term.
Moreover, as part of the license renewal application, the plant licensees have conducted an
aging management review. All of the plant licensees expect to conduct the activities related to
managing impacts from aging during plant operation or normal refueling and other outages, but
they do not plan any outage specifically for the purpose of refurbishment. License renewal
applicants have indicated that the activities conducted during the initial LR or SLR terms are
expected to be within the bounds of normal operations; thus, even the typical scenario in the
1996 LR GEIS can be considered conservative.
33
34
35
36
Overall, data presented in tables in Section 3.9 provide ample evidence that occupational doses
at all commercial power plants are far below the occupational dose limit of 5 rem/yr established
by 10 CFR Part 20 and that the continuing efforts to maintain doses at ALARA levels have been
successful.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
The wide range of annual collective doses experienced at PWRs and BWRs in the
United States results from a number of factors, such as the reactor design, amount of required
maintenance, and amount of reactor operations and in-plant surveillance. Because these
factors can vary widely and unpredictably, it is difficult to determine in advance specific year-toyear occupational radiation doses for a particular plant over its operating lifetime. On occasion,
relatively high collective occupational doses (compared to the average annual collective dose)
may be unavoidable, even at plants with radiation protection programs designed to make sure
that occupational doses will be kept to ALARA levels.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-136
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
Occupational doses have shown a declining trend over the past 10 years and have recently
leveled off. As plants age, there may be slight increases in radioactive inventories, which would
result in slight increases in occupational radiation doses, but no such trend has been observed
in the monitoring data.
5
6
7
Overall, data presented in the tables in Section 3.9 provide evidence that doses to nearly all
radiation workers are far below the worker dose limit established by 10 CFR Part 20 and that
the continuing efforts to maintain doses at ALARA levels have been successful.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Occupational doses from refurbishment activities associated with license renewal and
occupational doses for continued operations during the initial LR or SLR terms are expected to
be similar to the doses during the current operations and bounded by the analysis conducted in
the 1996 LR GEIS. It is estimated that the occupational doses would be much less than the
regulatory dose limits, as described above. Expected occupational radiation exposures meet
the standard for being of SMALL significance. No mitigation measures beyond those
implemented during the current license term would be warranted, because the ALARA process
continues to be effective in reducing radiation doses.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC concluded that the occupational radiological
exposure impact during license renewal and refurbishment would be SMALL for all plants; it was
therefore designated as a Category 1 issue. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for
initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new
information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR
or SLR term. On this basis, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued operations during
initial LR or SLR terms and any refurbishment activities on occupational radiological exposure
during the initial LR or SLR terms would be SMALL for all nuclear plants. This is a Category 1
issue.
25
Radiation Exposures to the Public
26
27
28
29
30
Radiological exposures to the public from current operations at nuclear power plants are
discussed in Section 3.9.1.3. That section includes a discussion of the effluent pathways used
in calculating dose and the radiological monitoring performed at each nuclear plant site to make
sure that unanticipated buildup of radioactivity has not occurred in the environment. The risk
estimates for the public from radiation exposure are discussed in Section 3.9.1.4.
31
32
33
During continued operations following initial LRs or SLRs, small quantities of radioactivity
(fission, corrosion, and activation products) will continue to be released to the environment in a
manner similar to that occurring during present operations (see Section 3.9).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
In both the 1996 and 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC evaluated the significance of the estimated public
dose from refurbishment activities such as steam generator replacement in PWRs and
replacement of recirculation piping in BWRs. Public radiation exposures from gaseous and
liquid effluents produced during refurbishment activities can be evaluated on the basis of
effluent data from the replacement of steam generators and recirculation piping as discussed in
the 2013 LR GEIS. During the replacement of steam generators and recirculation piping,
releases of effluents have occurred under controlled conditions and in accordance with ALARA
principles. Similar refurbishment efforts that may occur as part of continued operations
following initial LR or SLR would also take place under controlled conditions and in accordance
with ALARA principles.
February 2023
4-137
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
The concentration of radioactive materials in soils and sediments increases in the environment
at a rate that depends on the rate of release and the rate of removal. Removal can take place
through radioactive decay or through chemical, biological, or physical processes. For a given
rate of release, the concentrations of longer-lived radionuclides and, consequently, the dose
rates attributable to them would continue to increase if license renewal was granted.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977) provides guidance for calculating the dose for significant
release pathways. To account for the buildup of radioactive materials, buildup factors are
included in the calculations. The accumulation of radioactive materials in the environment is of
concern not only with regard to license renewal but also with regard to operation under current
licenses. NRC reporting rules require that pathways that may arise as a result of unique
conditions at a specific nuclear power plant site be considered in licensees’ evaluations of
radiation exposures. If an exposure pathway is likely to contribute significantly to total dose
(10 percent or more to the total dose from all pathways), it must be routinely monitored and
evaluated. Environmental monitoring programs are in place at all plant sites to provide a
backup to the calculated doses based on effluent release measurements. Because these
programs are ongoing for the duration of the plant’s license, locations where unique situations
give rise to significant pathways that are not detailed in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 are to be
identified if and when they become significant. If such pathways result in doses at a plant
exceeding the design objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, action is required.
20
21
22
23
24
The radiation dose to the public from current operations results from gaseous effluent releases
and from liquid effluent releases, as presented in Section 3.9.1.3. At present, for all operating
nuclear plants, doses to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) are much less than the design
objectives of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 (Table 3.9-2). No aspect of future operation has
been identified that would substantially alter this situation.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Maximum individual doses are reported in annual effluent release reports, and if these doses
exceed Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 design objectives, the NRC would pursue remedial action.
Thus, these issues are handled on a case-by-case basis. Almost all nuclear power plants have
gone through initial LR, and no aging phenomenon that would increase public radiation doses
has been identified. The operating reactors are not expected to reach regulatory dose limits
more often in the period after initial LR or SLR than they do at present. For these reasons, dose
impacts on MEIs in the public during future operation are judged to be unchanged from those
during present operations. Although dose rates (mrem/yr) are not expected to change during
initial LRs or SLRs, the cumulative dose (total mrem) would increase as a result of 20 to 40
more years of operations. However, it is unlikely that the same person would be exposed to
these doses during the initial LR or SLR term.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
One of the pathways considered when calculating the MEI doses is direct radiation from
operating plants. Radiation fields are produced around nuclear plants as a result of radioactivity
within the reactor and its associated components, low-level storage containers, and components
such as steam generators that have been removed from the reactor. Direct radiation from
sources within a light water reactor (LWR) plant is due primarily to nitrogen-16, a radionuclide
produced in the reactor core by neutron activation of oxygen-16 in the water. Because the
primary coolant of an LWR is contained in a heavily shielded area, dose rates in the vicinity of
LWRs are generally undetectable and less than 1 mrem/yr at the site boundary. Some plants
(mostly BWRs) do not have completely shielded secondary systems and may contribute some
measurable offsite dose. However, these sources of direct radiation will be unaffected by
license renewal.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-138
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
In addition to the regulations within 10 CFR 20.1101 that speak directly to required operation
under ALARA principles, 10 CFR 50.36a imposes conditions on nuclear plant licensees in the
form of technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors. These specifications
are intended to keep releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during operations to
ALARA levels. Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical guidance on dose-design
objectives and limiting conditions for the operation of LWRs to meet the ALARA requirements.
These regulations will remain in effect during the period of license renewal.
8
9
10
11
12
To date, 96 operating reactors at 59 nuclear power plant sites have gone through license
renewal. In all cases, the radiation dose to members of the public from routine operations was
within NRC regulations as presented in Section 3.9.1.3. This information was used to support
the conclusion that the radiation dose to the public will continue at current levels associated with
normal operations and is expected to remain much lower than the applicable standards.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Offsite doses to the public attributable to refurbishment activities were examined for the MEI.
Because the focus of the analysis is on annual dose, only the results based on the most likely
major refurbishment action were examined (i.e., replacing steam generators in PWRs and
primary recirculation piping in BWRs). For this action, doses to the public were found to be
SMALL. To date, effluents and doses during periods of major refurbishments have not been
observed to differ significantly from those during normal operations. Consequently, gaseous
effluents and liquid discharges occurring during major refurbishment actions are not expected to
result in maximum individual doses exceeding the design objectives of Appendix I to
10 CFR Part 50 (Table 3.9-2) or the allowable EPA standards of 40 CFR Part 190, Subpart B
(Table 3.9-3).
23
24
25
26
27
Radiation doses to members of the public from current operations of nuclear power plants have
been examined from a variety of perspectives, and the impacts were found to be well within
design objectives and regulations in each instance. No effect of aging that would significantly
affect the radioactive effluents has been identified. Public doses are expected to remain well
within design objectives and regulations.
28
29
30
31
32
Because there is no reason to expect effluents to increase in the period during the initial LR or
SLR term, doses from continued operation are expected to be well within regulatory limits. No
mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the current-term license would be
warranted because current mitigation practices have kept public radiation doses well below
regulatory standards and are expected to continue to do so.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Public radiological exposure impacts during license renewal and refurbishment activities were
considered to be SMALL for all plants and were designated as Category 1 issues in the 1996
and 2013 LR GEISs. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs)
completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impact of continued
operations and refurbishment activities on public radiological exposure during the initial LR and
SLR terms would be SMALL for all nuclear plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
41
4.9.1.1.2 Nonradiological Hazards
42
43
Nonradiological hazards, such as chemical, biological, EMFs, and physical hazards are not
unique to nuclear power plants and occur in many types of industrial facilities. However, certain
February 2023
4-139
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
nonradiological hazards can be enhanced by physical plant elements or characteristics of
nuclear power plants, as discussed in detail in Section 3.9.2.
3
Chemical Hazards
4
5
6
This renamed issue has been revised from the issue “Human health impact from chemicals” in
the 2013 LR GEIS for the purposes of clarity and to reflect the fact that chemicals can have
environmental effects beyond human health.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A chemical hazard occurs when workers or members of the public are exposed to a
nonradiological hazardous substance by inhalation, skin absorption, or ingestion. Chemical
hazards can have immediate effects (nausea, vomiting, acid burns, asphyxiation—also known
as acute hazards) or the effects might take time to develop (dermatitis, asthma, liver damage,
cancer—also known as chronic hazards). In nuclear power plants, chemical effects could result
from discharges of chlorine or other biocides, small-volume discharges of sanitary and other
liquid wastes, chemical spills, or heavy metals leached from cooling system piping and
condenser tubing. Impacts of chemical discharges on human health are considered to be
SMALL if the discharges of chemicals to water bodies are within effluent limitations designed to
protect water quality and if ongoing discharges have not resulted in adverse effects on aquatic
biota. During the initial LR or SLR term, human health impacts from chemicals are expected to
be the same as those experienced during operations under the original license term (see
Section 3.9.2 for more details).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The types of chemical hazards that exist at a nuclear power plant are discussed in
Section 3.9.2.1. Plant workers may encounter hazardous chemicals when the chemistries of
the primary and secondary coolant systems are being adjusted, biocides are being applied to
address the fouling of cooling system components, equipment containing hazardous oils or
other chemicals is being repaired or replaced, solvents are being used for cleaning, or other
equipment is being repaired. Exposures to hazardous chemicals are minimized when plant
workers follow good industrial hygiene practices.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Reviews of the literature and operational monitoring reports and consultations with utilities and
regulatory agencies that were conducted for the 1996 LR GEIS indicated that the effects of the
discharge of chlorine and other biocides on water quality would be of SMALL significance for all
nuclear power plants. Small quantities of biocides are readily dissipated and/or chemically
altered in the water body receiving them, so significant cumulative impacts on water quality
would not be expected. Major changes in the operation of the cooling system are not expected
during the license renewal terms, so no change in the effects of biocide discharges on the
quality of the receiving water is anticipated. Major proposed changes in cooling system
operations (e.g., those affecting the plant’s licensing basis and possibly triggering a license
amendment) would require a separate NEPA review, including an examination of human health
effects. In addition, proposed changes in the use of cooling water treatment chemicals would
require review by the plant’s NPDES permit-issuing authority and possible modification of the
existing NPDES permit, including examination of the human health effects of the change. The
effects of biocide discharges could be reduced by increasing the degree to which discharge
water is treated, reducing the concentration of biocides, or treating only a portion of the plant
cooling and service water systems at one time. Discharges of sanitary wastes are regulated by
the plant’s NPDES permit or other regulatory approval, and discharges that do not violate the
permit limits are considered to be of SMALL significance.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-140
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
The effects of minor chemical discharges and spills at nuclear plants on water quality have been
of SMALL significance and mitigated as needed. Significant cumulative impacts on water
quality would not be expected because the small amounts of chemicals released by these minor
discharges or spills are readily dissipated in the receiving water body. While there may be
additional management practices or discharge-control devices that could further reduce the
frequency of accidental spills and off-specification discharges, they are not warranted because
impacts are already SMALL and occur at a low frequency.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Heavy metals (e.g., copper, zinc, and chromium) may be leached from condenser tubing and
other heat exchangers and discharged by power plants as small-volume waste streams or
corrosion products. Although all are found in small quantities in natural waters (and many are
essential micronutrients), concentrations in the power plant discharge are controlled in the
NPDES permit because excessive concentrations of heavy metals can be toxic to aquatic
organisms.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Nuclear power plants may be required in some instances to submit annual reports on the
environmental releases of listed toxic chemicals manufactured, processed, or otherwise used
that are above identified threshold quantities depending on State regulations or other specific
circumstances. The disposal of essentially all of the hazardous chemicals used at nuclear
power plants is regulated by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA; 42 U.S.C. §
6901 et seq.) or NPDES permits. The NRC requires nuclear power plants to operate in
compliance with all of its environmental permits, thereby minimizing adverse impacts on the
environment and on workers and the public. It is anticipated that all plants will continue to
operate in compliance with all applicable permits, and no mitigation measures beyond those
implemented during the current-term license would be warranted as a result of initial LR or SLR.
24
25
26
27
28
29
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would
result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. On the basis of
these considerations, the health impact from chemicals on workers and the public, as well as on
the environment, during the initial LR and SLR terms is considered SMALL for all nuclear plants.
This renamed issue is a Category 1 issue.
30
4.9.1.1.3 Microbiological Hazards
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Microbiological hazards occur when workers or members of the public come into contact with
disease-causing microorganisms, also known as etiological agents. Microbiological organisms
of concern for public and occupational health, include enteric pathogens (bacteria that typically
exist in the intestines of animals and humans [e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa]), thermophilic
fungi, bacteria (e.g., Legionella spp. and Vibrio spp.), free-living amoebae (e.g., Naegleria
fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp.), as well as organisms that produce toxins that affect human
health (e.g., dinoflagellates [Karenia brevis] and blue-green algae). During initial LR and SLR
terms, plant workers and members of the public would be exposed to microbiological hazards in
the same way that they are exposed during operations under the original license term (see
Section 3.9.2.2 for details).
February 2023
4-141
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
Two environmental issues related to microbiological hazards are reviewed here:
(1) microbiological hazards to plant workers and (2) microbiological hazards to the public (this
issue was modified and renamed from the 2013 LR GEIS to include waters of the United States
accessible to the public).
5
Microbiological Hazards to Plant Workers
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
No change in existing microbiological hazards is expected due to license renewal, for the
reasons discussed in detail in the 2013 LR GEIS. It is considered unlikely that any plants that
have not already experienced occupational microbiological hazards would do so during the
license renewal term or that hazards would increase during that period. The staff reviewed
information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR
GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for this
issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. It is anticipated that all plants will continue to employ
proven industrial hygiene principles so that adverse occupational health effects associated with
microorganisms during the initial LR and SLR terms will be of SMALL significance at all sites,
and no mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the current-term license would
be warranted. Aside from continued application of accepted industrial hygiene procedures, no
additional mitigation measures are expected to be warranted as a result of license renewal.
This is a Category 1 issue.
19
Microbiological Hazards to the Public
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
This renamed issue is an expansion of the issue “Microbiological hazards to the public (plants
with cooling ponds or canals or cooling towers that discharge to a river)” in the 2013 LR GEIS
because this issue is a concern wherever receiving waters are accessible to the public.
Specifically, members of the public could be exposed to microorganisms in thermal effluents at
nuclear power plants that use cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or that discharge to any waters of
the United States accessible to the public. As discussed in Section 3.9.2.2, the SEISs
published since 2013 were reviewed to determine the level of thermophilic microbiological
organism enhancement in waters accessible to the public. Although reviews to date note that
health departments did not have concerns related to microbiological hazards, changes in
microbial populations and in the public use of water bodies might occur after the operating
license is issued and the application for initial LR or SLR is filed. Other factors could also
change, including the average temperature of the water, which could result from climate change
affecting water levels and air temperature. Finally, the long-term presence of a power plant
might change the natural dynamics of harmful microorganisms within a body of water.
Therefore, the magnitude of the potential public health impacts associated with thermal
enhancement of thermophilic organisms during the initial LR and SLR terms could be SMALL,
MODERATE, or LARGE, depending on plant-specific conditions. This renamed issue is a
Category 2 issue.
38
4.9.1.1.4 Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs)
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
This renamed issue is a clarification of the issue “Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields” in
the 2013 LR GEIS because this issue concerns effects beyond just those that might be chronic
in nature. Nuclear power plants use power transmission systems that consist of switching
stations (or substations) located on the plant site and transmission lines located primarily offsite
that connect the power plant to the regional electric grid. Electric fields and magnetic fields,
collectively referred to as EMFs, are produced by any electrical equipment, including operating
transmission lines. During the initial LR or SLR, plant workers and members of the public who
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-142
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
live, work, or pass near an associated operating transmission line may be exposed to EMFs in
the same way that they are exposed during the current license term (see Section 3.9.2.3 for
more detail). One environmental issue related to EMFs is reviewed in this section: chronic
effects of EMFs. The issue was further evaluated in the 2013 LR GEIS by reviewing the
relevant literature.
6
7
8
9
10
11
As in the 2013 LR GEIS, it should be noted that the scope of the evaluation of transmission
lines includes only those transmission lines that connect the plant to the switchyard where
electricity is fed into the regional power distribution system (encompassing those lines that
connect the plant to the first substation of the regional electric power grid) and power lines that
feed the plant from the grid are considered within the regulatory scope of license renewal
environmental review (see Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.6.5 in this GEIS).
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
EMF health studies have been the subject of published studies, and a discussion of some of
these studies was presented in the 2013 LR GEIS in Section 4.9.1.1.4 and is incorporated here
by reference. A review of the biological and physical studies of 60 hertz (Hz) EMFs completed
during preparation of the 2013 LR GEIS did not find any consistent evidence that would link
harmful effects with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g.,
toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced, and
longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Nonetheless, a wide range of biological responses have
been reported to be affected by EMFs.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Even if clear adverse effects were apparent in the epidemiology literature or with some
biological assay, considerable additional work would be required to determine how and what to
mitigate because evidence suggests that the severity of some EMF biological effects may not
correlate directly with exposure. Furthermore, there may be a subtle relationship between the
intensity of the local geomagnetic field and the appearance of effects for some intensities of
60 Hz fields. This complicating evidence points to the fact that, while much experimental and
epidemiological evidence has been accrued, understanding of this issue continues to evolve.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
For this renamed issue, because of inconclusive scientific evidence, the health effects of EMFs
during the initial LR and SLR terms are considered UNCERTAIN, and currently, no generic
impact level can be assigned. The NRC will continue to monitor the research initiatives—both
those within the national EMF program and others internationally—to evaluate the potential
carcinogenicity of EMFs as well as other progress in the EMF study disciplines. If the NRC
finds that the appropriate Federal health agencies have reached a consensus on the potential
human health effects of exposure to EMF, the NRC will revise the LR GEIS to include the new
information and describe effective mitigating measures.
35
4.9.1.1.5 Physical Hazards
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Two additional human health issues are addressed in this section: (1) physical occupational
hazards and (2) electric shock hazards, both previously considered in the LR GEIS. Nuclear
power plants are industrial facilities that have many of the typical occupational hazards found at
any other electric power generation facility. Power plant and maintenance workers could be
working under potentially hazardous physical conditions (e.g., excessive heat, cold, and
hazardous locations), including those experienced when conducting electrical work, power line
maintenance, and repair work. The issue of physical occupational hazards is generic to all
nuclear power plants.
February 2023
4-143
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Transmission lines are needed to transfer energy from the nuclear power plant to consumers.
The workers and general public at or around the nuclear power plants and along the
transmission lines are potentially exposed to acute electrical shock from these lines. The issue
of electrical shock is generic to all nuclear power plants. As described in Sections 3.1.1 and
3.1.6.5, in-scope transmission lines include only those lines that would not continue to operate if
a plant’s license was not renewed. Using this criterion, in-scope transmission lines are those
lines that connect the plant to the first substation of the regional electric grid. This substation is
frequently, but not always, located on the nuclear plant property.
9
10
11
During the initial LR or SLR terms, human health impacts from physical occupational hazards
and acute shock hazards would be the same as those from operations during the original
license term (see Section 3.9.2.4 for more detail).
12
Physical Occupational Hazards
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The types of physical hazards that exist at a nuclear power plant are discussed in
Section 3.9.2.4. The issue of occupational hazards is evaluated by comparing the rate of fatal
injuries and nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses in the utility sector with the rate in all
industries combined. Occupational hazards can be minimized when workers adhere to safety
standards and use appropriate personal protective equipment; however, fatalities and injuries
from accidents can still occur. Data for occupational injuries from the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics are discussed in detail in Section 3.9.2.4. The staff reviewed information from SEISs
(for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no
new information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an
initial LR or SLR term. It is expected that during the initial LR or SLR term, workers would
continue to adhere to safety standards and use protective equipment, so adverse occupational
impacts during the initial LR and SLR terms would be of SMALL significance at all sites, and no
mitigation measures beyond those implemented during the current license term would be
warranted. This is a Category 1 issue.
27
Electric Shock Hazards
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
In-scope transmission lines are those lines that connect the plant to the first substation of the
regional electric grid. This substation is frequently, but not always, located on the plant
property. The greatest hazard from a transmission line is direct contact with the conductors.
Tower designs preclude direct access to the conductors. However, electrical contact can be
made without physical contact between a grounded object and the conductor, as discussed in
Section 3.9.2.4.1. A person who contacts such an object could receive a shock and experience
a painful sensation at the point of contact. The intensity of the shock would depend on the EMF
strength, size of the object, and how well the object and person were insulated from ground.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. Design criteria for nuclear power plants that limit hazards
from steady-state currents are based on the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC), adherence
to which requires that power companies design transmission lines so that the short-circuit
current to ground produced from the largest anticipated vehicle or object is limited to less than
5 mA (IEEE SA 2017). The electrical shock issue, which is generic to all types of electrical
generating stations, including nuclear plants, is of SMALL significance for transmission lines that
are operated in adherence with the NESC. Without a review of the conformance of each
nuclear plant’s transmission lines, within this scope of review, with NESC criteria, it is not
possible to determine the significance of the electrical shock potential generically during the
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-144
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
initial LR or SLR term; it could be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The hazard of electric
shock is a Category 2 issue.
3
4.9.1.2
4
4.9.1.2.1 Design-Basis Accidents and Severe Accidents
5
6
7
Chapter 5 of the 1996 LR GEIS assessed the impacts of postulated accidents at nuclear power
plants on the environment. The postulated accidents included design-basis accidents and
severe accidents (e.g., those with reactor core damage). The impacts considered included:
8
•
dose and health effects of accidents (5.3.3.2 through 5.3.3.4 of the 1996 LR GEIS);
9
•
economic impacts of accidents (5.3.3.5 of the 1996 LR GEIS); and
10
•
impact of uncertainties on results (5.3.4 of the 1996 LR GEIS).
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The estimated impacts were based upon the analysis of severe accidents at 28 nuclear power
plants,16 as reported in the environmental impact statements (EISs) and/or final environmental
statements prepared for each of the 28 plants in support of their operating licenses. With few
exceptions, the severe accident analyses were limited to consideration of reactor accidents
caused by internal events. The 1996 LR GEIS addressed the impacts from external events
qualitatively. The severe accident analysis for the 28 plants was extended to the remainder of
plants whose EISs did not consider severe accidents (because such analysis was not required
at the time the other plants’ EISs were prepared). The estimates of environmental impact
contained in the 1996 LR GEIS used 95th percentile upper confidence bound estimates
whenever available. This provides conservatism to cover uncertainties, as described in
Section 5.3.3.2.2 of the 1996 LR GEIS. The 1996 LR GEIS concluded that the probabilityweighted consequences and impacts were SMALL compared to other risks to which the
populations surrounding NPPs are routinely exposed.
24
25
26
27
28
29
Appendix E of this document provides an update on postulated accident risk. Because the
NRC’s understanding of accident risk has evolved since the issuance of the 1996 LR GEIS and
extends beyond issuance of the 2013 LR GEIS, Appendix E assesses more recent information
about postulated accidents that might have had the potential to alter the conclusions in
Chapter 5 of the 1996 LR GEIS. This update considers how these developments would affect
the conclusions in the original LR GEIS and provides comparative data where appropriate.
30
31
32
33
The different sources of new information can be generally categorized by their effect of either
decreasing, not affecting, or increasing the best-estimate environmental impacts associated with
postulated severe accidents. The areas where a decrease in best-estimate impacts would be
expected are:
34
•
new internal events information (decreases in impacts by over an order of magnitude), and
35
•
new source term information (significant decreases).
Environmental Consequences of Postulated Accidents
16
The 28 sites are listed in Table 5.1 of the 1996 LR GEIS. There are a total of 44 units included in this
list, but 4 of the units never operated (Grand Gulf 2, Harris 2, Perry 2, and Seabrook 2). For the purpose
of this document, this list will be referred to as containing 28 NPPs, but when mean values are calculated
for this subset of NPPs, the 40 units that operated are considered.
February 2023
4-145
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
Areas likely leading to either a small change or no change include:
2
•
3
Lastly, the areas leading to an increase in best-estimate impacts would consist of:
4
•
consideration of external events (comparable to internal event impacts),
5
•
power uprates (small increase),
6
•
higher fuel burnup (small increases),
7
8
•
low power and reactor shutdown events (could be comparable to at-power event impacts),
and
9
10
•
new SFP accidents (newer studies demonstrate less risk, much less than full power event
impacts).
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Given the difficulty in conducting a rigorous aggregation of these results (due to the differences
in the information sources used and in the impact metrics evaluated), a fairly simple approach is
taken. The latter group contains two areas (power uprates and higher fuel burnup) where the
increase in environmental impact (probability-weighted consequences) would cumulatively be
less than 50 percent. For one area (SFP accidents) the increase in environmental impact would
be less than that from power reactor operations, but is conservatively considered to be
comparable to that from full power reactor operations. The increase in environmental impact
from consideration of low power and shutdown events is comparable to that from at-power
operations, but is conservatively assumed to be up to a factor of 2 to 3 higher. The final factor,
external events, wasn’t assessed separately but as an integrated assessment considering all
hazards. The net increase from the four factors is conservatively an increase of up to a factor of
4 to 5, or 400 to 500 percent.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The reduction in environmental impact associated with the new source term information is
dramatic. The early fatality risk is orders-of-magnitude less than the NRC safety goal, and the
latent cancer fatality risk is well below the NRC safety goal. However, because the state-of-theart reactor consequence analysis (SOARCA) (NUREG-1935; NRC 2012i) did not evaluate the
risk of all accident scenarios, this reduction in environmental impact is not credited in this
assessment. The other factor that has resulted in a decrease in environmental impact is the risk
of at-power severe reactor accidents due to internal events. The internal events core damage
frequency (CDF) has decreased, on average, by a factor of 4 to 6. However, the reduction in
environmental impact is substantial, ranging from a factor of 2 to 600 and, on average is about a
factor of 30 lower when compared to the expected value of the population dose risk reported in
the 1996 LR GEIS. Because the 1996 LR GEIS did not consider the environmental impact
contribution from external events, consideration of these events results in an increase in the
environmental impact. The net result when all hazards are considered is that the All Hazards
CDF, on average, is comparable to that assumed for just internal events in the 1996 LR GEIS.
However, the reduction in All Hazards population dose risk, or probability-weighted dose
consequence, ranges from a factor of 3 to over 1000 and is, on average, about a factor of 120
(or 12,000%) less than the corresponding predicted 95 percent upper confidence bound values.
40
41
42
43
44
The net effect of a maximum increase of accident risk on the order of 400 to 500 percent and an
average decrease in accident risk of 12,000 percent would be a substantial reduction in
estimated impacts (compared to the 1996 LR GEIS assessment). This result demonstrates the
substantial level of conservatism incorporated in the upper bound estimates used in the 1996
LR GEIS, which supported the conclusion that the probability-weighted consequences of
use of Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII (BEIR-VII) risk coefficients.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-146
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal
and economic impacts of severe accidents are of small significance for all plants.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
With respect to uncertainties, the 1996 LR GEIS contained an assessment of uncertainties in
the information used to estimate the environmental impacts. Section 5.3.5 of the 1996 LR GEIS
discusses the uncertainties and concludes that they could cause the impacts to vary anywhere
from a factor of 10 to a factor of 1,000. This range of uncertainties bounds the uncertainties
discussed in Section E.3.9 of Appendix E of this revised LR GEIS, as well as the uncertainties
brought in by the other sources of new information, by one or more orders of magnitude.
Section E.3.9 of this LR GEIS notes that more recent detailed quantitative analyses indicate that
the 95th percentile bounds of consequence uncertainty are likely to be about a factor of 10 or
less compared to point-estimates or compared to other central-tendency estimates.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Based on the analysis presented in Appendix E, the staff concludes that the reduction in
environmental impacts from the use of new information (since the 1996 and 2013 LR GEIS
analyses) outweighs any increases resulting from this same information for initial LR or SLR. In
part, the staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would
result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. As a result, the
findings in the 1996 LR GEIS and 2013 LR GEIS remain valid. Therefore, the environmental
impacts of design-basis accidents are SMALL for all plants during the initial LR and SLR terms
and the issue is Category 1.
21
22
23
24
25
In the 2013 LR GEIS, the issue of severe accidents remained a Category 2 issue to the extent
that only the alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all nuclear power
plants where the licensee had not previously performed a severe accident mitigation
alternatives analysis for the plant. This LR GEIS update provides a technical basis for
reclassifying this issue as Category 1.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Consistent with the NRC’s approach to severe accident mitigation in the 1996 LR GEIS and the
2013 LR GEIS, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents still must be considered for all plants
that have not considered such alternatives and would be the functional equivalent of a Category
2 issue requiring site-specific analysis; however, as discussed further in Appendix E, the plants
that have already had a severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis considered by the NRC
as part of an EIS, supplement to an EIS, or environmental assessment, need not perform an
additional severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis for license renewal. Appendix E,
Table E.5-1 provides a summary of the NRC staff’s findings with respect to these issues. Based
on current industry plans, the NRC expects very few, if any, license renewal applications for a
plant that has not previously considered severe accidents under NEPA. Consequently, severe
accidents are most accurately categorized as a Category 1 issue because it will be resolved
generically for the vast majority of, if not all, applicants. The impacts of all new information in
this update confirms the basis for the NRC’s previous requirement that license renewal
applicants need not consider severe accident mitigation for plants that have already done so.
This new information demonstrates that further mitigation analysis would not contribute
sufficiently to reducing the environmental impacts of severe accident risk to warrant further
severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis because the likelihood of finding cost-effective
significant plant improvements is small.
44
45
46
In part, the staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would
result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. On the basis of
February 2023
4-147
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
these considerations, the NRC staff concludes that the probability-weighted consequences of
severe accidents during the initial LR and SLR terms is SMALL for all operating nuclear power
plants. As a result, the issue of severe accidents is revised from Category 2, as evaluated in
the 2013 LR GEIS, to Category 1.
5
4.9.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Impacts on human health from construction of a replacement power station (including fossil
energy, new nuclear, and renewable or other energy replacement alternatives) discussed in this
section, would be similar to those experienced during construction of any major industrial
facility. Compliance with worker protection rules, the use of personal protective equipment,
training, and placement of engineered barriers would limit those impacts on workers to
acceptable levels. Because the NRC staff expects that access to active construction areas
would be limited to only authorized individuals, the impacts on human health from construction
are minimal.
14
4.9.2.1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Operational human health impacts for fossil energy alternatives (i.e., natural gas, coal, and oil)
include significant impacts on air quality, as discussed in Section 4.3.2.1. The operation of
fossil energy alternatives has a range of potential human health impacts such as risks from coal
and limestone mining; worker and public risk from coal, lime, and limestone transportation;
worker and public risk from disposal of coal-combustion waste; public risk from inhalation of
stack emissions; and noise both onsite and offsite (i.e., natural gas). There are also potential
impacts from nonradiological hazards, including exposure to microbiological organisms,
occupational safety risks, impacts from EMFs, and exposure to chemicals used onsite by the
workforce. In addition, human health risks may extend beyond the facility workforce to the
public depending on their proximity to the facility or associated waste disposal site. The
character and the constituents of the waste depend on both the chemical composition and the
technology used to combust it. The human health impacts from the operation of a fossil energy
power station include public risk from inhalation of gaseous emissions. Regulatory agencies,
including both Federal and State agencies, base air emission standards and requirements on
human health impacts. These agencies also impose facility-specific emission limits to protect
human health (e.g., coal-combustion residuals) (40 CFR Part 257).
31
4.9.2.2
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Operational human health impacts for a new nuclear plant (i.e., advanced light water reactors
and small modular reactors) would include radiation exposure to the public and to the
operational workforce at levels below regulatory limits, as discussed for current operating
reactors in Section 3.9. In addition to radiological impacts, there are also potential impacts from
the same nonradiological hazards as discussed in Section 3.9.1.1 for current reactors and
described in Section 4.9.2.1 above for fossil energy alternatives. Impacts on human health for
initial LR and SLR for operating nuclear plants, in most cases, were determined to be SMALL.
Similar human health impacts would be expected from the operation of a new nuclear facility.
40
41
42
43
44
A detailed analysis of postulated accidents in currently operating reactors (affected by initial LR
or SLR) is provided in Section 4.9.1.2 and Appendix E. Although the analysis is specific to initial
LR and SLR, the impacts are representative of the impacts expected for new reactors. New
reactor designs incorporate additional safety features not found in currently operating reactors.
As a result, the risks associated with the new reactors are expected to be comparable to or less
Fossil Energy Alternatives
New Nuclear Alternatives
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-148
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
than the risks associated with current operating reactors. Before a license is granted, the
application for a new reactor would undergo a detailed safety and environmental review to make
sure that the plant, if constructed, would operate in accordance with all applicable NRC rules
and regulations.
5
4.9.2.3
Renewable Alternatives
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
The operational impacts of renewable and other energy replacement alternative technologies on
human health are similar to the impacts related to construction and current operations of
industrial facilities. Operational hazards for the workforce include potential exposure to toxic
gas or chemicals (i.e., geothermal, biomass, municipal solid waste, refuse-derived fuel, and
landfill gas), working in extreme weather (i.e., wind and ocean wave and ocean currents for
offshore wind turbines), and physical hazards that include working at heights, near energized or
rotating systems, high pressure water (i.e., hydroelectric), exposure to low-frequency sound,
EMF exposure (i.e., wind and solar), and potential for electric shock. These operational impacts
are reduced by compliance with worker protection rules, the use of personal protective
equipment, and training, which would limit those impacts on workers to acceptable levels.
16
4.10 Environmental Justice
17
18
4.10.1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
As explained in Chapter 3, Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (1994) (59 FR 7629), directs each
Federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations.” Although independent agencies, like the NRC, were
only requested, rather than directed, to comply with Executive Order 12898, the NRC Chairman,
in a March 1994 letter to the President, committed the NRC to endeavoring to carry out its
measures “ … as part of NRC’s efforts to comply with the requirements of NEPA” (NRC 1994).
27
4.10.1.1
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
The environmental justice impact analysis determines whether human health or environmental
effects from continued reactor operations and refurbishment activities at a nuclear power plant
would disproportionately affect a minority population, low-income population, or Indian Tribe and
whether these effects may be high and adverse. Adverse health effects are measured in terms
of the risk and rate of fatal or nonfatal exposure to an environmental hazard. Disproportionately
high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk or rate of exposure for a minority
population, low-income population, or Indian Tribe to an environmental hazard is significant and
exceeds the risk or rate to the general population or other comparison group.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects occur when an impact on the natural
or physical environment significantly and adversely affects a minority population, low-income
population, or Indian Tribe and exceeds those on the general population or other comparison
group. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, socioeconomic, or social impacts. These
environmental effects are discussed in this chapter for each of these and other resource areas.
For example, increased demand for rental housing during the construction of a new power plant
for one of the energy replacement alternatives could disproportionately affect low-income
populations.
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued Operations
and Refurbishment Activities
Impacts on Minority Populations, Low-Income Populations, and Indian Tribes
February 2023
4-149
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The NRC’s environmental justice impact analysis (1) identifies minority populations, low-income
populations, and Indian Tribes that could be affected by continued reactor operations during the
license renewal term and refurbishment activities at a nuclear power plant, (2) determines
whether there would be any human health or environmental effects on these populations, and
(3) determines whether these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. The NRC
strives to engage with representatives of affected environmental justice communities and Tribal
Nations to establish long-term relationships and identify license renewal-related concerns and
issues to be addressed in the NEPA review. Minority and low-income populations, Indian
Tribes, and environmental justice issues are different at each nuclear power plant site.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Continued reactor operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment activities at a
nuclear power plant could affect land, air, water, and ecological resources, which could result in
human health or environmental effects. Consequently, minority and low-income populations
and Indian Tribes could be disproportionately affected. The NRC’s environmental justice impact
analysis must therefore determine whether continued reactor operations during the license
renewal term and refurbishment activities at a nuclear power plant would result in
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on a minority
population, low-income population, or Indian Tribe.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Section 4–4 of Executive Order 12898 also directs Federal agencies, whenever practical and
appropriate, to collect and analyze information about the consumption patterns of populations
that rely principally on fish and wildlife for subsistence and to communicate the risks of these
consumption patterns to the public. Consumption patterns (e.g., subsistence agriculture,
hunting, and fishing) and certain resource dependencies often reflect the traditional or cultural
practices of minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes. Consequently, the
NRC considers the means by which these populations could be disproportionately affected by
examining potential human health and environmental effects from continued reactor operations
and refurbishment activities at nuclear power plants. In assessing the human health effects of
license renewal, the NRC examines radiological risk from consumption of fish, wildlife, and local
produce; exposure to radioactive material in water, soils, and vegetation; and the inhalation of
airborne radioactive material during nuclear power plant operation. To assess the effect of
nuclear reactor operations, licensees are required to collect samples from the environment, as
part of their REMP. These samples are then analyzed for radioactivity to assess the impact
from nuclear power plant operations.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
A nuclear plant effect may be indicated if the radiation level detected in a sample is higher than
the background level. Two types of samples are collected. The first type—control samples—
are collected from areas of the environment beyond or outside the influence of the nuclear
power plant. Control samples are used to determine normal background radiation levels. The
second type—indicator samples—are collected from the environment near the nuclear power
plant where any radioactivity would be at its highest concentration. Indicator samples are then
compared to control samples to determine the contribution of nuclear power plant operation to
radiation or radioactivity levels in the environment. A nuclear plant effect is indicated if
radioactivity levels in an indicator sample exceeds the background radiation levels in the control
sample.
43
44
45
46
Moreover, as noted in the Commission’s “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental
Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions” (69 FR 52040), the NRC recognizes
that environmental justice issues “differ from site to site and, thus, do not lend themselves to
generic resolutions. Consequently, [environmental justice], as well as other … issues, are
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-150
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
considered in site-specific EISs.” For this reason, environmental justice is a Category 2 issue,
and the NRC makes its license renewal impact determination in nuclear plant-specific SEISs.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Based on these considerations, the NRC concludes environmental justice impacts during initial
LR and SLR terms and refurbishment are unique to each nuclear power plant. In addition, the
NRC identified no new information or situations regarding initial LR or SLR that would result in
different conclusions from the 2013 LR GEIS. Therefore, the environmental justice impacts of
license renewal cannot be determined generically and is a Category 2 issue for both initial LRs
and SLRs.
9
4.10.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Construction and Operation – Minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes
could be directly or indirectly affected by the construction and operation of a new power plant.
However, the extent of human health or environmental effects is difficult to determine because it
depends on the location and type of power plant. For example, emissions from fossil fuel-fired
power plants may disproportionately affect human health conditions in minority populations,
low-income populations, and Indian Tribes. Power plant operations may also affect populations
that subsist on the consumption of fish, wildlife, and local produce.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
New replacement power-generating facilities are often located at an existing power plant or
industrial brownfield site to make use of the existing infrastructure. Unfortunately, these sites
are also frequently located in or near low-income and minority communities who may be
disproportionately affected by construction dust, noise, truck, and commuter traffic. In addition,
during construction, increased demand for temporary rental housing could disproportionately
affect low-income populations who rely on low-cost rental housing. Conversely, the construction
and operation of new power-generating facilities can create new employment and income
opportunities in these communities. Also, rental housing demand could be mitigated if the new
replacement power plant is located near a metropolitan area where construction workers could
commute to the job site.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Low-income populations can also benefit from demand-side management energy conservation
and efficiency weatherization and insulation programs. This would have a beneficial economic
effect because low-income households generally experience greater home energy cost burdens
than the average household. Conversely, higher utility bills due to increasing power-generating
costs could disproportionately affect low-income families. However, the Federal Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program and State energy assistance programs (if available) can help
low-income families pay for electricity.
34
4.11 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention
35
36
4.11.1
37
38
39
40
41
42
The effects of license renewal including operations and refurbishment on waste management
are presented in this section. Baseline conditions at operating reactors are discussed in
Section 3.11. License renewal is expected to result in a continuation of these conditions for an
extended period commensurate with the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). Accumulated
quantities of waste material needing long-term storage or disposal are expected to increase at a
rate proportional to the length of operation.
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued Operations
and Refurbishment Activities
February 2023
4-151
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
The impacts associated with onsite waste management activities during a license renewal term
(initial LR and SLR) at nuclear power plants are addressed in other sections of Chapter 4 under
various resource discussions. These activities include waste collection, treatment, packaging,
and loading onto conveyance vehicles for shipment offsite. These activities are considered to
be part of the normal operations at a plant site. For example, the annual radioactive effluent
release reports issued by plant licensees include a summary of radioactive effluent releases
from all the facilities on the plant site, including the waste management and storage facilities.
The same reports also provide data on the volume and radioactivity content of solid radioactive
waste shipped offsite for processing and disposal. Similarly, the REMP conducted by nuclear
power plant licensees measures the direct radiation as well as environmental concentrations of
all radionuclides originating at the site as well as background radiation. The impact from the
transportation of wastes from the reactor to a third-party waste treatment center or directly to a
disposal site is addressed generically in Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52 (see Section 4.14.1.1).
14
15
The issues addressed in this section regarding waste management during the license renewal
term (as evaluated in the 2013 LR GEIS) include:
16
•
low-level radioactive waste (LLW) storage and disposal,
17
•
onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel,
18
•
offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal,
19
•
mixed waste storage and disposal, and
20
•
nonradiological waste storage and disposal.
21
22
23
24
25
These five issues relate to waste management at all nuclear fuel cycle facilities, including
nuclear power plants. Four other issues, which pertain specifically to aspects of the uranium
fuel cycle other than the nuclear power plants themselves, are addressed in Section 4.14.1.1.
These fuel cycle facilities include uranium mining and milling, uranium hexafluoride (UF6)
production, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, fuel reprocessing, and disposal facilities.
26
4.11.1.1
27
28
29
30
Section 3.11.1.1 provides a detailed discussion of the quantities and characteristics of LLW that
are normally generated at nuclear plants under routine operating conditions. As stated in the
introduction to Section 4.11.1, these baseline conditions are expected to continue during the
license renewal (initial LR and SLR) terms.
31
32
33
34
35
The NRC requires that all licensees implement measures to minimize, to the extent practicable,
the generation of radioactive waste (10 CFR 20.1406). Licensees may consider construction of
additional radiological storage facilities on their plant sites and/or enter into an agreement with a
third-party contractor to process, store, own, and ultimately dispose of LLW from the reactor
sites. The environmental impacts, if these options are chosen, would be assessed at that time.
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Most of the LLW generated at reactor sites continues to be shipped offsite for disposal either
immediately after generation or after a brief storage period onsite. This trend is expected to
continue during the license renewal (initial LR and SLR) term. Operating disposal facilities for
radioactive waste are discussed in Section 3.11.1.1. In addition, the reactor sites have the
option to store their Class B and C (and Class A as appropriate) wastes onsite. Such activities
are conducted in accordance with NRC regulations and any applicable State or local
requirements.
Low-Level Waste Storage and Disposal
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-152
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The NRC believes that the comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low
public doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts on the environment
from low-level waste (LLW) storage and disposal will remain SMALL during the term of a
renewed license (initial LR and SLR). The maximum additional onsite land that may be required
for LLW storage during the term of a renewed license and associated impacts would be SMALL.
The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of LLW from
any individual plant at licensed sites are SMALL. In addition, the NRC concludes that the
available information supports a conclusion that sufficient LLW disposal capacity will be made
available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC
decommissioning requirements.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Based on the above considerations and the information presented in Section 3.11.1.1, the
existing radiological waste infrastructure and management program could support the additional
radiological wastes generated by the operation of the nuclear power plant through the renewal
licensing term. The impact of LLW storage and disposal during the renewal term (initial LR and
SLR) is considered SMALL for all sites and is designated as a Category 1 issue. The staff
reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the
2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different
impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. Therefore, the environmental impacts
associated with LLW storage and disposal during the initial LR and SLR terms would be SMALL
for all nuclear plants. This issue is Category 1.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In addition to being generated at the reactor sites, LLW is also generated from the rest of the
uranium fuel cycle as part of the front-end operations during the mining and milling of uranium
ores and during the steps leading up to the manufacture of new fuel. If the recycling option is
made available and the decision is made to reprocess the spent nuclear fuel in the
United States, the reprocessing operations would also generate LLW. The impacts associated
with management of LLW from these other fuel cycle operations are addressed in Table S-3 in
10 CFR 51.51 (see Section 4.14.1.1).
28
4.11.1.2
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
A history of the NRC’s Waste Confidence activities related to this issue is provided in
Section 1.1, History of Waste Confidence, of NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (Continued Storage GEIS; NRC 2014c).
The scope of this LR GEIS with regard to the management and ultimate disposition of spent
nuclear fuel is limited to the findings codified in the September 19, 2014 Continued Storage of
Spent Nuclear Fuel, Final Rule (79 FR 56238) and associated NUREG-2157 (79 FR 56263),
Continued Storage GEIS (NRC 2014c). (See Section 1.7.2 of this LR GEIS for the history of
this document and associated rulemaking.) During the license renewal term, which corresponds
to part of the licensed life for operation of a reactor described in NUREG-2157, the expected
increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of operation (either during initial
LR or SLR) can be safely accommodated onsite during the license renewal term with small
environmental impacts through dry or pool storage at all plants. For the period after the
licensed life for reactor operations, the impacts of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the
continued storage period are discussed in NUREG–2157 and are as stated in § 51.23(b). As
defined in NUREG-2157 and clarified in the Continued Storage Final Rule (79 FR 56263), the
licensed life for operation of a reactor assumes an original licensed life of 40 years and up to
two 20-year license extensions for each reactor, for a total of up to 80 years of operation.
Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
February 2023
4-153
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
As discussed in Section 3.11.1.2, spent fuel is currently stored at reactor sites either in SFPs or
in ISFSIs. This onsite storage of spent fuel and HLW is expected to continue into the
foreseeable future.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
As previously considered in the 2013 LR GEIS, and further supported by analyses presented in
the 2014 Continued Storage GEIS (NRC 2014c) for the short-term storage timeframe for spent
nuclear fuel, current and potential environmental impacts from spent fuel storage at the current
reactor sites have been studied extensively, are well understood, and the environmental
impacts were found to be SMALL. The issue of onsite storage during the license renewal term
was designated a Category 1 issue in the 2013 LR GEIS with an impact of SMALL. The staff
reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the
2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different
impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. Therefore, the environmental impacts
associated with the storage of spent nuclear fuel during the initial LR and SLR terms would be
SMALL for all nuclear plants. For the period after the licensed life for reactor operations, the
impacts of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are
discussed in NUREG–2157 and are stated in § 51.23(b) (NRC 2014c). This issue is
Category 1.
18
4.11.1.3
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A history of the NRC’s Waste Confidence activities (related to this issue) is provided in
Section 1.1, History of Waste Confidence, of NUREG-2157, Continued Storage GEIS (NRC
2014c). The scope of this LR GEIS with regard to the management and ultimate disposition of
spent nuclear fuel is limited to the findings codified in the September 19, 2014 Continued
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, Final Rule (79 FR 56238) and associated NUREG-2157 (79 FR
56263), the Continued Storage GEIS (NRC 2014c). (See Section 1.7.2 of this LR GEIS for the
history of this document and associated rulemaking.)
26
27
28
29
The ultimate disposal of spent fuel in a potential future geologic repository is a separate and
independent licensing action that is outside the regulatory scope of license renewal. The
following discussion provides relevant information with respect to developments pertaining to
the consideration of an ultimate repository site for the disposal of spent fuel.
30
31
32
33
34
35
At the time the 1996 LR GEIS was issued, there were no established regulatory limits for offsite
releases of radionuclides from the ultimate disposal of spent fuel and HLW, because a
candidate repository site had not been established. It was assumed that for such a site, limits
would eventually be developed along the lines of those given in the 1995 National Academy of
Sciences report, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards (National Research Council
1995).
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
On February 15, 2002, on the basis of a recommendation by the Secretary of Energy, the
President recommended the Yucca Mountain site for the development of a repository for the
geologic disposal of spent fuel and HLW. Congress approved this recommendation on July 9,
2002, in Joint Resolution 87, which designated Yucca Mountain as the repository for spent fuel.
On July 23, 2002, the President signed Joint Resolution 87 into law. Public Law 107-200, 116
Statutes at Large 735, 42 U.S.C. 10135 (note) (H.J. Res. 87), designates Yucca Mountain as
the site for the development of the repository for spent fuel.
43
44
Subsequently, the EPA developed Yucca-Mountain-specific repository release standards, which
were also adopted by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 63. These standards:
Offsite Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Waste Disposal
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-154
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
•
Establish a dose limit of 15 millirem (0.15 mSv) per year for the first 10,000 years after
disposal.
3
4
•
Establish a dose limit of 100 millirem (1.0 mSv) exposure per year between 10,000 years
and 1 million years.
5
6
•
Require the DOE to consider the effects of climate change, earthquakes, volcanoes, and
corrosion of the waste packages to safely contain the waste during the 1 million-year period.
7
8
9
•
Establish a radiological protection standard consistent with the recommendations of the
National Academy of Sciences for this facility at the time of peak dose up to 1 million years
after disposal.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
On June 3, 2008, the DOE submitted a license application to the NRC, seeking authorization to
construct a geologic repository for the disposal of spent fuel and HLW at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada. As part of the site characterization and recommendation process for the proposed
geologic repository at Yucca Mountain the DOE was required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq., to prepare an EIS. In accordance with the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 10134(f)(4)), the NRC was required to adopt DOE’s EIS, to “the extent
practicable,” as part of any possible NRC construction authorization decision. DOE submitted
the following NEPA documents along with its application, which include analyses that address
radiological impacts to workers and the public:
19
20
21
•
Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada
(FEIS) (DOE 2002).
22
23
24
•
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye
County, Nevada (Repository SEIS) (DOE 2008).
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
The NRC formally accepted for docketing DOE’s license application for Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, on September 8, 2008. In its acceptance, the NRC staff also recommended that the
Commission adopt, with further supplementation, the EIS and supplements prepared by DOE
(73 FR 53284). With respect to radiological impacts, DOE’s FEIS and Repository SEIS indicate
that the disposal of spent fuel and HLW would be SMALL with exposures well below regulatory
limits. However, on March 3, 2010, the DOE filed a motion with the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board (Board) seeking permission to withdraw its application for authorization to
construct a HLW geological repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Board denied that
request on June 29, 2010, in LBP-10-11 (NRC 2010d), whereupon the parties involved in the
preceding filed petitions asking the Commission to uphold or reverse this decision.
35
36
37
38
39
40
On September 9, 2011, the Commission issued a Memorandum and Order, CLI-11-07, stating
that it found itself evenly divided on whether to take the affirmative action of overturning or
upholding the Board’s June 29, 2010, decision (NRC 2011c). Exercising its inherent
supervisory authority, the Commission directed the Board to complete all necessary and
appropriate case management activities by September 30, 2011. On September 30, 2011, the
Board issued a Memorandum and Order suspending the proceeding.
41
42
43
44
The NRC staff initiated an orderly closure of its Yucca Mountain activities. As part of the orderly
closure, the NRC staff prepared three technical evaluation reports documenting its work.
Subsequently, the NRC resumed work on its technical and environmental reviews of the Yucca
Mountain application using available funds in response to an August 2013 ruling by the U.S.
February 2023
4-155
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (see Section 1.7.2). The staff completed
and published the final volumes of the safety evaluation report in January 2015. In 2016, the
NRC completed and issued a supplement (NUREG-2184; NRC 2016a) to the DOE’s 2002
Yucca Mountain FEIS (DOE 2002) and the DOE’s 2008 Repository Supplemental EIS (DOE
2008). The NRC’s supplement evaluated the potential environmental impacts on groundwater
and impacts associated with the discharge of any contaminated groundwater to the ground
surface due to potential releases from the proposed Yucca Mountain geologic repository. The
NRC staff evaluated the potential impacts on the aquifer environment, soils, ecology, and public
health, as well as the potential for disproportionate impacts on minority or low-income
populations. The impacts on all of the resources evaluated in the supplement were found to be
SMALL.
12
13
The adjudicatory hearing for the licensing of the repository, which must be completed before a
licensing decision can be made, remains suspended.
14
15
16
17
The NRC’s nonsensitive Yucca Mountain-related documents have been preserved and made
available to the public as part of the NRC staff’s activities to retain the accumulated knowledge
and experience gained as a result of its Yucca Mountain-related activities. These documents
can be viewed on the NRC’s public website, http://www.NRC.gov/waste/hlw-disposal.html.
18
19
20
NRC decisions and recommendations concerning the ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel
are ongoing and outside the scope of license renewal, and as such, are beyond the scope of
this LR GEIS.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Separate from the regulatory actions taken by the NRC, in 2009 and early 2010 the President
and his administration decided not to proceed with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository. Instead, on January 29, 2010, the Secretary of Energy announced the formation of a
Blue Ribbon Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back
end of the nuclear fuel cycle (The White House 2010). The Blue Ribbon Commission would
provide advice and make recommendations on issues including alternatives for the storage,
processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent fuel and HLW. The Blue Ribbon
Commission issued its recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on January 26, 2012 (BRC
2012). The report contained eight key elements:
30
•
A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities.
31
32
•
A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and
empowered with the authority and resources to succeed.
33
34
•
Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste
management.
35
•
Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.
36
•
Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities.
37
38
•
Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and
HLW to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available.
39
40
•
Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce
development.
41
42
•
Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management,
nonproliferation, and security concerns.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-156
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
DOE will be the lead Federal agency responsible for developing a new national strategy for
nuclear waste management; the NRC will play a supporting role in the areas associated with its
regulatory review.
4
5
6
7
If a repository is not available and away-from-reactor ISFSIs are developed, the operations and
maintenance activities that would be conducted at an away-from-reactor ISFSI would be the
same as those described in NUREG-2157 (NRC 2014c). NUREG-2157 also describes offsite
radiological impacts from the continued storage of spent fuel at an away-from-reactor ISFSI.
8
9
10
11
12
In NUREG-2157, the NRC concluded that a range of potential impacts could occur for some
resource areas if the spent nuclear fuel from multiple reactors is shipped to a large (roughly
40,000 metric tonnes of uranium) away-from-reactor ISFSI (see Section 5.20 of NRC 2014c).
The ranges for some resources are driven by the uncertainty regarding the location of such a
facility and the local resources that would be affected.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
For away-from-reactor storage, the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts for most
resource areas is SMALL across all timeframes, except for air quality, terrestrial resources,
aesthetics, waste management, and transportation where the impacts are SMALL to
MODERATE. Socioeconomic impacts range from SMALL (adverse) to LARGE (beneficial) and
historic and cultural resource impacts could be SMALL to LARGE across all timeframes. The
potential MODERATE impacts on air quality, terrestrial wildlife, and transportation are based on
potential construction-related fugitive dust emissions, terrestrial wildlife direct and indirect
mortalities, terrestrial habitat loss, and temporary construction traffic impacts. The potential
impacts on aesthetics and waste management are based on noticeable changes to the
viewshed from constructing a new away-from-reactor ISFSI, and the volume of nonhazardous
solid waste generated by assumed facility ISFSI and Dry Transfer System replacement activities
for the indefinite timeframe, respectively. The potential LARGE beneficial impacts on
socioeconomics are due to local economic tax revenue increases from an away-from-reactor
ISFSI.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The potential impacts on historic and cultural resources during the short-term storage timeframe
would range from SMALL to LARGE. The magnitude of adverse effects on historic properties
and impacts on historic and cultural resources largely depends on where facilities are sited,
what resources are present, the extent of proposed land disturbance, whether the area has
been previously surveyed to identify historic and cultural resources, and if the licensee has
management plans and procedures that are protective of historic and cultural resources. Even
a small amount of ground disturbance (e.g., clearing and grading) could affect a small but
significant resource. In most instances, placement of storage facilities on the site can be
adjusted to minimize or avoid impacts on any historic and cultural resources in the area.
However, the NRC recognizes that this may not always be possible. The NRC’s plant-specific
environmental review and compliance with the NHPA process could identify historic properties,
identify adverse effects, and potentially resolve adverse effects on historic properties and
impacts on other historic and cultural resources. Under the NHPA, mitigation does not eliminate
a finding of adverse effect on historic properties. The potential impacts on historic and cultural
resources during the long-term and indefinite storage timeframes would also range from SMALL
to LARGE. This range takes into consideration routine maintenance and monitoring (i.e., no
ground-disturbing activities), the absence or avoidance of historic and cultural resources, and
potential ground-disturbing activities that could affect historic and cultural resources. The
analysis also considers uncertainties inherent in analyzing this resource area over long
timeframes. These uncertainties include any future discovery of previously unknown historic
and cultural resources and resources that gain significance within the vicinity and the viewshed
February 2023
4-157
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
(e.g., nomination of a historic district) due to improvements in knowledge, technology, and
excavation techniques and changes associated with predicting resources that future
generations will consider significant. If construction of a Dry Transfer System and replacement
of the ISFSI and Dry Transfer System occurs in an area with no historic or cultural resource
present or construction occurs in a previously disturbed area that allows avoidance of historic
and cultural resources, then impacts would be SMALL. By contrast, a MODERATE or LARGE
impact could result if historic and cultural resources are present at a site and, because they
cannot be avoided, they are affected by ground-disturbing activities during the long-term and
indefinite timeframes.
10
11
12
Impacts on Federally listed species, designated critical habitat, and EFH would be based on
site-specific conditions and determined as part of consultations required by the ESA and the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Continued storage of spent nuclear fuel at an away-from-reactor ISFSI is not expected to cause
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and
low-income populations. As indicated in the Commission’s policy statement on environmental
justice, if the NRC receives an application for a proposed away-from-reactor ISFSI, a sitespecific NEPA analysis would be conducted, and this analysis would include consideration of
environmental justice impacts. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.23, the impact determinations for awayfrom-reactor storage are presented in NUREG-2157 (NRC 2014c).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The impact levels determined in NUREG-2157 of at-reactor storage, away-from-reactor storage,
and cumulative impacts of continued storage when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable activities are summarized in Table 6-4 of NUREG-2157 (NRC 2014c).
The impact levels are denoted as SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE as a measure of their
expected adverse environmental impacts. Most impacts were found to be SMALL and SMALL
to MODERATE. For some resource areas, the impact determination language is specific to the
authorizing regulation, executive order, or guidance. Impact determinations that include a range
of impacts reflect uncertainty related to both geographic variability and the temporal scale of the
analysis. As a result, based on analyses performed in NUREG-2157, the NRC assumes that
further project-specific analysis would be unlikely to result in impact conclusions with different
ranges. The analyses of NUREG-2157 were codified in 10 CFR 51.23 (79 FR 56238).
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Per 10 CFR Part 51 Subpart A the Commission concludes that the impacts presented in
NUREG-2157 would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that
the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly,
while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent
nuclear fuel and HLW disposal, this issue is considered a Category 1 issue. The staff reviewed
information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR
GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for this
issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
39
4.11.1.4
40
41
42
43
44
45
This issue addresses the storage and disposal of mixed waste generated at nuclear power
plants and other uranium fuel cycle facilities during the license renewal term. As discussed in
Section 3.11.3, nuclear power plants generate small quantities of mixed waste. Other uranium
fuel cycle facilities are also expected to generate small quantities of mixed waste. Mixed waste
is regulated both by the EPA or the authorized State agency under RCRA and by the NRC or
the Agreement State agency under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Public
Mixed Waste Storage and Disposal
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-158
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Law 83-703). The waste is either treated onsite or sent offsite for treatment followed by
disposal at a permitted site. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and
procedures that are in place at nuclear power plants ensure that the mixed waste is properly
handled and stored and that doses to and exposure to toxic materials by the public and the
environment are negligible at all plants. The accumulated quantities of mixed waste generated
onsite needing long-term storage or disposal are expected to increase at a rate proportional to
the length of operation. License renewal (initial LR and SLR) will not increase the small but
continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The
radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts from the long-term disposal of mixed
waste at any individual plant at licensed sites are considered SMALL for all sites. The staff
reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the
2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different
impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. Therefore, the environmental impacts
associated with mixed waste storage and disposal during the initial LR and SLR terms would be
SMALL for all nuclear plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
16
4.11.1.5
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
This issue addresses the storage and disposal of nonradioactive waste generated at
commercial nuclear power plants and during the rest of the uranium fuel cycle during the license
renewal term. Nonradioactive waste consists of hazardous and nonhazardous waste. Storage
and disposal of hazardous waste generated at nuclear plants are discussed in Section 3.11.2.
As indicated in that section, nuclear plants generate small quantities of hazardous waste during
operation and maintenance. A special class of hazardous waste, known as universal waste,
consisting of commonly used yet hazardous materials (batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing
equipment, and lamps), is also generated. Similar types of hazardous wastes are also
generated at other uranium fuel cycle facilities. The management of hazardous wastes
generated at all of these facilities, both onsite and offsite, is strictly regulated by the EPA or the
responsible State agencies per the requirements of RCRA.
28
29
30
31
As does any industrial facility, nuclear power plants and the rest of the uranium fuel cycle
facilities also generate nonradioactive, nonhazardous waste (see Section 3.11.4). These
wastes are managed by following good housekeeping practices and are generally disposed of in
local landfills permitted under RCRA Subtitle D regulations.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
In the 2013 LR GEIS, the impacts associated with managing nonradioactive wastes at uranium
fuel cycle facilities, including nuclear power plants, were found to be SMALL and designated as
a Category 1 issue. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs)
completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or
situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term.
Therefore, the environmental impacts associated with nonradioactive waste storage and
disposal during the initial LR and SLR terms would be SMALL for all nuclear plants. The
accumulated quantities of nonradioactive waste generated onsite needing long-term storage or
disposal is expected to increase at a rate proportional to the length of operation. It was
indicated that no changes in nonradioactive waste generation would be anticipated for license
renewal (initial LR or SLR), and that systems and procedures are in place to ensure continued
proper handling and disposal of the wastes at all plants. This is a Category 1 issue.
Nonradioactive Waste Storage and Disposal
February 2023
4-159
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.11.2
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Construction – Construction-related wastes include various fluids from the onsite maintenance
of construction vehicles and equipment (e.g., used lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, glycol-based
coolants, spent lead-acid storage batteries) and incidental chemical wastes from the
maintenance of equipment and the application of corrosion control protective coatings
(e.g., solvents, paints, coatings), construction-related debris (e.g., lumber, stone, and brick), and
packaging materials (primarily wood and paper). All materials and wastes would be
accumulated onsite and disposed of or recycled through licensed offsite disposal and treatment
facilities. Life-cycle management of chemicals and wastes generated during construction and
pollution prevention initiatives (such as spill prevention plans) will serve to mitigate the impact of
wastes. The impacts of waste management are expected to be the same for greenfield,
brownfield, and existing nuclear power plant sites.
13
14
15
16
17
18
Operations – Solid wastes would be generated throughout the period of plant operations. The
character of wastes would depend on chemical constituents of the fuel, efficiency of
combustion, and operational efficiencies of the various air pollution control devices. Wastes
routinely associated with the maintenance of mechanical and electrical equipment include used
lubricating oils and hydraulic fluids, cleaning solvents, corrosion control paints and coatings, and
dielectric fluids.
19
4.11.2.1
20
21
22
23
24
Operations – Solid wastes in the form of coal-combustion waste (and, in some instances, flue
gas desulfurization sludge and spent catalysts) would be generated during plant operations.
The exact character of the coal-combustion waste would depend on the chemical constituents
of the coal, efficiency of the combustion device, and operational efficiencies of the various air
pollution control devices.
25
4.11.2.2
26
27
28
29
30
Operations – Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used
to collect and treat radioactive materials during operations. Waste processing systems would
be designed so that radioactive effluents released to the environment would meet the objectives
of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. LLW disposal is assumed to occur at an offsite location, while
spent nuclear fuel would be stored onsite either in SFP storage or dry cask storage.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Nonradioactive effluent and wastes include cooling water and steam condensate blowdowns
that contain various water treatment chemicals or biocides, wastes from the onsite treatment of
cooling water and steam cycle water, floor and equipment drain effluent, stormwater runoff,
laboratory waste, trash, hazardous waste, effluent from the sanitary sewer system,
miscellaneous gaseous emissions, and liquid and solid effluent. Wastes discharged to waters
of the United States would be regulated by NPDES permits. All other wastes would be properly
disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. Waste management
impacts for a nuclear plant are described in Section 4.11.1. Impacts are expected to be SMALL
for all facilities, whether located on greenfield sites, brownfield sites, or at existing nuclear plant
sites.
Fossil Fuel Alternatives
New Nuclear Alternatives
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-160
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.11.2.3
Renewable Alternatives
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Most renewable energy technologies would produce various wastes during operations.
Biomass-fired and waste-derived fuel-fired facilities would produce combustion wastes such as
fly ash and bottom ash. Toxic constituents in municipal solid waste or refuse-derived fuel could
cause solid wastes from air pollution devices to become hazardous due to leachability of toxic
constituents. Operational solid wastes from geothermal plants could include precipitates (scale)
resulting from cooling and depressurized hydrothermal fluids that must be periodically removed
from equipment; some precipitates may include naturally occurring radioactive material.
Concentrated solar thermal plants have the potential to release heat transfer fluids, requiring the
removal and disposal of affected soil. Sanitary and other wastewaters such as cooling water
blowdown and steam cycle blowdown may be discharged to the land surface, surface water, or
to surface impoundments in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
13
14
For all power-generating facilities, especially those with power substations, spills or leaks from
electrical components could create waste dielectric fluids (all assumed to be free of PCBs).
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Most facilities would also produce small amounts of industrial solid wastes associated with
onsite maintenance of equipment and infrastructure. Such wastes could include used oils, used
glycol-based antifreeze, waste lead-acid storage batteries, spent cleaning solvents, and excess
corrosion control coatings, requiring proper characterization and disposal. However, normal
operational maintenance activities associated with solar PV facilities and wind farms (either
onshore or offshore) would generate minimal amounts of waste. For solar PV facilities, proper
precautions would have to be taken for the disposal of solar cells, although recycling of
materials would reduce impacts.
23
4.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Research indicates that the cause of the Earth’s changing climate and warming over the last 50
to 100 years is the buildup of GHGs in the atmosphere resulting from human activities
(USGCRP 2014; IPCC 2021). The GHGs are well-mixed throughout the Earth’s atmosphere,
and their impact on climate is long-lasting and cumulative in nature as a result of their long
atmospheric lifetime (EPA 2016). The extent and nature of climate change is not specific to
where GHGs are emitted. Climate models indicate that over the next few decades, temperature
increases will continue due to current GHG emission concentrations in the atmosphere
(USGCRP 2014). This is because it takes time for Earth’s climate system to respond to
changes in GHG levels.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
The CEQ has recognized that climate change is a fundamental environmental issue within
NEPA’s purview (CEQ 2016). In accordance with Executive Order 13990, CEQ rescinded draft
guidance entitled, “Draft National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” and is reviewing, revising, and updating its 2016 final guidance
entitled, “Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental
Policy Act Reviews,” (86 FR 7037). At the time of publication of this LR GEIS, CEQ had not
published updated guidance on the consideration of the effects of GHG emissions and climate
change when evaluating proposed Federal Actions.
42
43
44
The effects of a proposed action on climate change can be evaluated by quantifying the
proposed action’s GHG emissions. Therefore, the contribution to GHG emissions over the
license renewal term serves as proxy in assessing the impact from continued power plant
February 2023
4-161
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
operation on climate change. Changes in climate have broader implications for environmental
resources (e.g., water resources, air quality, and ecosystems). For instance, changes in
precipitation patterns and increase in air temperature can affect water availability and quality.
As a consequence, climate change can have overlapping impacts on environmental resources
by inducing changes in resource conditions that can also be affected by the proposed action.
6
On the basis of these considerations, the following two issues are considered in this section:
7
8
•
Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change (new issue not considered in the 2013 LR
GEIS).
9
10
•
Climate change impacts on environmental resources (new issue not considered in the 2013
LR GEIS).
11
4.12.1
12
13
14
15
The issue of GHG impacts on climate change associated with nuclear power plant operations
was not identified as either a generic or plant-specific issue in the 2013 LR GEIS. In the 2013
LR GEIS, the NRC staff presented GHG emission factors associated with the nuclear power life
cycle.
16
17
18
19
20
21
At the time of publication of the 2013 LR GEIS, insufficient data existed to support a
classification of GHG emission impacts and climate change as a generic or plant-specific issue.
The 2013 LR GEIS, however, included a discussion summarizing nuclear power plant-based
GHG emissions and climate change. Furthermore, following the issuance of Commission order
CLI-09-21 (NRC 2009d), the NRC began to evaluate the effects of GHG emissions in
environmental reviews for license renewal applications.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Impacts on climate change during normal operations at nuclear power plants can result from the
release of GHGs from stationary combustion sources (e.g., diesel generators, pumps, diesel
engines, boilers), refrigeration systems, electrical transmission and distribution systems, and
mobile sources (worker vehicles and delivery vehicles) (see Section 3.12). The GHG emissions
from nuclear power plants are typically very minor, because such plants do not normally
combust fossil fuels to generate electricity. As can be observed from Table 3.12-2, direct and
indirect GHG emissions from operations at nuclear power plants rarely exceed the 25,000 MT
(27,557 T) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq) reporting threshold established by EPA.
Furthermore, when compared to State GHG emissions (see Table 3.12-1), GHG emissions from
operating nuclear power plants are orders of magnitude lower. When compared to different
GHG emission inventories for other facilities, GHG emissions from nuclear power plant
operations are minor. For example, in the initial LR SEISs for Byron, Fermi, LaSalle, River
Bend, and Waterford, the NRC compared the nuclear plant’s GHG emissions to total annual
county-level GHG emissions (NRC 2015c, NRC 2016c, NRC 2016d, NRC 2018c, NRC 2018d).
The GHG emissions from these nuclear power plants ranged from less than 0.03 to about
3.9 percent of their respective county’s total GHG emissions. In the Peach Bottom SLR SEIS,
the NRC concluded that continued operation would result in at least 4.4 million tons/year
(3.9 MMT/yr) of CO2eq emissions avoidance compared to other replacement energy (power)
alternatives (e.g., supercritical pulverized coal, natural gas-combined cycle, and combination
alternatives) (NRC 2020g). Similarly, in the Surry SLR SEIS, the NRC concluded that continued
operation would result in at least 4.8 MMT/yr (4.3 MMT/yr) of CO2eq emission avoidance when
compared to replacement energy alternatives considered (natural gas-combined cycle and
combination alternative) (NRC 2020f).
Greenhouse Gas Impacts on Climate Change
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-162
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Potential sources of GHG emissions during any license renewal refurbishment activities include
motorized equipment, construction vehicles, and worker vehicles. Construction vehicles and
other motorized equipment would generate exhaust emissions that include GHG emissions
(primarily CO2). These emissions, however, would be intermittent, temporary, and restricted to
the refurbishment period. The GHG emissions would result primarily from the additional
workforce. Findings from SEISs completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS have
shown that the duration of refurbishment activities would occur over a 2 to 3 month period and
would require an additional 500-1,400 workers. The NRC estimates that this can result in up to
an additional 5,80017 tons (5,260 MT) of CO2eq (NRC 2015d, NRC 2015e, NRC 2018e,).
Emissions of GHGs from worker vehicles during refurbishment would be similar to those during
normal nuclear power plant operations (see indirect emissions presented in Table 3.12-2).
Therefore, GHG emissions from refurbishment activities would be minor.
13
14
15
16
On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impacts of GHG emissions on
climate change from continued operations and refurbishment during the initial LR and SLR
terms and any refurbishment activities would be SMALL for all plants. This is a new Category 1
issue.
17
4.12.2
18
19
20
21
22
23
Construction – Sources of GHG emissions would include earthmoving equipment, non-road
vehicles, and worker and delivery vehicles. Operation of construction equipment (e.g.,
excavator, concrete batch plant, bulldozer, backhoe loader) release GHG emissions during fuel
consumption (e.g., diesel). Similarly, employee and delivery vehicular exhaust will emit GHG
emissions. The GHG emissions from construction equipment can be minimized by reducing the
idling time of equipment and regularly maintaining diesel engines.
24
25
26
27
Operations – The impact from climate change as a result of GHG emissions from facility
operations for a replacement power alternative would depend on the energy technology (e.g.,
nuclear, renewable, etc.). In general, fossil fuel power alternatives will emit more GHG
emissions than nuclear or renewable replacement power alternatives.
28
4.12.2.1
29
30
Construction – The GHG impacts would be the same as those described in Section 4.12.2
above.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Operations – The GHG emissions associated with operation of fossil fuel power plants can be
significant. Fossil fuel power plants can emit large amounts of carbon dioxide, particularly if
they are not equipped with carbon capture and storage devices. Table 4.12-1 presents
representative carbon dioxide emission factors for various fossil fuel power plants with and
without carbon capture technology. In comparing these emission factors, it is apparent that
NGCC power plants would have lower carbon dioxide emissions than operation of an IGCC or
SCPC plant, and that installation of carbon capture technology reduces emissions significantly.
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Fossil Energy Alternatives
17
Calculated by conservatively assuming a 90 day refurbishment duration, 1,400 workers-vehicles,
100-mile roundtrip travel per vehicle, and 420 grams of CO2eq/mi (DOE 2021a).
February 2023
4-163
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors(a) (CO2 kg/MWh [lb/MWh]) for
Representative Fossil Fuel Plants
Table 4.12-1
NGCC
without carbon
capture and
storage(b)
336 (741)
SCPC
with carbon
capture and
storage(c)
36 (80)
without carbon
capture and
storage(d)
738 (1,627)
with carbon
capture and
storage(e)
84 (185)
IGCC
without carbon
capture and
storage(f)
602 (1,328)
with carbon
capture and
storage(g)
73 (161)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CO2 = carbon dioxide; IGCC = integrated gasification combined cycle; kg/MWh = kilograms per megawatt-hr; lb/MWh
= pounds per megawatt-hr; NGCC = natural gas combined cycle; SCPC = supercritical pulverized coal.
(a) Values based on gross output.
(b) Emission factors based on two combustion turbine-generators, and gross output of 740 MW.
(c) Emission factors based on two combustion turbine-generators, and gross output of 690 MW.
(d) Emission factors based on gross output of 685 MW and bituminous coal.
(e) Emission factors based on gross output of 770 MW and bituminous coal.
(f) Emission factors based on two Shell gasifiers, total gross output of 765 MW, and bituminous coal.
(g) Emission factors based on two Shell gasifiers, total gross output of 696 MW, and bituminous coal.
Source: NETL 2019.
13
4.12.2.2
14
15
Construction – The GHG impacts would be the same as those described in Section 4.12.2
above.
16
17
18
Operations – The GHG emissions from operation of a new nuclear alternative would be emitted
from onsite combustion sources (diesel generators, boilers, pumps) and worker vehicles. GHG
emissions would be intermittent and minor.
19
4.12.2.3
20
21
22
23
Construction – The GHG impacts would be the same as those described in Section 4.12.2
above. For facilities without a power block (solar PV, onshore, and offshore wind) the number
of heavy equipment and workforce, level of activities, and construction duration would be lower
and therefore GHG emissions would be less.
24
25
26
27
28
29
Operations – The GHG emissions associated with operation of renewable energy alternatives
are generally negligible because no direct fossil fuels are burned to generate electricity.
Sources of GHG emissions include engine exhaust from worker vehicles and equipment
associated with site inspections or maintenance activities. Biomass facilities, however, can emit
significant GHG emissions. For example, a biomass-fueled power plant can emit 2,650–
3,852 lb of CO2eq/MWh (NREL 1997, NREL 2004).
30
4.12.3
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
The issue of climate change impacts was not identified as either a generic or plant-specific
issue in the 2013 LR GEIS. However, the 2013 LR GEIS described the environmental impacts
that could occur on resource areas (land use, air quality, water resources, etc.) that are affected
by the proposed action (license renewal). Climate change is an environmental trend (i.e.,
change in climate indicators such as precipitation over time) that could result in changes to the
affected environment irrespective of license renewal. In plant-specific initial LR and SLR SEISs
prepared since development of the 2013 LR GEIS, the NRC has considered climate change
impacts for those resources that could be incrementally affected by the proposed action as part
of the cumulative impacts analysis. As discussed in Section 3.12 of this LR GEIS, climate
New Nuclear Alternatives
Renewable Alternatives
Climate Change Impacts on Environmental Resources
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-164
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
change and its impacts on resources can vary regionally. Observed climate change has not
been uniform across the United States. For instance, annual precipitation has increased across
most of the northern and eastern States and decreased across the southern and western
States; along the Atlantic coast in the Northeast region, sea surface temperatures and sea level
rise have increased at rates that exceed global averages; the Southeast region has not
experienced an overall long-term increase in surface temperatures; the Northwest experienced
the smallest increase in heavy precipitation events of any region in the United States.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Climate change may impact the affected environment in a way that alters the environmental
resources that are impacted by the proposed action (license renewal). Similar to cumulative
impacts, climate change impacts can occur across all resource areas that could be affected by
the proposed action, including the effects of continued reactor operations during the license
renewal term and any refurbishment activities at a nuclear power plant. In order for there to be
a climate change impact on an environmental resource, the proposed action (license renewal)
must have an incremental new, additive, or increased physical effect or impact on the resource
or environmental condition beyond what is already occurring. The goal of the impacts of climate
change on environmental resources analysis is to identify potentially significant impacts.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Future global GHG emission concentrations (emission scenarios) and climate models are
commonly used to project possible climate change. Climate models indicate that over the next
few decades, temperature increases will continue due to current GHG emission concentrations
in the atmosphere (USGCRP 2014). If GHG concentrations were to stabilize at current levels,
this would still result in at least an additional 1.1 °F (0.6 °C) of warming over this century
(USGCRP 2018). Over the longer term, the magnitude of temperature increases and climate
change related effects will depend on future global GHG emissions (IPCC 2021; USGCRP
2009, USGCRP 2014, USGCRP 2018). Climate model simulations often use GHG emission
scenarios to represent possible future social, economic, technological, and demographic
development that, in turn, drive future emissions. Consequently, the GHG emission scenarios,
their supporting assumptions, and the projections of possible climate change effects entail
substantial uncertainty.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has generated various representative
concentration pathway (RCP) scenarios commonly used by climate modeling groups to project
future climate conditions (IPCC 2000, IPCC 2013, USGCRP 2017, USGCRP 2018). In the
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, four RCPs were developed and are based on the predicted
changes in radiative forcing (a measure of the influence that a factor, such as GHG emissions,
has in changing the global balance of incoming and outgoing energy) in the year 2100, relative
to preindustrial conditions. The four RCP scenarios are numbered in accordance with the
change in radiative forcing measured in watts per square meter (i.e., +2.6 [very low], +4.5
[lower], +6.0 [mid-high], and +8.5 [higher]) (USGCRP 2018). For example, RCP2.6 is
representative of a mitigation scenario aimed at limiting the increase of global mean
temperature to 1.1 °F (2 °C) (IPCC 2014). The RCP8.5 reflects a continued increase in global
emissions resulting in increased warming by 2100. In the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, five
shared socioeconomic pathways were used along with associated modeling results as the basis
for their climate change assessments (IPCC 2021). These five socioeconomic pathway
scenarios cover a range of greenhouse pathways and climate change mitigation.
44
45
46
47
The Fourth National Climate Assessment relies on the four RCPs in the IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report and presents projected climate change categorized by U.S. geographic region (see
Figure 3-12; USGCRP 2018). Similar to the observed climate changes categorized by U.S.
geographic region, as discussed in Section 3.12 of this LR GEIS, climate model projections
February 2023
4-165
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
indicate that changes in climate will not be uniform across the United States. Observed and
projected differences in climate changes in the United States are further presented in initial LR
and SLR SEISs prepared since 2013. For instance, the Point Beach plant SLR SEIS states that
climate models predict an increase of 4–6 °F (2.2–3.3 °C) in annual mean temperature for
Wisconsin under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios for the midcentury (NRC 2021f). The
Turkey Point plant SLR SEIS indicates that for the same scenarios and timeframe models
predict an increase in the annual mean temperature of 2–4 °F (1.1–2.2 °C) for Florida (NRC
2019c).
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The North Anna and the Surry SLR SEISs discuss climate change projections in the Northeast
region and the Commonwealth of Virginia along with associated impacts on the environment. In
the Surry plant SLR SEIS, the NRC considered the salinity effects of sea level rise projections
on the James River and deterioration of surface water quality due to saltwater intrusion (NRC
2021g). Unlike Surry, North Anna is not located on a tidal river, but on the Lake Anna Reservoir
which is not directly affected by sea level changes along the Atlantic coast. Consequently, sea
level rise projections were not pertinent in the consideration of climate change impacts to
surface water quality in the North Anna SEIS. The Turkey Point plant SLR SEIS and the
Waterford plant initial LR SEIS considered the impacts of projected sea level rise. However,
these SEISs illustrate how sea levels can affect water resources differently. As noted in the
Waterford plant initial LR SEIS, projected sea level rise could increase the upstream migration
of the saltwater wedge, which could cause a general deterioration in surface water quality in the
Lower Mississippi River (NRC 2018d). However, as noted in the Turkey Point SLR SEIS, for
South Florida, higher sea levels will increase the rate of saltwater intrusion leading to the
degradation of groundwater quality of aquifers designated as sources of drinking water (NRC
2019c).
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
While sea level rise impacts may occur in certain areas, decreases in water levels for the Great
Lakes are projected for the future. For instance, the Fermi plant initial LR SEIS and the Point
Beach SLR SEIS both discuss that while long-term water level projections are uncertain, model
simulations indicate a future decline in lake levels for Lake Erie and Lake Michigan, due to
increases in evaporative losses and warmer water temperatures (NRC 2016c; NRC 2021f).
Higher surface water temperatures can result in a decrease in cooling efficiency and therefore
have the potential to increase the use of cooling water and result in a slightly larger volume of
heated water discharged back to the lake (NRC 2016c; NRC 2021f).
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
On the basis of these considerations, the NRC concludes that the impacts of climate change on
environmental resources that are affected by continued nuclear power plant operations and any
refurbishment during the initial LR and SLR terms are location-specific and cannot be evaluated
generically. Changes in climate parameters and trends (e.g., temperature, precipitation, floods,
storm frequency, sea level rise) affect environmental resource baseline conditions (i.e., the
affected environment) that are incrementally affected by license renewal, thereby changing the
future state of the environment. The effects of climate change can vary regionally and climate
change information at the regional and local scale is necessary to assess the trends and
impacts on the human environment for a specific location. Therefore, this is a new Category 2
issue because it requires a plant-specific evaluation.
43
4.13 Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action
44
45
46
Actions considered in the cumulative effects (impacts) analysis include the proposed license
renewal action (initial LR or SLR) when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
actions, including projects and programs that are conducted, regulated, or approved by a
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-166
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
Federal agency. The analysis takes into account all actions, however minor, because the
effects of individually minor actions may be significant when considered collectively over time.
The goal of the cumulative effects analysis is to identify potentially significant impacts.
Definition of Cumulative Effects
Effects on the environment that result from the incremental effects of the action when added
to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of what
agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR
1508.1(g)(3)).
4
5
6
7
8
9
The cumulative effects or impacts analysis only considers resources and environmental
conditions that could be affected by the proposed license renewal action, including the effects of
continued reactor operations during the license renewal term and any refurbishment activities at
a nuclear power plant. In order for there to be a cumulative effect, the proposed action (license
renewal) must have an incremental new, additive, or increased physical effect or impact on the
resource or environmental condition beyond what is already occurring.
10
11
12
13
The CEQ’s report, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act,
provides a framework for addressing the cumulative effects of the proposed action in an EIS
(CEQ 1997a). Using guidance from the CEQ report, the cumulative effects analysis considers
the following:
14
15
16
17
•
The geographic region of influence that encompasses the areas of potential effect and the
distance at which the environmental effects of the proposed action and past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions may be experienced. Geographic regions of influence vary
by affected resource.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•
The timeframe for the cumulative effects analysis incorporates the incremental effects of the
proposed action (license renewal) with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions
because these combined effects may accumulate or develop over time. Past and present
actions include all actions up to and including the date of the license renewal request. The
timeframe for the consideration of reasonably foreseeable future actions is the 20-year
license renewal (initial LR or SLR) term. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include
current and ongoing planned activities, approved and funded for implementation.
25
26
27
28
•
The environmental effects from past and present actions are accounted for in baseline
assessments presented in affected environment discussions in Chapter 3.0 of this LR GEIS.
Chapter 4.0 accounts for the incremental effects or impacts of the proposed action (license
renewal).
29
30
31
32
33
34
•
The incremental effects of the proposed action (license renewal) when added to the effects
from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and other actions (including
trends such as global climate change) result in the overall cumulative effect. A qualitative
cumulative effects analysis is conducted in instances where the incremental effects of the
proposed action (license renewal) and past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions are uncertain or not well known.
35
36
37
•
For some resource areas (e.g., water and aquatic resources), the incremental contributions
of ongoing actions within a region are regulated and monitored through a permitting process
(e.g., NPDES) under State or Federal authority. In these cases, it may be assumed that
February 2023
4-167
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
cumulative effects are managed as long as these actions (facilities) are in compliance with
their respective permits.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The following sections discuss the potential for cumulative effects to occur in environmental
resources near a nuclear power plant—when the incremental environmental effects of the
proposed license renewal action are compounded by the effects from past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions. For the most part, environmental conditions near the
nuclear power plant are not expected to change appreciably during the license renewal term
beyond what is already being experienced. Because environmental conditions are different at
every nuclear power plant, cumulative effects is a Category 2 issue requiring a plant-specific
analysis during the license renewal environmental review.
11
12
13
14
15
16
The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS. Based on the information reviewed and the preceding
discussion, the NRC concludes that cumulative effects during the initial LR and SLR terms and
refurbishment are unique to each nuclear power plant. Therefore, the cumulative effects of
license renewal (initial LR or SLR) cannot be determined generically and it is a Category 2
issue.
17
4.13.1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Regional air quality conditions, due to past and present activities, could be affected by the
emissions from continued reactor operations and refurbishment at a nuclear power plant when
combined with the emissions from planned industrial, commercial, agricultural, and
transportation development. These activities generate dust and emissions—affecting regional
air quality. The magnitude of the cumulative effect depends on the location of the nuclear
power plant, intensity of planned development, and the presence of air quality nonattainment
areas.
25
4.13.2
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Surface water withdrawals, effluent discharges, stormwater runoff, and accidental spills and
releases and their impacts on water quality and availability could increase due to the combined
effects of continued reactor operations and refurbishment and existing and planned industrial,
commercial, and agricultural development activities. The incremental effect of the proposed
action, continued surface water withdrawal for nuclear power plant cooling systems (both oncethrough and closed-cycle), generally has had the greatest contributory effect. Water withdrawal
for nuclear plant cooling often conflicts with the water needs of other surface water users. The
magnitude of the cumulative effect depends on the location of the nuclear power plant, intensity
of existing and planned development activities, and affected surface water resources.
35
4.13.3
36
37
38
39
40
41
Groundwater demands and groundwater quality impacts could increase because of the
combined effects of continued reactor operations and refurbishment, and existing and planned
industrial, commercial, and agriculture development activities. The magnitude of the cumulative
effect depends on the location of the nuclear power plant, intensity of existing and planned
development activities that withdraw water, water demand, and the hydrogeologic
characteristics of the affected aquifers.
Air Quality
Surface Water Resources
Groundwater Resources
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-168
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.13.4
Ecological Resources
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Terrestrial wildlife impacts include habitat loss and degradation, disturbance and displacement,
injury and mortality, and obstruction of movement due to the combined effects of continued
reactor operations and refurbishment and existing and planned industrial, commercial, and
agriculture development activities. Other impacts include exposure to noise and contaminants,
altered surface water and groundwater quality and flow patterns, and collisions with buildings
and other structures. Adverse effects typically result from construction activities associated with
planned industrial and commercial development, agriculture, transportation, water projects, and
tourism and recreation. Migratory bird species may be affected by activities occurring away
from the nuclear power plant. Ecological communities (including floodplain and wetland) may
also be affected by development activities (e.g., land clearing and grading) that create
conditions that favor invasive species. The magnitude of the cumulative effect depends on the
location of the nuclear power plant relative to important wildlife habitats and ecological
communities and the intensity of existing and planned development activities.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
There are three scales of aquatic resource effects: (1) cumulative effects from the nuclear
power plant (e.g., entrainment, impingement, thermal discharges, and chemical discharges),
(2) cumulative effects from other power plants, and (3) cumulative effects from activities
affecting water bodies (e.g., dams, agriculture, urban, and industrial development). Aquatic
impacts include the (1) loss and degradation of habitat; (2) species disturbance, displacement,
injury, and mortality; (3) obstruction of movement; and (4) the introduction and spread of
invasive species due to the combined effects of continued reactor operations and refurbishment
and existing and planned industrial, commercial, and agriculture development activities. These
effects result in increased water use and discharges to natural water bodies, increased and
contaminated runoff from planned industrial, commercial, agriculture, and transportation
development; water projects; and tourism and recreation. Similarly, the magnitude of the
cumulative effect depends on the location of the nuclear power plant relative to important water
bodies and the intensity of existing and planned development activities.
28
4.13.5
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Historic and cultural resources (e.g., archaeological sites, historic structures, and TCPs) could
be adversely affected by ground-disturbing maintenance and refurbishment activities at a
nuclear power plant and by planned industrial and commercial development. Historic and
cultural resource impacts from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., land clearance, grading, and
excavation) could occur during the construction of planned industrial, commercial, and
transportation infrastructure and maintenance activities—damaging or destroying cultural
material. The magnitude of the cumulative effect depends on the location of the nuclear power
plant, intensity of planned development, and mitigation.
37
4.13.6
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Employment and income generated by the combined effects of continued reactor operations
and refurbishment and industrial, commercial, and housing development can have a significant
cumulative socioeconomic effect. Income generated from goods and services creates
additional employment and income opportunities. New employment could increase the
population and demand for public services, housing, and transportation. The magnitude of the
cumulative socioeconomic effect depends on the location of the nuclear power plant and the
intensity of development.
Historic and Cultural Resources
Socioeconomics
February 2023
4-169
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.13.7
Human Health
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Exposure to radiological, chemical, and microbiological hazards and the potentially chronic
effects of EMFs could result in a cumulative health effect. Exposure may occur as a result of
the accumulation of harmful constituents released from existing facilities and planned industrial
and commercial development. The magnitude of the cumulative human health effect depends
on the location of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, the number of
facilities and activities involving radiological and hazardous material, and the amount of
exposure.
9
4.13.8
Environmental Justice
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The cumulative effects of license renewal (proposed action) at a nuclear power plant combined
with the environmental effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could
exacerbate any human health or environmental effects in a minority population, low-income
population, or Indian Tribe. In addition, the combined effects of license renewal and industrial,
commercial, and housing development near the nuclear plant could disproportionately affect
consumption patterns (e.g., subsistence agriculture, hunting, and fishing) and the environmental
resources on which these populations may depend (e.g., fish, wildlife, and local produce).
Whether these effects are disproportionately high and adverse depends on the unique
characteristics of these populations and their proximity to the nuclear power plant and planned
development.
20
4.13.9
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Nuclear power plants, uranium fuel cycle facilities, and other commercial industrial facilities
generate radioactive and nonradioactive waste material. Depending on the location of waste
treatment and disposal facilities, nearby communities and people could experience the
cumulative effects of transportation, treatment, and disposal activities. However, some nuclear
power plants may be the only radioactive waste generator in a region. All commercial industrial
waste-generating facilities must comply with Federal and State waste storage, treatment, and
disposal regulations. These facilities must also ensure waste is properly handled and stored,
and its release is closely monitored. The magnitude of the cumulative effect depends on the
location of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions involving facilities and
activities that generate, treat, and store radiological and hazardous waste material.
31
4.13.10 Climate Change
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Changes in climate during the license renewal term have the potential to significantly affect
environmental resources and human health conditions near a nuclear power plant due to
changes in precipitation, temperature, storm frequency and severity, sea level rise, floods, and
droughts. Climate change caused by GHG emissions is a global concern; observations and
future climate scenarios are being documented in reports developed by the NOAA and the
IPCC. The direction and nature of these changes are expected to vary widely across the
country. These effects are being documented in the U.S. Global Change Research Program
state of knowledge reports.
Waste Management and Pollution Prevention
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-170
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.14 Impacts Common to All Alternatives
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
This section describes impacts that are considered common to all alternatives discussed in this
LR GEIS, including the proposed action (initial LR or SLR) and replacement power alternatives.
The continued operation of a nuclear power plant and replacement fossil-fueled power plants
both involve the mining, processing, and consumption of fuel, which results in comparative
environmental impacts. Environmental impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle are
presented in Section 4.14.1.1, and impacts for other power plant fuel cycles are presented in
Section 4.14.2. The impacts of license renewal on termination of operations and the
decommissioning of a nuclear power plant and replacement energy facilities are presented in
Section 4.14.3.1. In addition, GHG emissions from the nuclear life cycle and replacement fossil
fuel power plants and climate change impacts are presented in Section 4.12.
12
4.14.1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Most replacement power alternatives use a process to obtain their fuels. Nuclear power plants
use a process to obtain the uranium from the Earth and refine it for its use within the reactors.
The continued operation of the nuclear power plants during the license renewal term (initial LR
or SLR) requires uranium processing. Getting fuel may include extracting, transforming,
transporting, and combusting, among other activities. Emissions may result at each step within
the processing. Also, some aspects of any fuel cycle (for example, storage and disposal)
described here are common to each alternative.
20
4.14.1.1
21
22
23
In the United States, all currently operating commercial plants are LWRs and use uranium for
fuel. Therefore, in this section and in the rest of this LR GEIS, the term “uranium fuel cycle” is
used interchangeably with “nuclear fuel cycle.”
24
4.14.1.1.1 Background on Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities
25
26
27
28
29
The NRC evaluated the environmental impacts that would be associated with operating uranium
fuel cycle facilities other than the reactors themselves in two NRC publications: WASH-1248
(AEC 1974a) and NUREG-0116 (NRC 1976). More recently, facilities for managing the back
end of the nuclear fuel cycle were considered in NUREG-2157 (NRC 2014c). The types of
facilities considered in these documents include the following:
30
•
uranium mining – facilities where the uranium ore is mined.
31
32
•
uranium milling – facilities where the uranium ore is refined to produce uranium
concentrates in the form of triuranium octaoxide (U3O8).
33
•
UF6 production – facilities where the uranium concentrates are converted to UF6.
34
35
•
isotopic enrichment – facilities where the isotopic ratio of the uranium-235 isotope in natural
uranium is increased to meet the requirements of LWRs.
36
37
38
39
40
•
fuel fabrication – facilities where the enriched UF6 is converted to uranium dioxide (UO2) and
made into sintered UO2 pellets. The pellets are subsequently encapsulated in fuel rods, and
the rods are assembled into fuel assemblies ready to be inserted into the reactors. Two
options were considered: (1) carrying out all steps involved in manufacturing the fuel
assemblies at the same location, and (2) carrying the steps out at two separate facilities (at
Environmental Consequences of Fuel Cycles
Uranium Fuel Cycle
February 2023
4-171
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
one facility, uranium dioxide is produced in powder form from the enriched UF6; and at the
other facility, the fuel assemblies are manufactured).
3
4
5
6
•
reprocessing – facilities that disassemble the spent fuel assemblies, chop up the fuel rods
into small sections, chemically dissolve the spent fuel out of sectioned fuel rod pieces, and
chemically separate the spent fuel into reusable uranium, plutonium, and other radionuclides
(primarily fission products and actinides).
7
•
independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs) – Two options are considered:
8
9
10
11
–
At-Reactor Continued Storage ISFSIs – facilities designed and constructed at a
nuclear power plant for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel pending permanent
disposal, used by operating plants to add spent nuclear fuel storage capacity beyond
that available in the nuclear power plant’s SFP.
12
13
14
15
16
–
Away-from-Reactor ISFSIs – facilities designed and constructed away from a nuclear
power plant for the short-term, long-term, and indefinite storage of spent nuclear fuel
pending permanent disposal, used by operating and formerly operating nuclear
plants to add spent nuclear fuel storage capacity beyond that available in the nuclear
power plant’s SFP and at-reactor ISFSIs.
17
18
19
•
20
21
As evaluated in NUREG-2157 (NRC 2014c), the NRC reaffirmed in 2014 that geological
disposal remains technically feasible and that acceptable sites can be identified.
22
4.14.1.1.2 Environmental Impacts
23
24
25
26
27
In addition to impacts occurring at the above facilities, the impacts associated with the
transportation of radioactive materials among these facilities, including the transportation of
wastes to disposal facilities, were evaluated. The results were summarized in a table and
promulgated as Table S-3 in 10 CFR 51.51(b). Table S-3 is provided at the end of this section
as Table 4.14-1 for ease of reference. 10 CFR 51.51(a) states:
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Every environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage of a lightwater-cooled nuclear power reactor, and submitted on or after September 4,
1979, shall take Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, as
the basis for evaluating the contribution of the environmental effects of uranium
mining and milling, the production of uranium hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment,
fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation of radioactive
materials and management of low level wastes and high level wastes related to
uranium fuel cycle activities to the environmental costs of licensing the nuclear
power reactor. Table S-3 shall be included in the environmental report and may
be supplemented by a discussion of the environmental significance of the data
set forth in the table as weighed in the analysis for the proposed facility.
39
40
41
42
43
Specific categories of natural resource use included in Table 4.14-1 relate to land use; water
consumption and thermal effluents; radioactive releases; burial of transuranic waste, HLW, and
LLW; and radiation doses from transportation and occupational exposures. The contributions in
the table for reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for
either of the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle); that is, the cycle that results in the
disposal – facilities where the radioactive wastes generated at all fuel cycle facilities,
including the reactors, are buried. Spent nuclear fuel that is removed from the reactors and
not reprocessed was also assumed to be disposed of at a geologic repository.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-172
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
greater impact is used. For each resource area, Table 4.14-1 presents a result that has been
integrated over the entire fuel cycle except the reactors. The only exception to this is that the
waste quantities provided under the entry called “solids (buried onsite)” also includes wastes
generated at the reactor.
5
6
7
8
The environmental impact values are expressed in terms normalized to show the potential
impacts attributable to processing the fuel required for the operation of a 1,000 MWe nuclear
power plant for 1 year at an 80 percent availability factor to produce about 800 MW-yr
(0.8 GW-yr) of electricity. This is referred to as 1 reference reactor year.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Many of the nuclear fuel cycle facilities and processes assessed for Table 4.14-1 still exist
today. However, some have undergone several industrial developments and technological
advances that have significantly reduced their environmental effects. As discussed in NUREG2226, the Clinch River ESP FEIS (NRC 2019b), recent changes in the uranium fuel cycle may
have some bearing on environmental impacts. As discussed below, the NRC is confident that
the contemporary normalized uranium fuel cycle impacts for LWRs are less than those identified
in Table 4.14-1. This assertion is true in light of the following recent uranium fuel cycle trends in
the United States:
17
18
•
Increasing use of in situ leach uranium mining, which does not produce mine tailings and
would lower the release of radon gas (NRC 2020e).
19
20
21
22
•
Transitioning of U.S. uranium enrichment technology from gaseous diffusion to gas
centrifugation. The latter process uses only a fraction of the electrical energy per separation
unit compared to gaseous diffusion and U.S. gaseous-diffusion plants that relied on
electricity derived mainly from the burning of coal.
23
24
25
26
•
Current LWRs are using nuclear fuel more efficiently because of higher levels of fuel
burnup. Thus, less uranium fuel per year of reactor operation is required than in the past to
generate the same amount of electricity (an increase in the time for refueling [from
12 months to 18 months or more] as applied for Table S–3).
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
The values in Table 4.14-1 were calculated from industry averages for the performance of each
type of facility or operation within the fuel cycle. Recognizing that this approach meant that
there would be a range of reasonable values for each estimate, the staff chose the assumptions
or factors to be applied so that the calculated values would not be underestimated. This
approach was intended to make sure that the actual environmental impacts would be less than
the quantities shown in Table 4.14-1 for all LWR nuclear power plants within the widest range of
operating conditions. The staff recognizes that many of the fuel cycle parameters and
interactions vary in small ways from the estimates in Table 4.14-1 and concludes that these
variations would have no impacts on the Table 4.14-1 calculations. For example, to determine
the quantity of fuel required for a year’s operation of a nuclear power plant in Table 4.14-1, the
staff defined the reference reactor as a 1,000 MW LWR operating at 80 percent capacity with a
12-month fuel-reloading cycle and an average fuel burnup of 33,000 MWd/MTU. These values
are not challenged by the current LWR fleet, which is operating with an average factor of
approximately 95 percent capacity for peak fuel rod burnup of up to 62,000 MWd/MTU with
refueling occurring at approximately 18-months to 2-year intervals (NRC 2019b). This means
fuel can be used more efficiently, requiring less total fuel, resulting in less environmental effects
than those presented in Table 4.14-1 (Table S–3).
44
45
The analysis presented in Table 4.14-1 (circa 1970s) was also based on most of the electricity
generated in the United States being produced in plants that burn fossil fuels, and coal
February 2023
4-173
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
composing the bulk of fossil fuel utilization (AEC 1974a). However, today the energy sources
for utility-scale electrical generation are more diverse (DOE/EIA 2020b):
3
•
23 percent from coal;
4
•
38 percent from natural gas, for which air emissions are much less than those from coal;
5
•
20 percent from nuclear power plants;
6
7
•
17 percent from renewables (10 percent from non-hydroelectric renewables and 7 percent
from hydroelectric); and
8
•
1 percent from petroleum and other sources.
9
10
11
12
13
14
Therefore, environmental impacts related to air emissions, associated pollutants, and
water/thermal impacts from today’s electrical generation contribution to the nuclear fuel cycle
are clearly less than and are bounded by the coal-electrical generation data assessed by
WASH-1248 (AEC 1974a) and found in Table 4.14-1. This trend of decreasing reliance on
fossil fuels for electrical generation will continue, spurred by actions to combat climate change
(DOE/EIA 2020c).
15
Based on several of the items discussed above, the 2013 LR GEIS states:
16
17
18
19
20
It was concluded that even though certain fuel cycle operations and fuel
management practices have changed over the years, the assumptions and
methodology used in preparing Table S–3 were conservative enough that the
impacts described by the use of Table S–3 would still be bounding. The NRC
believes that this conclusion still holds.
21
22
23
24
25
A detailed discussion of impacts associated with the production and processing of fuel needed
for 1 reference reactor year operation of the model LWR was provided in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Included in the discussion were the collective offsite radiological impacts that would be
associated with radon-222 and technetium-99 releases to the environment during the fuel cycle
operations, which Table 4.14-1 does not address.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
One part of the fuel cycle that was not discussed either in the technical support documents for
the original Table 4.14-1 or in the 1996 LR GEIS was the disposition of the depleted UF6 tails
generated during the enrichment process. Originally, these tails were intended to be used as a
feedstock to make fuel for proposed fast breeder reactors. However, the United States
abandoned the fast breeder reactor program in 1983 (Breeder Reactor Corporation 1985).
Before the creation of the United States Enrichment Corporation in 1993, DOE was the
custodian of all the depleted UF6 generated in the United States at the three gaseous-diffusion
plants (in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Paducah, Kentucky). DOE prepared
several NEPA documents evaluating the impacts associated with the disposition of
approximately 700,000 MT (1.54 billion lb) of depleted UF6 (DOE 1999, DOE 2004a, DOE
2004b, DOE 2007). DOE decided to convert the depleted UF6 back to U3O8 and dispose of it as
LLW (69 FR 44654, 69 FR 44649). The results of these analyses indicate that the operational
impacts of the depleted UF6 management facilities would not be very different from the impacts
estimated for other parts of the fuel cycle in Table 4.14-1. In particular, the impacts of the
depleted UF6 conversion facilities, where the depleted UF6 is converted to triuranium octaoxide,
would be similar to the impacts of the UF6 production facilities, where U3O8 is converted to UF6.
If the depleted uranium oxide is disposed of as LLW, the conversion product corresponding to 1
reference reactor year would be in addition to the LLW quantities already listed in Table 4.14-1.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-174
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
This value is estimated to be approximately 12 Ci (4.4 1011 Bq) (35 MT of uranium per
reference reactor year multiplied by 0.34 Ci/MT of depleted uranium).
3
4
5
6
7
As discussed above and in the following sections, the NRC staff reviewed information from
technical literature as well as from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would
result in different impacts for either an initial LR or SLR term with respect to the uranium fuel
cycle.
8
9
10
11
Table 4.14-1 Table S-3 Taken from 10 CFR 51.51 on Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental
Data (Normalized to model light water reactor annual fuel requirement
[WASH-1248; AEC 1974a] or reference reactor year [NUREG-0116; NRC
1976])(a)
Environmental Considerations
Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel
Requirement or Reference Reactor Year of
Model 1,000 MWe Light Water Reactor
Total
Natural Resource Use
Land (acres)
Temporarily committed(b)
100
Undisturbed area
79
Disturbed area
22
Permanently committed
13
Overburden moved (millions of MT)
2.8
Equivalent to 95 MWe coal-fired power plant.
160
Equal to 2 percent of model 1,000 MWe light
water reactor with cooling tower.
Equivalent to a 110 MWe coal-fired power plant.
Water (millions of gallons)
Discharged to air
Discharged to water bodies
Discharged to ground
Total
11,090
127
11,377
Less than 4 percent of model 1,000 MWe light
water reactor with once-through cooling.
Fossil Fuel
Electrical energy (thousands of
MW-hour)
323
Less than 5 percent of model 1,000 MWe output.
Equivalent coal (thousands of MT)
118
Equivalent to the consumption of a 45 MWe coalfired power plant.
Natural gas (millions of scf)
135
Less than 0.4 percent of model 1,000 MWe
energy output.
Effluents − Chemical (MT)
Gases (including entrainment)(c)
SOx
4,400
NOx(d)
1,190
February 2023
Equivalent to emissions from 45 MWe coal-fired
plant for a year.
4-175
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
Environmental Considerations
Hydrocarbons
Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel
Requirement or Reference Reactor Year of
Model 1,000 MWe Light Water Reactor
Total
14
CO
29.6
Particulates
1,154
Other gases
F
0.67
Principally from UF6 production, enrichment, and
reprocessing. Concentration within range of
State standards and below level that has effects
on human health.
HCl
0.014
Liquids
SO –4
NO
–
3
Fluoride
Ca
+
9.9
25.8
12.9
5.4
C1 –
8.5
Na +
12.1
NH3
10.0
Fe
0.4
Tailings solutions (thousands of
MT)
240
Solids
From enrichment, fuel fabrication, and
reprocessing steps. Components that constitute
a potential for adverse environmental effects are
present in dilute concentrations and receive
additional dilution by receiving bodies of water to
levels below permissible standards. The
constituents that require dilution and the flow of
dilution water are NH3: 600 cfs, NO3: 20 cfs,
fluoride: 70 cfs.
From mills only – no significant effluents to
environment.
91,000
Principally from mills – no significant effluents to
environment.
Effluents − Radiological (curies)
Gases (including entrainment)
Rn-222
–
Ra-226
0.02
Th-230
0.02
Uranium
0.034
Tritium (thousands)
18.1
C-14
24
Kr-85 (thousands)
400
Ru-106
0.14
I-129
1.3
I-131
0.83
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Presently under reconsideration by the
Commission.
Principally from fuel reprocessing plants.
4-176
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
Environmental Considerations
Tc-99
Fission products and transuranics
Maximum Effect per Annual Fuel
Requirement or Reference Reactor Year of
Model 1,000 MWe Light Water Reactor
Total
–
Presently under consideration by the
Commission.
0.203
Liquids
Uranium and daughters
Principally from milling –included tailings liquor
and returned to ground, no effluents; therefore,
no effect on the environment.
2.1
Ra-226
0.0034
Th-230
0.0015
Th-234
0.01
Fission and activation products
From UF6 production.
From fuel fabrication plants – concentration 10
percent of 10 CFR Part 20 for total processing
26 annual fuel requirements for model light water
reactor.
5.9 10-6
Solids (buried onsite)
Other than high level (shallow)
Transuranic and high-level waste
(deep)
Effluents − Thermal (billions of
Btu)
11,300
1.1 107
4,063
9,100 Ci comes from low-level reactor wastes
and 1,500 Ci comes from reactor
decontamination and decommissioning – buried
at land burial facilities. 600 Ci comes from mills
– included in tailing returned to ground.
Approximately 60 Ci comes from conversion and
spent fuel storage. No significant effluent to the
environment.
Buried at Federal Repository.
Less than 5 percent of model 1,000 MWe light
water reactor.
Transportation (person-rem)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Exposure of workers and general
public
2.5
Occupational exposure
22.6
From reprocessing and waste management.
(a) In some cases where no entry appears, it is clear from the background documents that the matter was
addressed and that, in effect, the table should be read as if a specific zero entry had been made. However,
there are other areas that are not addressed in the table. Table S-3 does not include health effects from the
effluents described in the table, estimates of releases of radon-222 from the uranium fuel cycle, or estimates of
technetium-99 released from waste management or reprocessing activities. These issues may be the subject of
litigation in the individual licensing proceedings.
Data supporting this table are given in the Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, WASH-1248, April
1974; the Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portion of the LWR Fuel Cycle,’
NUREG-0116 (Supp. 1 to WASH–1248); the Public Comments and Task Force Responses Regarding the
Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle, NUREG0216 (Supp. 2 to WASH-1248); and in the record of the final rulemaking pertaining to Uranium Fuel Cycle
Impacts from Spent Fuel Reprocessing and Radioactive Waste Management, Docket RM-50-3. The
contributions from reprocessing, waste management, and transportation of wastes are maximized for either of
the two fuel cycles (uranium only and no recycle). The contribution from transportation excludes transportation
February 2023
4-177
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
of cold fuel to a reactor and transportation of irradiated fuel and radioactive wastes from a reactor, which are
considered in Table S-4 of Section 51.20(g) [sic, Table S-4 now appears in Section 51.52(c)]. The contributions
from the other steps of the fuel cycle are given in columns A−E of Table S-3A of WASH-1248.
(b) The contributions to temporarily committed land from reprocessing are not prorated over 30 years, because the
complete temporary impact accrues regardless of whether the plant services 1 reactor for 1 year or 57 reactors
for 30 years.
(c) Estimated effluents based upon combustion of equivalent coal for power generation.
(d) 1.2 percent from natural gas use and process.
Source: 10 CFR 51.51.
10
4.14.1.1.3 Consideration of Environmental Justice
11
12
As stated in the NRC’s Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in
NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040),
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
An NRC EJ [environmental justice] analysis should be limited to the impacts
associated with the proposed action (i.e., the communities in the vicinity of the
proposed action). EJ-related issues differ from site to site and normally cannot
be resolved generically. Consequently, EJ, as well as other socioeconomic
issues, are normally considered in site-specific EISs. Thus, due to the sitespecific nature of an EJ analysis, EJ-related issues are usually not considered
during the preparation of a generic or programmatic EIS. EJ assessments would
be performed as necessary in the underlying licensing action for each particular
facility.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The environmental impacts of various individual operating uranium fuel cycle facilities are
addressed in separate site-specific environmental reviews and NEPA documents prepared by
the NRC. These documents include analyses that address human health and environmental
impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes. Electronic copies
of these NEPA documents are available through the NRC’s public Web site under Publications
Prepared by NRC Staff document collection of the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/; and the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
30
4.14.1.1.4 Transportation Impacts
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
The impacts associated with transporting fresh fuel to one 1,000 MWe model LWR and with
transporting spent fuel and radioactive waste (LLW and mixed waste) from that LWR are
provided in Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52. Similar to Table S-3 (Table 4.14-1), and as indicated in
10 CFR 51.52, every environmental report prepared for the construction permit stage of a
commercial nuclear power plant must contain a statement concerning the transportation of fuel
and radioactive waste to and from the reactor. A similar statement is also required in license
renewal (initial LR and SLR) applications. Table S-4 forms the basis of such a statement and is
presented here as Table 4.14-2.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
A discussion of the values included in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52 (see Table 4.14-2) and how
they may change during the license renewal term was included in Section 6.3 of the 1996 LR
GEIS. However, after the 1996 LR GEIS was issued and during the rulemaking process for
codifying Table B-1 in 10 CFR Part 51, a number of comments were received from the public
that raised some questions about the adequacy of Table 4.14-2 values for license renewal
application reviews. As a result, the NRC reevaluated the transportation issues and the
adequacy of Table 4.14-2 values for license renewal (initial LR or SLR) application reviews. In
1999, the NRC issued an addendum to the 1996 LR GEIS in which the agency evaluated the
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-178
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
applicability of Table S-4 (Table 4.14-2) to future license renewal proceedings, given that the
spent fuel is likely to be shipped to a single repository (as opposed to several destinations, as
originally assumed in the preparation of Table S-4) and given that shipments of spent fuel are
likely to involve more highly enriched fresh fuel (more than 4 percent as assumed in Table S-4)
and higher-burnup spent fuel (higher than 33,000 MWd/MTU as assumed in Table 4.14-2). In
the addendum, the NRC evaluated the impacts of transporting the spent fuel from reactor sites
to the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and the impacts of shipping
more highly enriched fresh fuel and higher-burnup spent fuel. On the basis of the evaluations,
the NRC concluded that the values given in Table 4.14-2 (Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52) would still
be bounding, as long as the (1) enrichment of the fresh fuel was 5 percent or less, (2) burnup of
the spent fuel was 62,000 MWd/MTU or less, and (3) higher-burnup spent fuel (higher
than 33,000 MWd/MTU) was cooled for at least 5 years before being shipped offsite. The
conditions evaluated in Addendum 1 have not changed, and no new conditions have been
introduced that would alter the conclusions in Addendum 1 (NRC 1999a). A later study found
that the impacts from the transportation of spent nuclear fuel with up to 75,000 MWd/MTU
burnup would not have significant adverse environmental impacts, provided that the impacts are
not significantly affected by fission gas releases and the fuel is cooled for at least 5 years before
shipment (Ramsdell et al. 2001). Table 4.14-2 as currently encoded in 10 CFR 51.52 is
provided below.
20
21
22
Table 4.14-2 Table S-4 Taken from 10 CFR 51.52 on the Environmental Impact of
Transporting Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear
Power Reactor(a)
Normal Conditions of Transport
Environmental Impact
Heat (per irradiated fuel cask in transit)
250,000 Btu/hr
Weight (governed by Federal or State restrictions)
73,000 lb per truck; 100 tons per cask per rail car
Traffic density:
Truck
Less than 1 per day
Rail
Less than 3 per month
Exposed Population
Transportation workers
Estimated No. of
Persons Exposed
Range of Doses to
Exposed Individuals(b)
(per reactor year)
Cumulative Dose to
Exposed Population
(per reactor year)(c)
200
0.01 to 300 millirem
4 person-rem
1,100
0.003 to 1.3 millirem
3 person-rem
General public:
Onlookers
Along route
600,000
0.0001 to 0.06 millirem
23
February 2023
4-179
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
Accidents in Transport
Types of Effects
Environmental Risk
Radiological effects
Small(d)
Common (nonradiological) causes
1 fatal injury in 100 reactor years; 1 nonfatal injury
in 10 reactor years; $475 property damage per
reactor year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(a) Data supporting this table are given in the Commission’s Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive
Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238, December 1972, and Supp. 1, NUREG-75/038,
April 1975. Both documents are available for inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Document
Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852 and may be obtained
from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
(b) The Federal Radiation Council has recommended that the radiation doses from all sources of radiation other
than natural background and medical exposures should be limited to 5,000 millirem per year for individuals as a
result of occupational exposure and should be limited to 500 millirem per year for individuals in the general
population. The dose to individuals due to average natural background radiation is about 130 millirem per year.
(c) Man-rem is an expression for the summation of whole body doses to individuals in a group. Thus, if each
member of a population group of 1,000 people received a dose of 0.001 rem (1 millirem), or if 2 people received
a dose of 0.5 rem (500 millirem) each, the total man-rem dose in each case would be 1 man-rem.
(d) Although the environmental risk of radiological effects stemming from transportation accidents is currently
incapable of being numerically quantified, the risk remains small, regardless of whether it is being applied to a
single reactor or a multireactor site.
Source: 10 CFR 51.52.
17
4.14.1.1.5 Consideration of Environmental Justice
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
The human health effects of transporting spent nuclear fuel were originally addressed in an
addendum to the 1996 GEIS (NRC 1999b) in which the agency evaluated the applicability of
Table S-4 to future license renewal proceedings given that spent fuel is likely to be shipped to a
single geologic repository. As part of the site characterization and recommendation process for
the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, the DOE is required by the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prepare an EIS. By law, the NRC is required to adopt
DOE’s EIS, to “the extent practicable,” as part of any possible NRC construction authorization
decision. As a result, DOE prepared and submitted to NRC the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and HighLevel Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (Repository Supplemental
EIS) (DOE/EIS-0250F-S1; DOE 2008). This document includes analyses that address the
human health and environmental impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and
Indian Tribes.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
As noted in DOE’s Repository Supplemental EIS, shipments of spent nuclear fuel (as well as
fresh fuel) would use the nation’s existing railroads and highways. Consequently, DOE
estimates that transportation-related environmental impacts affecting land use; air quality;
hydrology; biological resources and soils; cultural resources; socioeconomics; noise and
vibration; aesthetic resources; utilities, energy, and materials; and waste management would be
SMALL. Nonetheless, segments of the population, including minority populations, low-income
populations, and Indian Tribes, would likely experience some transportation-related
environmental effects.
39
40
41
42
43
The DOE did not identify any high and adverse human health or environmental impacts on
members of the public from the transport of spent nuclear fuel, and determined that subsections
of the population, including minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes,
would not experience disproportionate effects. In addition, DOE did not identify any unique
patterns of subsistence consumption, exposure pathways, sensitivities, or cultural practices that
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-180
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
would expose these populations to disproportionately high and adverse effects. Consequently,
DOE concluded that minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes would not
experience any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects from
the transportation of spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain (DOE 2008). On September 8, 2008,
the NRC staff recommended the Commission adopt DOE’s Repository Supplemental EIS with
supplements (73 FR 53284).
7
8
9
10
11
12
As discussed in Section 4.11.1.3, the NRC prepared and issued an EIS supplement in 2016
(NUREG-2184; NRC 2016a) that evaluated environmental impacts due to potential radiological
releases from the proposed Yucca Mountain geologic repository. The supplement did not
evaluate transportation impacts. The NRC determined that there would be no disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects from the use or discharge of
groundwater flowing from the repository on minority or low-income populations.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
In light of DOE’s decision to not proceed with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste geologic
repository and comprehensive reevaluation of policies for managing spent nuclear fuel from
nuclear power plants (see Section 4.11.1.3), some or all of the environmental impact analyses
in DOE’s Repository Supplemental EIS will have to be revisited. Nevertheless, as reaffirmed by
the NRC in the 2014 Continued Storage Final Rule (79 FR 56238) and as supported by the
analyses in NUREG-2157, disposal in a geologic repository continues to be technically feasible.
International progress in the development of repositories provides confidence that it is likely that
a repository can and will be developed in the United States, with 25 to 35 years being a
reasonable period for repository development. The NRC expects that DOE’s analysis for the
Yucca Mountain geologic repository would be representative of any future repository.
23
4.14.1.1.6 Environmental Impact Issues of the Uranium Fuel Cycle
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Nuclear fuel is needed for the operation of light water reactors during the license renewal term
(initial LR or SLR) in the same way that it is needed during the current license period.
Therefore, the factors that affect the data presented in Tables S-3 (Table 4.14-1) and S-4
(Table 4.14-2) of 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52, respectively, do not change whether a light water
reactor is operating under its original license or a renewed license. In the 1996 LR GEIS, there
are nine issues that relate to uranium fuel cycle and waste management; five of them that relate
to waste management are addressed in Section 4.11.1.
31
The remaining four impact issues include the following (as evaluated in the 2013 LR GEIS):
32
33
•
offsite radiological impacts – individual impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel
and high-level waste;
34
35
•
offsite radiological impacts – collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel
and high-level waste);
36
•
nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle; and
37
•
transportation.
38
39
Offsite Radiological Impacts – Individual Impacts from Other than the Disposal of Spent
Fuel and High-Level Waste
40
41
42
This issue addresses the radiological impacts on individuals who live near uranium fuel cycle
facilities. The primary indicators of impact are the concentrations of radionuclides in the
effluents from the fuel cycle facilities and the radiological doses received by an MEI (a
February 2023
4-181
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
maximally exposed individual) on the site boundary or at some location away from the site
boundary. As discussed in Section 3.9.1 of this LR GEIS, an MEI can be exposed to radiation
from radionuclides found in the effluents of nuclear fuel cycle facilities and from radiation “shine”
from buildings, storage facilities, and storage tanks containing radioactive material. The basis
for establishing the significance of individual effects is the comparison of the releases in the
effluents and the MEI doses with the permissible levels in applicable regulations. The analyses
performed by the NRC in the preparation of Table 4.14-1 and found in the 1996 LR GEIS
indicate that as long as the facilities operate under a valid license issued by either the NRC or
an agreement State, the individual effects will meet the applicable regulations. On the basis of
these considerations, the NRC has concluded that the impacts on individuals from radioactive
gaseous and liquid releases during the initial LR or SLR term would remain at or below the
NRC’s regulatory limits. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that offsite radiological impacts of the
uranium fuel cycle (individual effects from sources other than the disposal of spent fuel and
high-level waste) are SMALL. The efforts to keep the releases and doses ALARA will continue
to apply to fuel-cycle-related activities. This was considered a Category 1 issue in the 2013 LR
GEIS. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would
result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. Therefore, this is a
Category 1 issue for both initial LR and SLR.
20
21
Offsite Radiological Impacts – Collective Impacts from Other than the Disposal of Spent
Fuel and High-Level Waste
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
The focus of this issue is the collective radiological doses to and health impacts on the general
public resulting from uranium fuel cycle facilities over the license renewal term. The radiological
doses received by the general public are calculated on the basis of releases from the facilities to
the environment, as provided in Table 4.14-1. These estimates were provided in the 1996 LR
GEIS for the gaseous and liquid releases listed in Table S-3 as well as for radon-222 and
technetium-99 releases (Rn-222 and Tc-99), which are not listed in Table 4.14-1. The
population dose commitments were normalized for each year of operation of the model
1,000 MWe LWR (reference reactor year).
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
On the basis of the analyses provided in the 1996 LR GEIS and reexamined and discussed in
the 2013 LR GEIS, the estimated involuntary 100-year dose commitment to the U.S. population
resulting from the radioactive gaseous releases from uranium fuel cycle facilities (excluding the
reactors and releases of Rn-222 and Tc-99) was estimated to be 400 person-rem (4 person-Sv)
for 1 reference reactor year. Similarly, the environmental dose commitment to the U.S.
population from the liquid releases was estimated to be 200 person-rem (3 person-Sv) per
reference reactor year. As a result, the total estimated involuntary 100-year dose commitment
to the U.S. population from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases listed in Table 4.14-1 was
given as 600 person-rem (6 person-Sv) per reference reactor year (see Section 6.2.2 of the
1996 LR GEIS).
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs also provided a detailed analysis of potential doses to the U.S.
population from Rn-222 releases, which primarily occur during mining and milling operations
and as emissions from mill tailings, and Tc-99 releases, which primarily occur during the
enrichment process (Section 6.2.2 of the 1996 LR GEIS). Tc-99 releases during enrichment
occurred through a gaseous diffusions process that is no longer used within the United States.
Tc-99 is not released through centrifuge enrichment processes and is not reconsidered in this
analysis. The U.S. population doses resulting from the Rn-222 releases for 1 reference reactor
year are summarized in Table 4.14-3 from the 2013 LR GEIS. The total population dose from
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-182
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
all releases to the environment, including the Rn-222, is given as 838.6 person-rem
(8.386 person-Sv) per reference reactor year.
3
4
Table 4.14-3 Population Doses from Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities Normalized to One
Reference Reactor Year
Collective Dose (person-rem)(a)
Source
Gaseous releases
400
Liquid releases
200
Rn-222 releases from uranium mining and milling
140
Rn-222 releases from unreclaimed open-pit mines
96
Rn-222 releases from stabilized tailings piles
2.6
Total
5
6
7
838.6
Rn-222 = Radon-222.
(a) To convert person-rem to person-Sv, multiply by 0.01.
Source: Modified from NRC 1996.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
As discussed in the 1996 LR GEIS and as confirmed in the 2013 LR GEIS, the dose estimates
given above were based on highly conservative assumptions. In actuality, the doses received
by most members of the public would be so small that they would be indistinguishable from the
variations in natural background radiation. There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective
doses to the general public from fuel cycle facilities. All regulatory limits are based on individual
doses. All fuel cycle facilities are designed and operated to meet the applicable regulatory
limits.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As discussed in the 1996 LR GEIS and as confirmed in the 2013 LR GEIS, despite the lack of
definitive data, some judgment as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should
be made and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgment in every case. The Commission
concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently
large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under
10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a
single level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel cycle; this issue was considered
Category 1. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed
since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new information or situations that
would result in different impacts for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. This is a
Category 1 issue for both initial LR and SLR.
26
Nonradiological Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
This section addresses the nonradiological impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle
facilities as they relate to license renewal. Data on the nonradiological impacts of the fuel cycle
are provided in Table 4.14-1. These data cover land use, water use, fossil fuel use, and
chemical effluents. The significance of the environmental impacts associated with these data
was evaluated in the 1996 LR GEIS on the basis of several relative comparisons. The land
requirements were compared to those for a coal-fired power plant that could be built to replace
the nuclear capacity if the operating license is not renewed. Water requirements for the
uranium fuel cycle were compared to the annual requirements for a nuclear power plant. The
amount of fossil fuel (coal and natural gas) consumed to produce electrical energy and process
heat during the various phases of the uranium fuel cycle was compared to the amount of fossil
February 2023
4-183
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
fuel that would have been used if the electrical output from the nuclear plant were supplied by a
coal-fired plant. Similarly, the gaseous effluents SO2, nitric oxide (NO), hydrocarbons, carbon
monoxide (CO), and other particulate matter (PM) released as a consequence of the coal-fired
electrical energy used in the uranium fuel cycle were compared with equivalent quantities of the
same effluents that would be released from a 45 MWe coal-fired plant. It was noted that the
impacts associated with uses of all of the above resources would be SMALL. Any impacts
associated with nonradiological liquid releases from the fuel cycle facilities would also be
SMALL. As a result, the aggregate nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting
from the renewal (initial LR or SLR) of an operating license for a plant would be SMALL, and it
was considered a Category 1 issue in the 2013 LR GEIS. The staff reviewed information from
SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and
identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for this issue for
either an initial LR or SLR term. Thus, this is a Category 1 issue for both initial LR and SLR.
14
Transportation
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
This section addresses the impacts associated with transportation of fuel and waste to and from
one light water reactor during the license renewal term (initial LR and SLR). Table S-4
(Table 4.14-2) in 10 CFR 51.52 forms the basis for analysis of these impacts when evaluating
the applications for license renewal (initial LR and SLR) from owners of light water reactors. As
discussed previously in this section, the applicability of Table 4.14-2 for license renewal (initial
LR and SLR) applications was extensively studied in the 1996 LR GEIS and its Addendum 1
(NRC 1999b) and confirmed in the 2013 LR GEIS. The impacts were found to be SMALL, and
the findings were stated as follows:
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
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 single repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada are found to be consistent
with the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary Table S-4,
“Environmental Impact of Transportation 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 impact values reported in 10 CFR 51.52.
32
33
34
35
36
The issue was designated as Category 1. The staff reviewed information from SEISs (for initial
LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and identified no new
information or situations that would result in different impacts from what was concluded in the
2013 LR GEIS for this issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. This is a Category 1 issue for
both initial LR and SLR.
37
4.14.2
38
4.14.2.1
39
40
41
42
The environmental consequences of the fuel cycle for a fossil fuel-fired plant result from the
initial extraction of the fuel from its natural setting, fuel cleaning and processing, transport of the
fuel to the facility, and management and ultimate disposal of solid wastes resulting from
combustion of the fuel.
Replacement Energy Alternative Fuel Cycles
Fossil Energy Alternatives
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-184
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
The environmental impacts of coal mining vary with the location and type of mining technology
employed, but generally includes:
3
•
Significant change in land uses, especially when surface mining is employed.
4
•
Degradation of visual resource values.
5
6
7
8
9
•
Air quality impacts, including release of criteria pollutants from vehicles and equipment,
release of fugitive dust from ground disturbance and vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces,
release of VOCs from the storage and dispensing of vehicle and equipment fuels and the
use of solvents and coatings in maintenance activities, and release of coalbed methane into
the atmosphere as coal seams are exposed and overburden is removed.
10
11
•
Noise impacts from the operation of vehicles and equipment and the possible use of
explosives.
12
13
•
Impacts on geology and soils due to land clearing, excavations, soil and overburden
stockpiling (for strip mining operations), and mining.
14
15
16
17
18
•
Water resources impacts, including degradation of surface water quality due to increased
sediment and runoff to surface water bodies, possible degradation of groundwater resources
due to consumptive use and potential contamination (especially when shaft mining
techniques are employed), as well as generation of wastewater from coal cleaning
operations and other supporting industrial activities.
19
20
21
•
Ecological impacts, including extensive loss of natural habitat, loss of native vegetative
cover, disturbance of wildlife, possible introduction of invasive species, changes in surface
water hydrology, and degradation of aquatic systems.
22
23
24
•
Impacts on historic and cultural resources within the mine footprint, as well as additional
potential impacts resulting from auxiliary facilities and appurtenances (e.g., access roads,
rail spurs).
25
26
•
Direct socioeconomic impacts from employment of the workforce and indirect impacts from
increased employment in service and support industries.
27
28
•
Potential environmental justice impacts as a result of the presence of minority or low-income
populations in the surrounding communities and/or within the workforce.
29
30
•
Potential health impacts on workers from exposure to airborne dust, gases such as
methane, and exhaust from internal combustion engines on vehicles and mining machinery.
31
32
33
•
Generation of coal wastes and industrial wastes associated with the maintenance of
vehicles and equipment, increased potential for spills of fuels from onsite fuel storage and
dispensing.
34
4.14.2.2
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Environmental impacts of the fuel cycle result from the initial extraction of the fuel from its
natural setting, transport of the fuel to the facility, and management and ultimate disposal of
solid wastes resulting from combustion of the fuel. For the fuel cycle associated with a nuclear
power plant, these activities include uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium
hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation
of radioactive materials, and management of LLW and HLW (10 CFR Part 51). The NRC has
summarized environmental data associated with the uranium fuel cycle in Table S-3 of 10 CFR
51.51 (Table 4.14-1). The analysis provides a basis for evaluating the environmental effects of
New Nuclear Alternatives
February 2023
4-185
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
the fuel cycle for all nuclear power plants, regardless of site location. The information is based
on a 1000 MW LWR with an 80 percent capacity factor. The impacts associated with the
transportation of fuel and waste to and from a power reactor are summarized in Table S-4 of
10 CFR 51.52 (Table 4.14-2). Detailed analysis of the uranium fuel cycle is also considered in
Section 4.14.1.1. Although the uranium fuel cycle analysis is specific to the impacts of license
renewal, it is applicable to new nuclear energy alternatives because existing the advanced
reactor designs use the same type of fuel as existing operational designs. One difference may
be that the new reactor may have a power rating of greater than 1,000 MWe, which may exceed
the power rating of the existing reactor. In those cases, the impacts would be proportionally
higher. However, all impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle, as discussed in
Section 4.14.1.1.6, would still be SMALL.
12
4.14.2.3
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The term “fuel cycle” has varying degrees of relevance for renewable energy facilities. Clearly,
the term has meaning for renewable energy technologies that rely on combustion of fuels such
as biomass grown or harvested for the express purpose of power production. The term is
somewhat more difficult to define for renewable technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal,
and ocean wave and current. This is because the associated natural resources continue to
exist (i.e., the resources are not consumed or irreversibly committed) regardless of any effort to
harvest them for electricity production. The common technological strategy for harvesting
energy from such natural resources is to convert the kinetic or thermal energy inherent in that
resource to mechanical energy or torque. The torque is then applied directly (e.g., as in the
case of a wind turbine) or indirectly (e.g., for the facilities that use conventional steam cycles to
drive turbines that drive generators) to produce electricity. However, because such renewable
technologies capture very small fractions of the total kinetic or thermal energy contained in the
resources, impacts from the presence or absence of the renewable energy technology are often
indistinguishable.
27
28
Environmental consequences of fuel cycles for biomass (e.g., energy crops, wood wastes,
municipal solid waste, refuse-derived fuel, landfill gas) include the following:
29
•
Land use impacts from the growing and harvesting of the energy crops.
30
31
•
Reduced impacts on land from the avoidance of land disposal of anthropogenic biomass
feedstocks such as municipal solid waste and refuse-derived fuel.
32
33
•
Visual impacts from the establishment of farm fields and forest areas and processing
facilities for the growing, harvesting, and preparation of biomass feedstocks.
34
35
•
Air impacts from operation of vehicles and equipment used in the planting, cultivating, and
harvesting of energy crops.
36
37
•
Reductions in GHG emissions from landfills as a result of the capture and destruction by
combustion of landfill gas for energy production.
38
•
Removal of GHGs from the air (e.g., CO2) by growing crops.
39
40
•
Noise impacts from the operation of agriculture and silviculture equipment and transport
vehicles in otherwise rural settings with low ambient noise levels.
41
42
•
Soil impacts from the cultivation of fields and the potential for increased sediment in
precipitation runoff.
Renewable Alternatives
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-186
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
•
Hydrologic impacts from irrigation of the energy crops; impacts on groundwater resources
from water removal for agricultural or silvicultural purposes or industrial water uses
associated with the preparation of biomass feedstocks.
4
5
6
7
•
Ecological impacts from the loss of habitat resulting from crop production; loss of hydrologic
resources due to diversion for irrigation purposes; potential intrusion of invasive species on
disturbed land surfaces; and potential contamination of adjacent habitat by pesticide and
fertilizer runoff.
8
9
•
Ecological impacts from the alteration of habitat due to human presence and activities in
agricultural and silvicultural areas.
10
11
12
•
Historic and cultural resource impacts from inadvertent destruction of resources in virgin
fields that have not undergone appropriate efforts to survey, identify, and relocate cultural
resources that may be present.
13
14
15
•
Human health impacts from the exposure of workers to pesticides and fertilizers used in
growing biomass fuels; work around mechanical planting, cultivating, and harvesting
equipment; work in weather extremes; and exposure to dangerous plants and wildlife.
16
17
18
19
20
•
Waste impacts in the form of residual wastes from the application of pesticides and fertilizers
and wastes associated with the routine maintenance of equipment and vehicles used in crop
production and transport (used lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, glycol-based coolants, and
battery electrolytes from maintenance of equipment and vehicles with internal combustion
engines).
21
22
•
Positive economic impacts from the creation of jobs in the agriculture, silviculture, and
transportation sectors.
23
4.14.3
24
25
26
27
28
The following sections briefly summarize the environmental impacts of license renewal on
terminating reactor operations and the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and
replacement energy facilities. All electrical power-generating facilities will be decommissioned
after the end of their operating life or after a decision is made to terminate its operation. For the
proposed action, license renewal would delay this eventuality for up to an additional 20 years.
29
4.14.3.1
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
This section describes the environmental consequences of terminating reactor operations and
decommissioning nuclear power plants. Impacts attributable to the proposed action (license
renewal) would be the environmental effects from an additional 20 years of nuclear power plant
operations and refurbishment. The impacts from decommissioning a nuclear power plant are
evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning of Nuclear
Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors,
NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002c).
37
38
39
40
41
42
Most nuclear plant activities and systems dedicated to reactor operations would cease after
reactor shutdown. Some activities (e.g., security and spent nuclear fuel management) would
continue, while other activities (administration, laboratory analysis, and reactor surveillance,
monitoring, and maintenance) may be reduced or eliminated. Shared systems at a nuclear
power plant with multiple units, would continue to operate but at reduced capacity until all units
cease operation. The cessation of activities needed to maintain and operate the reactor would
Environmental Consequences of Terminating Operations and Decommissioning
Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning
February 2023
4-187
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
reduce the need for workers at the nuclear power plant, but would not lead to the immediate
dismantlement of the reactor or its infrastructure.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The decommissioning process begins when the licensee informs the NRC that it has
permanently ceased reactor operation, defueled, and intends to decommission the nuclear
plant. The licensee may notify the NRC of the permanent cessation of reactor operations prior
to the end of the license term while still operating. Regulations in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i) and 10
CFR 52.110(d)(1) require licensees to submit a post-shutdown decommissioning activity report
(PSDAR) to the NRC, with a copy forwarded to the affected State(s), no later than 2 years after
the cessation of reactor operations.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
The licensee must describe all planned activities in the PSDAR, including the schedule and
estimated costs for radiological decommissioning (excluding site restoration and spent fuel
management costs). The licensee also documents the evaluation of the environmental impacts
of planned decommissioning activities at the nuclear plant, providing a basis for why impacts
are bounded by previously issued environmental review documents (e.g., Decommissioning
GEIS; NRC 2002c). The licensee must also describe any decommissioning activities whose
impacts are not bounded and how the impacts will be addressed prior to conducting these
activities at the nuclear plant (e.g., through regulatory exemption or license amendment
requests). The licensee is required to update the PSDAR if there are any significant changes in
decommissioning activity, costs, schedule, or environmental impact.
20
21
22
23
Once the NRC receives the PSDAR, the report will be docketed, and a notice of receipt will be
published in the Federal Register to solicit public comments. The NRC conducts a public
meeting near the nuclear plant to discuss the licensee’s decommissioning plans and schedule,
answer questions, and solicit comments.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The licensee submits a License Termination Plan with final status survey strategy to the NRC
near the end of decommissioning, at least 2 years before the operating license can be
terminated. Prior to completing decommissioning, the licensee must conduct a survey
demonstrating compliance with site release criteria established in the License Termination Plan.
The NRC verifies the survey results by one or more of the following: a quality assurance/quality
control review, side-by-side or split sampling of radiological surveys of selected areas, and
independent confirmatory surveys. When the NRC confirms that the criteria in the License
Termination Plan and all other NRC regulatory requirements have been met, the NRC either
terminates or amends the operating license, depending on the licensee’s decision to use the
licensed area. The nuclear plant and any remaining structures on the site can then be released
for restricted or unrestricted use. The criteria for restricted use conditions and alternate criteria
that the NRC may approve under certain conditions are listed in 10 CFR 20.1403 and
10 CFR 20.1404, respectively. The radiological criteria for releasing sites for unrestricted use
are given in 10 CFR 20.1402.
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Three decommissioning options are evaluated in the Decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002c):
DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB. In the DECON option, equipment, structures, and portions
of a nuclear plant containing radioactive contaminants are removed and safely buried in a LLW
landfill or are decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted
use shortly after the cessation of reactor operations. In the SAFSTOR option, the facility is
maintained in such condition that the nuclear plant can be safely stored and subsequently
decontaminated later to levels that permit the property to be released for restricted or
unrestricted use. In the ENTOMB option, radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally
long-lived material, such as concrete. The entombment structure is maintained and surveillance
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-188
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
is carried out until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the
property.
3
4
The following sections discuss the potential effects from terminating reactor operations and the
decommissioning nuclear power plants on environmental resources near a nuclear power plant.
5
4.14.3.2
Land Use
6
7
8
9
10
Land use activities after terminating reactor operations and during decommissioning would be
comparable to what was experienced during construction and would not require land outside the
developed areas of the site. Activities requiring land include equipment and large component
laydown areas. Temporary changes in onsite land use would not affect the industrial use of the
site.
11
4.14.3.3
12
13
14
15
The termination of reactor operations would not change the visual appearance of the nuclear
plant. The most notable change, however, would be the elimination of condensate plumes from
cooling towers. License renewal would only delay decommissioning, prolonging the visual
impact. The delay would have no new or added visual impact.
16
4.14.3.4
17
18
19
20
After the termination of reactor operations, air emissions from the nuclear power plant would
continue, but at reduced levels. Natural or mechanical draft cooling tower drift would also be
greatly reduced or eliminated. Air emissions from boilers and emergency diesel generators
would continue until the decommissioning of the nuclear plant has been completed.
21
4.14.3.5
22
23
24
25
26
During decommissioning, noise would generally be far enough away from sensitive receptors
outside nuclear plant boundaries, attenuated to nearly ambient levels, and scarcely noticeable
offsite. However, during the demolition, offsite noise levels could be loud enough that activities
may need to be curtailed during early morning and evening hours. Noise abatement procedures
could also be used during decommissioning to reduce noise.
27
4.14.3.6
28
29
30
31
Termination of reactor operations and decommissioning are not expected to affect geology and
soils. The demolition and removal of buildings, foundation slabs, parking lots, and roads would
expose soil to possible erosion. Geologic resources in the form of gravel or crushed stone may
be needed to construct temporary roads for heavy equipment.
Visual Resources
Air Quality
Noise
Geology and Soils
February 2023
4-189
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
Water Resources – Surface Water and Groundwater
1
4.14.3.7
2
3
4
5
6
7
After the termination of reactor operations, water use would be dramatically reduced; however,
water demands would continue for the service water system to support activities such as
temperature control of the spent fuel pool and other miscellaneous industrial maintenance
applications. Surface water or groundwater intake and consumptive use would be very low
compared to use during the operational phase. Discharge of liquid wastes and biocides would
also be proportionately reduced.
8
9
10
Because the site workforce would be reduced, the volume of sanitary sewage effluent would be
less than that during reactor operations. Pumping rates for groundwater used for potable water
systems would also decrease because of the reduced workforce.
11
12
13
Hydrology and water quality impacts from soil erosion and storm events are expected to be
unchanged. Erosion would be mitigated as part of general site maintenance during
decommissioning.
14
4.14.3.8
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Termination of reactor operations would reduce some ecological resource impacts and eliminate
others. Nuclear plant structures including cooling towers and transmission lines would continue
to be collision hazards for birds. The impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms would
decrease after reactor operations cease, and the potential for impacts on aquatic communities
would be reduced. In general, the termination of entrainment and impingement would have
positive effects on affected organisms. Because significantly smaller volumes of heated water
would be discharged after reactor operations cease, the nuclear plant’s influence on the thermal
conditions in the receiving waters would be greatly reduced.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Aquatic communities and organisms acclimated to warmer temperatures and biocides may have
developed within the nuclear plant discharge mixing zone during years of reactor operation
because of the warmer environment. These organisms would be adversely affected as the
water temperature cooled and the original environmental conditions were restored within the
body of water. Organisms susceptible to cold shock would be affected. Such effects, which
normally occur during winter months, would occur after the reactor ceases operations.
29
30
31
32
33
Cooling ponds maintained during reactor operations by pumping water from another water body
would likely revert to a terrestrial system after the termination of reactor operations and pumping
stops and thermal effects on them cease. Cessation of the heated effluent would change the
composition and dynamics of the pond community until it resembled that of other ponds in the
region not used for cooling.
34
35
36
Dredging would no longer be needed in the vicinity of cooling water structures, thereby
eliminating the effect on aquatic biota. The potential for gas supersaturation and its effect on
biota would also be eliminated or decreased.
37
38
39
There is the potential for some effects on aquatic resources to continue regardless of whether
the reactor is operating. Dams and reservoirs constructed to supply water may continue to
prevent migration of anadromous fish unless these structures are removed.
40
41
The termination of reactor operations could have a beneficial impact on the Federally listed
loggerhead sea turtle (threatened), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas, threatened), leatherback
Ecological Resources
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-190
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
sea turtle (endangered), hawksbill sea turtle (endangered), and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
(endangered), which have been impinged at several nuclear power plants (e.g., St. Lucie and
Oyster Creek). Similarly, potential benefits to the Federally endangered West Indian manatee
and pinnipeds, protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, could occur. For example,
the West Indian manatee has been impinged at St. Lucie, and incidental takes of harbor seals,
gray seals, harp seals, and hooded seals occur at the Seabrook plant. Elimination of hightemperature discharges at nuclear plants in Florida may reduce habitat suitability for the West
Indian manatee, particularly during winter. However, the West Indian manatee occupies other
habitats in Florida that do not have artificially elevated temperatures, and it uses a number of
thermal discharges from fossil fuel plants along both coasts of Florida (Laist and Reynolds
2005). Potential impingement and entrainment losses of special status fish species could also
decrease.
13
14
15
16
17
18
The overall impact on ecological resources depends on the decommissioning activity. The
greatest potential decommissioning impact on protected species is associated with the
dismantlement of the nuclear plant, including intake and discharge structures. Many activities
that could affect ecological resources during decommissioning are the same activities that occur
during reactor operation. Continued reactor operations during initial LR and SLR terms will not
change the level of impact during decommissioning.
19
4.14.3.9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The termination of reactor operations would not affect historic or cultural resources at a nuclear
power plant. The continued reactor operations at a nuclear plant under a renewed license (i.e.,
initial LR or SLR) would not alter this conclusion. Most historic and cultural resource impacts
occurred during construction of the nuclear power plant. Continued operations and
maintenance activities have the potential to affect these resources, as discussed in
Section 4.7.1. There is nothing inherent in operating a nuclear plant for a longer time period
that would increase or decrease the impact on these resources from decommissioning.
Delaying decommissioning is not expected to have any effect on historic and cultural resources
within a transmission line ROW.
29
4.14.3.10 Socioeconomics
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Terminating reactor operations could have a noticeable impact on socioeconomic conditions in
the region around the nuclear plant. There would be immediate socioeconomic impacts from
the loss of jobs (some, though not all, employees would begin to leave after reactor shutdown);
and tax revenues generated by plant operations would also be reduced. Depending on the tax
formula used to determine property tax payments, the amount of money paid to local taxing
jurisdictions may be reduced. However, property tax payments would continue. Demand for
services and housing would likely decline. Indirect employment and income created as a result
of nuclear power plant operations would also be reduced.
38
39
40
41
42
Loss of employment at nuclear plants in rural communities would likely mean workers and their
families would leave in search of jobs elsewhere. The decrease in the demand for housing and
the increase in available housing would depress rural housing market prices. Conversely, in
urban areas, nuclear plant workers and their families may remain because there are greater
opportunities for reemployment.
43
44
Traffic congestion caused by commuting workers and truck deliveries during plant operations
would also be reduced.
Historic and Cultural Resources
February 2023
4-191
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.14.3.11 Human Health
2
3
4
5
6
7
After the termination of reactor operations, there is a period of time before the decommissioning
of the nuclear plant begins—ranging from months to years. During this time, the reactor would
be placed in a cold shutdown condition and maintained. Workers would continue to be exposed
to radiation. Radioactive gaseous and liquid effluent releases to the environment would
continue, although at lower levels. The radiological impacts on workers and members of the
public during decommissioning would be less than those during reactor operations.
8
4.14.3.11.1 Radiological Exposure
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
During decommissioning activities, workers and members of the public would be exposed to
radioactive materials released to the environment. Regulatory requirements and dose limits
during decommissioning are the same as when reactors are operating (see Section 3.9.1.1).
Many decommissioning activities are similar to those that occur during reactor operations
including maintenance outages (e.g., decontamination of piping and surfaces; removal of piping,
pumps, and valves; and removal of heat exchangers). Some activities, such as removal of the
reactor vessel or demolition of facilities, are unique to decommissioning. Doses to the public
would be well below applicable regulatory standards, regardless of which decommissioning
option is chosen.
18
4.14.3.11.2 Chemical Hazards
19
20
21
22
23
Decommissioning involves many activities that expose workers to chemical hazards, including
paints, asbestos, lead, polychlorobiphenyls, mercury, quartz, and other hazardous materials in
building materials. A delay in terminating reactor operations and decommissioning would not
change the projected human health impact from chemical hazards because there would not be
any more hazardous chemicals present.
24
4.14.3.11.3 Microbiological Hazards
25
26
27
28
During decommissioning, workers may be exposed to molds and other biological organisms.
License renewal (initial LR and SLR) would not change the microbiological hazard during
decommissioning because workers would be practicing good industrial hygiene and using
personal protective equipment when biological hazards were identified.
29
4.14.3.11.4 Electromagnetic Fields
30
31
32
33
After the termination of reactor operations, electricity is no longer being generated. Power
would still be provided to the nuclear plant, and workers might be exposed to EMFs during
decommissioning. The EMF impact during decommissioning would be unaffected by license
renewal.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-192
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.14.3.12 Accidents During Termination of Reactor Operations and Decommissioning
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The impacts of postulated accidents during the license renewal term are discussed in
Section 4.9.1.2. General characteristics and consequences of postulated accidents, including
source term, are expected to be similar after reactor shutdown. Because of aging management
activities and the extended life of certain systems, structures, and components, there may be
small differences in the probabilities of occurrence of these accidents after reactor shutdown.
These differences, however, are not expected to be significant, and the risks of accidents after
reactor shutdown would generally be less than the risks discussed in Section 4.9.1.2.
9
10
11
12
13
14
The impacts associated with accidents during the decontamination and decommissioning of
nuclear power plants are analyzed in the Decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002c). Radiological
accidents considered in the analysis included onsite storage and handling of spent nuclear fuel
and decontamination, dismantlement, and storage accidents. Accidents included fires, handling
accidents, explosions (e.g., explosion of liquid propane gas tanks), and accidental releases of
liquid radioactive wastes from storage tanks.
15
16
17
License renewal would merely delay when accidents associated with the termination of reactor
operations and decommissioning could occur and would not significantly affect their probability
or consequence.
18
4.14.3.13 Environmental Justice
19
20
21
22
23
24
Termination of reactor operations and the resulting loss of jobs, income, and tax revenue could
disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations and Indian Tribes. The loss of tax
revenue, for example, could reduce the availability or eliminate some of the community services
that low-income and minority populations may depend on. This situation could be offset with the
construction and operation of replacement power generating facilities and the creation of other
employment opportunities at or near the nuclear plant site.
25
26
27
28
29
30
Decontamination and decommissioning activities could affect air and water quality in the area
around each nuclear plant site. This could cause health and other environmental effects in
minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes, if present. Populations with
resource dependencies or practices (e.g., subsistence agriculture, hunting, fishing) could be
disproportionately affected. License renewal would only delay, but not alter, the impact of
decommissioning on minority and low-income populations around each nuclear plant.
31
4.14.3.14 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention
32
33
34
35
After terminating operations, the reactor is placed in a cold shutdown condition and maintained
prior to active decommissioning. The types of waste generated after reactor shutdown would be
the same as those generated during operations. However, the volume of waste generated each
day may be less than that generated during reactor operations.
36
37
38
39
40
Pollution prevention and waste minimization measures would likely continue. As discussed in
Section 4.11.1.2, spent nuclear fuel can be safely stored onsite with minimal environmental
impact during the license renewal term. The NRC’s Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel (NUREG-2157; NRC 2014c) addresses the
environmental impacts of spent nuclear fuel storage after the termination of reactor operations.
February 2023
4-193
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
Wastes generated after the termination of reactor operations and during decommissioning
would be shipped offsite for treatment and disposal. Of the three decommissioning options,
DECON would generate the most waste. In SAFSTOR or ENTOMB, contaminated materials
remain onsite temporarily or permanently, respectively.
5
6
7
8
9
The types of wastes generated during decommissioning include LLW, mixed waste, hazardous
waste, and nonradioactive, nonhazardous waste (see Section 3.11 for waste type definitions).
No spent nuclear fuel, HLW, or transuranic waste would be generated after the termination of
reactor operations and during decommissioning because any remaining fuel in the reactor
would have been moved to either the spent fuel pool or an ISFSI.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Most of the waste generated during decommissioning would be LLW and nonradioactive,
nonhazardous waste. Small quantities of mixed waste would be managed per RCRA and the
Atomic Energy Act. Hazardous waste would mainly consist of paints, solvents, and batteries.
Materials used to decontaminate surfaces could be classified as mixed waste. Mixed and
hazardous wastes could be treated prior to being sent to a disposal facility. Nonradioactive,
nonhazardous waste, mostly concrete rubble and debris, would be sent to a local landfill.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The volume of waste generated during decommissioning may be greater because of license
renewal. Waste accumulated at the nuclear plant, and the radioactivity of some components
undergoing decommissioning might be slightly higher after the license renewal term. Material
near the core of the reactor may have slightly higher radioactivity because of the additional
years of reactor operation due to the buildup in long-lived radionuclides. This situation would
mainly affect the amount of greater-than-Class C LLW at the site. There would also be more
spent fuel generated because of license renewal.
23
24
25
26
27
For the most part, environmental conditions near the nuclear plant are not expected to change
appreciably because of license renewal. The impacts of license renewal on terminating reactor
operations and decommissioning is considered to be SMALL for all nuclear plants and are a
Category 1 issue in the 2013 LR GEIS. As previously noted, the impacts of decommissioning
nuclear power plants are evaluated in the Decommissioning GEIS (NUREG-0586; NRC 2002c).
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Based on these considerations, the NRC concludes that impacts from continued nuclear plant
operations during initial LR and SLR terms and refurbishment on terminating reactor operations
and decommissioning would be the same—SMALL for all nuclear plants. The staff reviewed
information from SEISs (for initial LRs and SLRs) completed since development of the 2013 LR
GEIS and identified no new information or situations that would result in different impacts for this
issue for either an initial LR or SLR term. License renewal reviews have revealed no difference
in environmental impacts whether decommissioning occurs at the end of the current operating
license or following a 20-year initial LR or SLR term. Therefore, terminating reactor operations
and decommissioning impacts would be SMALL for all nuclear plants and it is a Category 1
issue for both initial LR and SLR.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-194
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
4.14.3.15 Termination of Operations and Decommissioning of Replacement Power Plants
2
4.14.3.15.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives
3
4
5
6
7
The environmental consequences of terminating operations and decommissioning a fossil fuel
energy facility depends on planned decommissioning activities and other requirements.
Decommissioning plans may include the following elements and requirements, intended to
ensure site restoration to a condition equivalent in character and value to the greenfield or
brownfield site on which the power-generating facility was first constructed:
8
9
•
Removal of all unneeded structures and facilities to at least 3 ft (1 m) below grade (in order
to provide an adequate root zone for site revegetation).
10
11
•
Removal of fuel, all fuel combustion waste, and all flue gas desulfurization sludge and/or
byproducts.
12
•
Removal of water intake and discharge structures.
13
14
15
•
Dismantlement and removal of ancillary facilities, including rail spurs, fuel-handling and preparation facilities, cooling towers, natural gas pipelines, onsite wastewater treatment
facilities, and access roads.
16
•
Removal of all surface water intake and discharge structures.
17
18
•
Removal of all accumulated sludge, and closure and removal of all surface water
impoundments.
19
•
Closure of all onsite groundwater wells.
20
21
•
Recycling of removed equipment and dismantled building components; materials awaiting
recycling would be stored at an offsite facility.
22
23
•
Disposal of solid and hazardous wastes at approved facilities; as necessary, remediation of
waste handling and storage areas.
24
•
Cleanup and remediation of all incidental spills and leaks.
25
•
Execution of an approved revegetation plan for the site.
26
•
Other actions as necessary to ensure restoration of the site.
27
Environmental impacts (greenfield or brownfield site) would include:
28
29
30
•
Air quality and noise impacts from vehicles and equipment needed to deconstruct structures
and facilities; release of criteria pollutants, fugitive dust, and noise (e.g., from explosives);
impacts would be similar to those experienced during construction.
31
32
33
•
Land use and visual impacts; temporary land use holding areas for dismantled components
and deconstruction debris; restoration of land to its previous use and visual appearance by
removing human-made structures.
34
35
36
•
Reduction in water use and water quality impacts as water consumption decreases after
termination of operations. Dewatering and water used for spent nuclear fuel cooling would
continue. Surface water runoff would continue.
37
38
•
Increased truck and rail traffic delivering equipment and transporting dismantled material
and deconstruction debris.
39
•
Ecological resource impacts and disturbance during active decommissioning.
February 2023
4-195
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
•
Increase in economic activity followed by economic downturn due to loss of jobs at the
former power-generating facility.
3
4
5
•
Health and safety risks during dismantlement and removal of facility and risk of
transportation-related accidents delivering equipment and transporting dismantled material
and deconstruction debris.
6
4.14.3.16 New Nuclear Alternatives
7
8
9
10
11
According to 10 CFR Part 52, decommissioning impacts for a nuclear power plant include all
activities related to the safe removal of the facility or site from service and the reduction of
residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property under restricted conditions or
unrestricted use and termination of the license. The process and activities during
decommissioning would be similar to those discussed in Section 4.14.2.1.
12
4.14.3.17 Renewable Alternatives
13
14
15
16
The termination of operations and decommissioning of renewable energy systems would follow
a decommissioning plan and would involve removal of the power-generating facility, waste
material, and restoration of the land to its original state. Decommissioning involves the following
actions:
17
•
Removal of unneeded power-generating facilities and support structures.
18
•
Removal of unspent biomass fuel and wastes from combustion.
19
•
Removal of water intake and discharge structures (if present).
20
21
•
Dismantlement and removal of ancillary facilities, including rail spurs, fuel-handling facilities,
cooling towers, onsite wastewater treatment facilities, and/or access roads.
22
•
Removal of surface water intake and discharge structures.
23
•
Removal of sludge and surface water impoundments.
24
•
Closure of onsite groundwater wells.
25
•
Recycling of equipment and dismantled components.
26
27
•
Disposal of hazardous wastes; remediation of waste handling and storage areas, as
necessary.
28
•
Cleanup and remediation of incidental spills and leaks.
29
30
31
32
•
Ancillary facilities (access roads, utilities, pipelines, electrical transmission towers) would be
removed unless it is determined that they can serve other purposes; buried utilities and
pipelines could be abandoned in place if their removal would result in significant disruption
to ecosystems.
33
•
Other site restoration actions, as necessary.
34
35
Termination of operations and decommissioning of offshore power-generating facilities involve
the following actions:
36
37
•
Wind turbine tower foundations and communication and power cables buried in the seafloor
could remain to avoid ecological disruption that would result if removed.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-196
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
•
3
4
5
6
7
8
The termination of operations and the decommissioning of hydroelectric facilities may result in
various environmental impacts. For large store-and-release hydroelectric facilities, eliminating
the dam and reservoir and restoring the river to its natural flow would have a dramatic effect on
upstream and downstream ecosystems. Turbines, generators, and electric power-generating
equipment would be removed. Devices that control the release of water from the reservoir
could remain functional, requiring a reduced workforce.
Underwater structures that served as electrical service platforms could remain in place to
serve as artificial reefs and fish habitats.
9
10
11
Small-scale, low-impact, run-of-the-river hydro facilities, causing limited impact on upstream
water levels and downstream water flow rates, would be dismantled and removed during
decommissioning.
12
4.15 Resource Commitments Associated with the Proposed Action
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
This section addresses the resources that would be committed under the proposed action
(license renewal). In particular, it describes unavoidable adverse environmental impacts
(Section 4.15.1), the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity (Section 4.15.2), and the irreversible
and irretrievable commitment of resources (Section 4.15.3) that would be associated with the
proposed action. Potential unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and irreversible and
irretrievable resource commitments that would be associated with alternatives to the proposed
action are also discussed.
21
4.15.1
22
23
24
25
Unavoidable adverse environmental impacts are impacts that would occur after implementation
of all feasible mitigation measures. Continued nuclear power plant operations and the
implementation of any of the replacement energy alternatives considered in this LR GEIS would
result in some unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
The impacts of continued nuclear power plant operations that are anticipated to occur are
discussed for each resource area in Sections 4.1 through 4.12. Some of these impacts cannot
be avoided because they are inherently associated with nuclear power plant operations and
cannot be fully mitigated. Minor unavoidable adverse impacts on air quality would occur due to
emission and release of various chemical and radiological constituents into the environment
from plant operations. Nonradiological emissions are expected to comply with EPA emissions
standards, though the alternative of operating a fossil-fueled power plant in some areas may
worsen existing air quality attainment issues. Routine chemical and radiological emissions
would not exceed the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Other
unavoidable adverse impacts (depending on the plant) include the impact on land use and
visual resources, some minor noise effects, surface water and groundwater use, thermal
effluents discharged to the environment from the power conversion equipment, and entrainment
and impingement of aquatic organisms in the cooling water system. Industrial wastewater
effluents and cooling water system operations would be subject to regulations promulgated
pursuant to the CWA.
41
42
43
During nuclear power plant operations, workers and members of the public would face
unavoidable exposure to radiation and hazardous and toxic chemicals, but releases would be
controlled and the resulting exposures would not exceed any standards or regulatory limits.
Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts
February 2023
4-197
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
Workers would be exposed to radiation and chemicals associated with routine plant operations
and the handling of nuclear fuel and waste material. Workers would have a higher risk of
exposure than members of the public, but doses would be administratively controlled and would
not exceed any standards or administrative control limits. Construction and operation of
alternative replacement energy-generating facilities would also result in unavoidable exposure
of workers and the general public to hazardous and toxic chemicals.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Also unavoidable would be the generation of spent nuclear fuel and waste material, including
LLW, hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste. Hazardous and nonhazardous wastes would
also be generated at non-nuclear power-generating facilities. Wastes generated during plant
operations would be collected, stored, and shipped for suitable treatment, recycling, or disposal
in accordance with applicable Federal and State regulations. Due to the costs of handling these
materials, power plant operators would be expected to conduct all activities and optimize all
operations in a way that minimizes waste generation. Although pollution prevention and waste
minimization efforts are intended to prevent emissions to the environment and prevent and/or
minimize the quantities of waste generated and disposed of, some wastes and emissions
cannot be entirely eliminated due to current technology.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Many of these unavoidable impacts are being mitigated by incorporating safety features and/or
applying operational procedures at the nuclear power plants and are monitored by plant
personnel and regulatory agencies. Thermal, entrainment, and impingement impacts at plants
with once-through cooling water systems are unavoidable. These impacts could be reduced by
modifying the once-through cooling system or by converting to a closed-cycle cooling system.
Although closed-cycle cooling water systems can reduce thermal, entrainment, and
impingement impacts, they increase water consumption (through cooling tower evaporation),
fogging, icing, and salt drift. However, the NRC has neither the statutory nor the regulatory
authority to determine which cooling water system or technology should be used, or to decide
other environmental permitting issues.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Nuclear power plants being considered for license renewal already exist and nearly all have
been operating for several decades. The environmental impacts considered for license renewal
are those associated with continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment.
Replacement energy (power) and other alternatives to license renewal generally involve major
construction impacts. Therefore, unavoidable adverse impacts of a replacement energy
alternative could be greater than those associated with the continued operation of an existing
nuclear power plant.
34
35
36
Unavoidable adverse impacts would vary among the nuclear power plants, and the scale of the
impact would depend on the specific characteristics of each power plant and its interaction with
the environment. These unavoidable adverse impacts are evaluated in plant-specific SEISs.
37
38
4.15.2
39
40
41
The operation of power-generating facilities would result in short-term uses of the environment
as described earlier in this Chapter. “Short-term” is the period of time during which continued
power-generating activities would take place.
42
43
44
Power plant operations would necessitate short-term use of the environment and commitments
of resources and would also commit certain resources (e.g., land and energy) indefinitely or
permanently. Certain short-term resource commitments would be substantially greater under
Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term
Productivity
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-198
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
most energy alternatives, including license renewal (initial LR or SLR), than under the no action
alternative due to the continued generation of electrical power as well as continued use of
generating sites and associated infrastructure. During operations, all energy alternatives would
entail similar relationships between local short-term uses of the environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Short-term use of the environment can affect long-term productivity of the ecosystem if the use
alters the ability of the ecosystem to reestablish an equilibrium that is comparable to that of its
original (natural) condition. An initial commitment regarding the trade-off between short-term
use and long-term productivity at a nuclear power plant was made when the nuclear plant was
first constructed. Renewal of the operating license and the continued operation of the nuclear
power plant would not alter any existing effects on long-term productivity, but they might
postpone the availability of the power plant site for other uses. The no action alternative would
lead to a cessation of operations and shutdown of the power plant (an eventuality regardless
whether or not a license is renewed).
15
16
17
18
19
Air emissions from power plant operations would introduce small amounts of radiological and
nonradiological constituents to the region around the plant site. Over time, these emissions
could result in increased concentrations and exposure but are not expected to affect air quality
or radiation exposure to the extent that public health and long-term productivity of the
environment would be impaired.
20
21
22
23
Continued employment, expenditures, and tax revenues generated during power plant
operations would directly benefit local, regional, and State economies over the short-term.
Local governments investing project-generated tax revenues into infrastructure and other
required services could enhance economic productivity over the long term.
24
25
26
27
The management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, LLW, hazardous waste, and
nonhazardous waste would require an increase in energy and would consume space at
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. Regardless of the location, the conversion of land to
meet waste disposal needs would reduce the long-term productivity of the land.
28
29
30
Power plant facilities would be committed to electricity production over the short term. After
decommissioning these facilities and restoring the power plant site, the land would become
available for other productive uses.
31
32
33
34
The nature of the relationship between short-term use of the environment and long-term
productivity would vary among nuclear power plants and would depend on the specific
characteristics of each plant and its interaction with the environment. This relationship is
evaluated in plant-specific SEISs.
35
4.15.3
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to impacts on or losses of
resources that cannot be recovered or reversed. Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
resources for electrical power generation are considered to include the commitment of land,
water, energy, raw materials, and other natural and human-made resources required for power
plant operations during the license renewal term and any refurbishment activities that might be
carried out that would not otherwise have taken place if the operating licenses had not been
renewed. This section describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
that have been identified in this LR GEIS. A commitment of resources is irreversible when
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
February 2023
4-199
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
primary or secondary impacts limit the future options for a resource. It primarily applies to the
impacts of use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to factors,
such as soil productivity, that are renewable only over long periods of time. An irretrievable
commitment refers to the use or consumption of resources neither renewable nor recoverable
for future use. Irretrievable commitment applies to the loss of production, harvest, or natural
resources. For example, if farmland is used for a nonagricultural purpose such as energy
generation, some or all of the agricultural production from the farmland is lost irretrievably while
the area is temporarily used for another purpose. The production lost is irretrievable, but the
action is not irreversible. In general, the commitment of capital, energy, labor, and material
resources would also be irreversible.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Resources include materials and equipment required for nuclear power plant maintenance and
operation, energy and water needed to run the plants, the nuclear fuel used by the reactors to
generate electricity, and the land required to permanently dispose of the radioactive and
nonradioactive wastes. Some of these resources could be retrieved and reused at the end of
the license renewal (initial LR or SLR) term. For example, some reactor equipment can be used
at other reactors or can be decontaminated and released for recycling or restricted or
unrestricted use by others. However, some of the equipment and irradiated components that
might be replaced during the license renewal term might not be reused or recycled and
therefore would need to be permanently disposed of. In addition, the fossil fuels used by power
plants would be permanently lost. Most of the water used by power plants relying on oncethrough cooling is returned to the surface water bodies that supply the cooling water. The
relatively small portion of the water that evaporates to the air would be lost to the local water
bodies and the region but would be returned to the environment as part of the hydrologic cycle,
potentially within another watershed. For closed-cycle cooling systems, a much larger
percentage of the water used for cooling would be lost to evaporation, but that, too, would be
returned as part of the hydrologic cycle.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
The most significant irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources related to nuclear
power plant operations during the license renewal term would be the nuclear fuel used to
generate electricity and the land used to dispose of and store wastes, including spent nuclear
fuel generated during the license renewal term. The treatment, storage, and disposal of LLW,
hazardous waste, and nonhazardous waste would require the irretrievable commitment of
energy and fuel and could result in the irreversible commitment of space in disposal facilities.
Some of the land used for the disposal of LLW may be available for other uses in a few hundred
years because of the nearly complete decay of short-lived radionuclides in LLW, but most of the
land used for the disposal of some mixed or hazardous wastes could be permanently
(irreversibly) lost.
37
38
39
The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources would not be the same for all nuclear
power plants and would depend on the specific characteristics of the power plant and its
resource needs. This commitment is evaluated in plant-specific SEISs.
40
41
42
43
The implementation of any of the replacement energy alternatives would entail the irreversible
and irretrievable commitment of energy, water, chemicals, and, in some cases, fossil fuels.
These resources would be committed over the entire life cycle of the power plant—construction,
operation, and decommissioning—and would essentially be unrecoverable.
44
45
46
Energy expended would be in the form of fuel for equipment, vehicles, power plant operations,
and electricity for power plant construction and facility operations. Electricity and fuels would be
purchased from offsite commercial sources. Water would be obtained from existing water
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
4-200
February 2023
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
1
2
supply systems. These resources are generally available, and the amounts required would not
be expected to deplete available supplies or exceed available system capacities.
3
4
5
6
7
The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of material resources are the materials that
cannot be recovered or recycled, materials that are rendered radioactive and/or cannot be
decontaminated, and materials consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms of waste.
However, none of the resources used by potential replacement energy-generating facilities is in
short supply, and, for the most part, they are readily available.
8
9
10
Various materials and chemicals, including acids and caustics, would be required to support
operations activities. These materials would be derived from commercial vendors, and their
consumption would not be expected to affect local, regional, or national supplies.
February 2023
4-201
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5.0
1
REFERENCES
2
3
7 CFR Part 657. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 657, "Prime and Unique
Farmlands." Washington, D.C.
4
5
7 CFR Part 658. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Agriculture, Part 658, "Farmland
Protection Policy Act."
6
7
10 CFR Part 2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 2, "Rules of Practice for
Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders."
8
9
10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for
Protection Against Radiation."
10
11
10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, "Domestic Licensing of
Source Material."
12
13
10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities."
14
15
10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions."
16
17
10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses,
Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants."
18
19
10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, "Requirements for
Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."
20
21
10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, "Licensing
Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste."
22
23
10 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 63, "Disposal of HighLevel Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada."
24
25
10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and
Transportation of Radioactive Material."
26
27
28
10 CFR Part 72. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, "Licensing
Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive
Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste."
29
30
10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site
Criteria."
31
32
15 CFR Part 922. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade, Title
922, "National Marine Sanctuary Program Regulations."
February 2023
5-1
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
18 CFR Part 157. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 18, Conservation of Power and Water
Resources, Part 157, "Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and for
Orders Permitting and Approving Abandonment Under Section of the Natural Gas Act."
4
5
24 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24, Housing and Urban Development,
Part 51, "Environmental Criteria and Standards."
6
7
29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, "Occupational
Safety and Health Standards."
8
9
36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,
Part 60, "National Register of Historic Places."
10
11
36 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,
Part 61, "Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs."
12
13
36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,
Part 800, "Protection of Historic Properties."
14
15
40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51,
"Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans."
16
17
40 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 61,
"National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants."
18
19
40 CFR Part 93. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 93,
"Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans."
20
21
40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122,
"EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System."
22
23
40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125,
"Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System."
24
25
26
27
40 CFR Part 125 Subpart H. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,
Part 125, "Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System,"
Subpart H, Criteria for Determining Alternative Effluent Limitations Under Section 316(a) of the
Act.
28
29
40 CFR Part 141. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 141,
"National Primary Drinking Water Standards."
30
31
40 CFR Part 143. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 143,
"National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations."
32
33
40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,
"Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations."
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-2
February 2023
References
1
2
40 CFR Part 257. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 257,
"Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices."
3
4
40 CFR Part 261. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 261,
"Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste."
5
6
40 CFR Part 273. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 273,
"Standards for Universal Waste Management."
7
8
40 CFR Part 1501. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part
1501, "NEPA and Agency Planning."
9
10
40 CFR Part 1502. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part
1502, "Environmental Impact Statement."
11
12
40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part
1508, "Definitions."
13
14
15
44 CFR Part 353 Appendix A. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Emergency Management
and Assistance, Appendix A to Part 353, "Memorandum of Understanding Between Federal
Emergency Management Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission."
16
17
49 CFR Parts 171-177. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Subchapter C,
"Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171-177)."
18
19
50 CFR Part 17. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 17,
"Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants."
20
21
50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402,
"Interagency Cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended."
22
23
50 CFR Part 600. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 600,
"Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions."
24
25
42 FR 26951. May 25, 1977. "Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977: Floodplain
Management." Federal Register, Office of the President.
26
27
42 FR 26961. May 25, 1977. "Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977: Protection of
Wetlands." Federal Register, Office of the President.
28
29
30
46 FR 18026. March 23, 1981. "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act Regulations." Federal Register, Council on Environmental Quality,
Executive Office of the President. ADAMS Accession No. ML12088A274.
31
32
33
51 FR 19926. 1986. "Interagency Cooperation - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
Amended." Final Rule, Federal Register, Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; National Marine
Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
February 2023
5-3
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
56 FR 47016. September 17, 1991. "Environmental Review for Renewal of Operating
Licenses." Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
3
4
56 FR 64966. December 13, 1991. "Rule and Regulations." No. 240, Federal Register,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
5
6
7
59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. "Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations." Federal Register, Office of the President.
8
9
10
60 FR 46206. September 5, 1995. "National Emission Standards for Radionuclide Emissions
From Facilities Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Federal Facilities not
Covered by Subpart H." Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency.
11
12
61 FR 28467. June 5, 1996. "Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
13
14
61 FR 66537. December 18, 1996. "Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power
Plant Operating Licenses." Final Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
15
16
64 FR 6183. February 8, 1999. "Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999: Invasive
Species." Federal Register, Office of the President.
17
18
19
64 FR 48496. September 3, 1999. "Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
20
21
67 FR 2343. January 17, 2002. "Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH)." Final Rule, Federal Register, National Marine Fisheries Service.
22
23
24
69 FR 44649. 2004. "Record of Decision for Construction and Operation of a Depleted
Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, OH, Site." Record of Decision,
Federal Register, Department of Energy.
25
26
27
69 FR 44654. 2004. "Record of Decision for Construction and Operation of a Depleted
Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, KY, Site." Record of Decision,
Federal Register, Department of Energy.
28
29
30
69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. "Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice
Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
31
32
33
73 FR 50259. August 26, 2008. "Conducting Consultations Pursuant to Section 304(d) of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act." Federal Register, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-4
February 2023
References
1
2
3
73 FR 53284. September 15, 2008. "Department of Energy; Notice of Acceptance for
Docketing of a License Application for Authority To Construct a Geologic Repository at a
Geologic Repository Operations Area at Yucca Mountain, NV." Federal Register.
4
5
74 FR 56260. October 30, 2009. "Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final Rule."
Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency.
6
7
8
74 FR 66496. December 15, 2009. "Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act." Federal Register,
Environmental Protection Agency.
9
10
75 FR 17254. April 5, 2010. "Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations." Final Rule,
Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency.
11
12
13
75 FR 81032. December 23, 2010. "Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary
Storage of Spent Fuel After Cessation of Reactor Operation." Federal Register, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
14
15
75 FR 81037. December 23, 2010. "Waste Confidence Decision Update." Federal Register,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
16
17
18
78 FR 37282. June 20, 2013. "Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear
Power Plant Operating Licenses." Final Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
19
20
21
22
78 FR 53058. 2013. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revisions to the
Regulations for Impact Analyses of Critical Habitat." Final Rule, Federal Register, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Interior; National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
23
24
25
26
79 FR 48300. August 15, 2014. "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—Final
Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities
and Amend Requirements at Phase I Facilities." Federal Register, Environmental Protection
Agency.
27
28
79 FR 56238. September 19, 2014. "Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel." Final Rule,
Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
29
30
79 FR 56263. September 19, 2014. "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued
Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
31
32
33
84 FR 54436. 2019. "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Kirtland’s
Warbler From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife." Final Rule, Federal
Register, Fish and Wildlife Service.
34
35
36
85 FR 24040. April 30, 2020. "Notice To Conduct Scoping and Prepare an Advanced Nuclear
Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement." Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
February 2023
5-5
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
85 FR 42210. July 13, 2020. "Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule." Final Rule,
Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency.
3
4
5
85 FR 47252. August 4, 2020. "Notice of Intent To Review and Update the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants." Federal Register,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
6
7
8
9
86 FR 4937. 2021. "Expansion of Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary." Final
Rule, Federal Register, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service
(NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce
(DOC).
10
11
12
86 FR 7037. January 25, 2021. "Executive Order 13990 of January 20, 2021: Protecting
Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis."
Federal Register, Office of the President.
13
14
86 FR 29541. 2021. "Notice of intention to reconsider and 17 revise the Clean Water Act
Section 401 Certification Rule." Federal Register, Environmental Protection Agency.
15
16
17
18
86 FR 45860. 2021. "Designation of Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary."
Federal Register, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service
(NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce
(DOC).
19
20
86 FR 45923. 2021. "Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against
Radiation." Petition for Rulemaking; Denial. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
21
22
Able, K.P. 1973. "The Changing Seasons." American Birds 27(1):19-23. Delaware City,
Delaware.
23
24
25
Adam-Guillermin, C., T. Hertal-Aas, D. Oughton, L. Blanchard, F. Alonzo, O. Armant, and N.
Horemans. 2018. "Radiosensitivity and transgenerational effects in non-human species."
Annals of the ICRP 47(3-4):327-341. https://doi:org/10.1177/0146645318756844.
26
27
28
AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1973. Final Environmental Statement Related to the
Nuclear Generating Station Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2. May. Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML15043A481.
29
30
AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1974a. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel
Cycle. WASH–1248, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14092A628.
31
32
33
AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1974b. Final Environmental Statement Related to the
Operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Jersey Central Power and Light
Company. December. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML072200150.
34
35
36
Anchor QEA, LLC. 2020. Final Fish Entrainment Characterization Report, Columbia
Generating Station. Project Number: 171376-01.01. Energy Northwest, Richland Washington.
ADAMS Accession No. ML20059K319.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-6
February 2023
References
1
2
Armantrout, N.B. 1998. Aquatic Habitat Inventory Terminology. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
3
4
5
6
ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers). 2021.
"Legionellosis: Risk Management for Building Water Systems." ASHRAE 188-2021, Atlanta,
Georgia. Available from https://www.techstreet.com/standards/ashrae-1882021?product_id=2229689.
7
Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.
8
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 16 U.S.C. § 668-668d et seq.
9
10
11
12
Bankoske, J.W., H.B. Graves, and G.W. McKee. 1976. "The Effects of High-Voltage Electric
Fields on the Growth and Development of Plants and Animals." In Proceedings of the First
National Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, pp. 112–123.
Mississippi State, Mississippi.
13
14
15
16
17
Barkley, S.W., and C. Perrin. 1971. "The Effects of the Lake Catherine Steam Electric Plant
Effluent on the Distribution of Fishes in the Receiving Embayment." In Proceedings of the
Twenty-Fifth Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish
Commissioners, Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed June 13, 2022, at
https://seafwa.org/sites/default/files/journal-articles/BARKLEY-384.pdf.
18
19
20
21
Batty, R.S., and H.S. Blaxter. 1992. "The Effect of Temperature on the Burst Swimming
Performance of Fish Larvae." Journal of Experimental Biology 170(1):187–201.
DOI:10.1242/jeb.170.1.187. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Accessed May 12, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.170.1.187.
22
23
24
Beitinger, T.L., W.A. Bennett, and R.W. McCauley. 2000. "Temperature Tolerances of North
American Freshwater Fishes Exposed to Dynamic Changes in Temperature." Environmental
Biology of Fishes 58:237-275, New York, New York.
25
26
27
28
29
30
Berk, S.G., J.H. Gunderson, A.L. Newsome, A.L. Farone, B.J. Hayes, K.S. Redding, N. Uddin,
E.L. Williams, R.A. Johnson, M. Farsian, A. Reid, J. Skimmyhorn, and M.B. Farone. 2006.
"Occurrence of Infected Amoebae in Cooling Towers Compared with Natural Aquatic
Environments: Implications for Emerging Pathogens." Environmental Science and Technology
40(23):7440-7444. DOI: 10.1021/es0604257. Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1021/es0604257.
31
32
33
34
Bevanger, K. 1988. "Biological and Conservation Aspects of Bird Mortality Caused by
Electricity Power Lines: A Review." Biological Conservation 86(1):67-76. DOI:10.1016/S00063207(97)00176-6. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Accessed June 9, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(97)00176-6.
February 2023
5-7
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
5
Bindokas, V.P., J.R. Gauger, and B. Greenberg. 1988. "Mechanisms of Biological Effects
Observed in Honey Bees (Apis mellifera, L.) Hived under Extra-High-Voltage Transmission
Lines: Implications Derived from Bee Exposure to Simulated Intense Electric Fields and
Shocks." Bioelectromagnetics 9(3):285–301. DOI:10.1002/bem.2250090310. Hoboken, New
Jersey. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.2250090310.
6
7
8
9
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2008. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States, Volume 1: Programmatic
Analysis. FES08-44, Washington, D.C. October. Accessed June 2, 2022, at
https://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/digital/collection/feddocs/id/1458/.
10
11
12
13
BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2020. "Number and Rate of Fatal Work Injuries, by
Industry Sector." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 4, 2022, at
https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-injuries/number-and-rate-of-fatal-workinjuries-by-industry.htm.
14
15
16
BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2021a. "Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries News
Release, National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2020." Washington, D.C. Accessed
May 6, 2022, at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cfoi_12162021.htm.
17
18
19
BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2021b. Employer-Reported Workplace Injuries and
Illnesses - 2020. USDL-21-1927, Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/osh_11032021.pdf.
20
21
22
23
BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2021c. "Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities: Table 2.
Numbers of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by industry and case types, 2020
[thousands]." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/summ2_00_2020.htm.
24
25
26
BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2021d. "Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities: Table A-1
Fatal occupational injuries by industry and event or exposure, all United States, 2020."
Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0340.htm.
27
28
29
BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2022. "Civilian Occupations with High Fatal Work Injury
Rates, 2020." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 2, 2022, at https://www.bls.gov/charts/censusof-fatal-occupational-injuries/civilian-occupations-with-high-fatal-work-injury-rates.htm.
30
31
32
Blue, R. 1996. "Documentation of Raptor Nests on Electric Utility Facilities Through a Mail
Survey." Chapter 11 in Raptors in Human Landscapes: Adaptations to Built and Cultivated
Environments. Academic Press, San Diego, California.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-8
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2019. National Environmental Policy Act
Documentation for Impact-Producing Factors in the Offshore Wind Cumulative Impacts
Scenario on the North Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. OCS Study, BOEM 2019-036,
Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/environmental-stewardship/EnvironmentalStudies/Renewable-Energy/IPFs-in-the-Offshore-Wind-Cumulative-Impacts-Scenario-on-the-NOCS.pdf.
8
9
10
11
12
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2020a. Comparison of Environmental Effects
from Different Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations. OCS Study, BOEM 2020-041, Washington,
D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/environment/Wind-Turbine-FoundationsWhite%20Paper-Final-White-Paper.pdf.
13
14
15
16
17
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs). 2020b.
Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project: Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2020-025. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Accessed June 3, 2022, at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewableenergy/Vineyard-Wind-1-Supplement-to-EIS.pdf.
18
19
20
21
22
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2021. Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and
Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina, Draft
Supplemental Environmental Assessment. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/lease-issuance-wind-ocs-activities-north-carolinadraft-supplemental-ea.
23
24
25
26
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Undated. "Renewable Energy on the Outer
Continental Shelf: Ocean Wave Energy." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Renewable-Energy-Guide/Ocean-WaveEnergy.aspx.
27
28
29
BPA (Bonneville Power Administration). 2007. Living and Working Safely Around High-Voltage
Power Lines. DOE/BP-3804, Portland, Oregon. October. Accessed June 13, 2022, at
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc676265/m2/1/high_res_d/291040.pdf.
30
31
BRC (Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future). 2012. Report to the Secretary of
Energy. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML120970375.
32
33
Breeder Reactor Corporation. 1985. The Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project. Final
Report, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ADAMS Accession No. ML18064A893.
34
35
36
Bromirski, P.D., D.R. Cayan, N. Graham, R.E. Flick, and M. Tyree. 2012. Coastal Flooding
Potential Projections: 2000-2100. CEC-500-2012-011. California Energy Commissions,
Sacramento, California. Accessed May 19, 2022, at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8887j9br.
February 2023
5-9
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
Burchard, J.F., D.H. Nguyen, L. Richand, and E. Block. 1996. "Biological effects of electric and
magnetic fields on productivity of dairy cows." Journal of Dairy Science 79(9):1549-1554,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
4
5
6
7
Cada, G.F., J.A. Solomon, and J.M. Loar. 1981. Effects of Sublethal Entrainment Stresses on
the Vulnerability of Juvenile Bluegill Sunfish to Predation. ORNL/TM-7801. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed June 13, 2022, at
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6484168.
8
9
10
11
Carpenter, E.J., B.B. Peck, and S.J. Anderson. 1974. "Survival of Copepods Passing through a
Nuclear Power Station on Northeastern Long Island Sound, USA." Marine Biology 24:49–55.
DOI:10.1007/BF00402846. Cham, Switzerland. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00402846.
12
13
14
15
16
17
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2018. "What Owners and Managers of
Buildings and Healthcare Facilities Need to Know about the Growth and Spread of Legionella."
Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.cdc.gov/legionella/wmp/overview/growth-andspread.html#:~:text=Legionella%20grows%20best%20within%20a,and%20keep%20hot%20wat
er%20hot.
18
19
20
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2019a. "Pseudomonas aeruginosa in
Healthcare Settings." Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed May 3, 2022, at
https://www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/pseudomonas.html.
21
22
23
24
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2019b. "What Noises Cause Hearing
Loss?" Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed June 1, 2022, at
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html#:~:text=A%20w
hisper%20is%20about%2030,immediate%20harm%20to%20your%20ears.
25
26
27
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2021a. "Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB)Associated Illness, General Information." Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed May 3, 2022, at
https://www.cdc.gov/habs/general.html.
28
29
30
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2021b. "Illness and Symptoms: Marine
(Saltwater) Algal Blooms." Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed May 3, 2022, at
https://www.cdc.gov/habs/illness-symptoms-marine.html.
31
32
33
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2021c. "Legionella (Legionnaires’ Disease
and Pontiac Fever), Guidelines, Standards, and Laws." Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed May 12,
2022, at https://www.cdc.gov/legionella/resources/guidelines.html.
34
35
36
37
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2021d. "Parasites – Naegleria fowleri –
Primary Amebic Meningoencephalitis (PAM) – Amebic Encephalitis, General Information."
Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed May 3, 2022, at
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/naegleria/general.html.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-10
February 2023
References
1
2
3
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2022. "Illness and Symptoms:
Cyanobacteria In Fresh Water." Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed May 3, 2022, at
https://www.cdc.gov/habs/illness-symptoms-freshwater.html.
4
5
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997a. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the
National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12243A349.
6
7
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997b. Environmental Justice Guidance under the
National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML103430030.
8
9
10
11
12
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2016. Memorandum from C. Goldfuss to Heads of
Federal Departments and Agencies, dated August 1, 2016, regarding "Final Guidance for
Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the
Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews." Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML16266A244.
13
14
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2022. National Environmental Policy Act
Implementing Regulations, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. Washington, D.C. May.
15
16
17
CEQ and ACHP (Council on Environmental Quality and Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation). 2013. NEPA and NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14172A044.
18
19
20
Christensen, S.W., J.A. Solomon, S.B. Gough, R.L. Tyndall, and C.B. Fliermans. 1983.
Legionnaires' Disease Bacterium Power Plant Cooling Systems: Phase I Final Report. Interim
Report, EPRI/EA-3153, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ADAMS Accession No. ML093240252.
21
22
23
Ciferno, J.P., and J.J. Marano. 2002. Benchmarking Biomass Gasification Technologies for
Fuels, Chemicals and Hydrogen Production. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 10, 2022, at
https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/BMassGasFinal_0.pdf.
24
25
26
27
28
29
Claireaux, G., C. Couturier, and A.-L. Groison. 2006. "Effect of Temperature on Maximum
Swimming Speed and Cost of Transport in Juvenile European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus
labrax)." Journal of Experimental Biology 209(17):3420–3428. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.02346.
Cambridge, United Kingdom. Accessed May 12, 2022, at
https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/209/17/3420/16223/Effect-of-temperature-onmaximum-swimming-speed.
30
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
31
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.
32
33
34
Combs, DL. 1979. "Striped bass spawning in the Arkansas River tributary of Keystone
Reservoir, Oklahoma." Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies 33:371-383.
35
36
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended. 42
U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.
February 2023
5-11
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
Cool, D.A., K.R. Kase, and J.D. Boice. 2019. "NCRP Report no. 180—management of
exposure to ionizing radiation: NCRP radiation protection guidance for the United States."
Journal of Radiological Protection 39(3):966. http://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/ab1826.
4
5
6
Coutant, C.C. 1987. "Thermal Preference: When Does an Asset Become a Liability?"
Environmental Biology of Fishes 18(3):161–72. DOI:10.1007/BF00000356. Cham, Switzerland.
Accessed June 13, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00000356.
7
8
9
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18019A904.
10
11
12
13
Crawford, R.L., and R.T. Engstrom. 2001. "Characteristics of Avian Mortality at a North Florida
Television Tower: A 29-Year Study." Journal of Field Ornithology 72(3):380-388.
DOI:10.1648/0273-8570-72.3.380. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 9, 2022, at
https://dx.doi.org/10.1648/0273-8570-72.3.380.
14
15
16
17
Cristina, S., and M. D'Amore. 1985. "Analytical Method for Calculating Corona Noise on HVAC
Power Line Carrier Communication Channels." IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and
Systems PAS-104(5):1017-1024, DOI: 10.1109/TPAS.1985.323451. Piscataway, New Jersey.
Accessed May 16, 2022, at https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPAS.1985.323451.
18
19
20
Crooks, K.R. 2002. "Relative Sensitivities of Mammalian Carnivores to Habitat Fragmentation."
Conservation Biology 16(2):488–502. DOI:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00386.x. Hoboken, New
Jersey. Accessed June 9, 2022, at https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00386.x.
21
22
23
Crooks, K.R., and M.E. Soule. 1999. "Mesopredator Release and Avifaunal Extinctions in a
Fragmented System." Nature 400(6744):563–566. DOI: 10.1038/23028. Berlin, Germany.
Accessed May 16, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1038/23028.
24
25
26
Deacon, J. 2006. "The Microbial World: Thermophilic Microorganisms. Institute of Cell and
Molecular Biology." Edinburgh, United Kingdom. ADAMS Accession No. ML070170579.
Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0701/ML070170579.pdf.
27
28
29
Diaz, R.J. 1994. "Response of Tidal Freshwater Macrobenthos to Sediment Disturbance."
Hydrobiologia 278:201-212. DOI:10.1007/BF00142328. Cham, Switzerland. Accessed June
14, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00142328.
30
31
32
33
Dieter, C.A., M.A. Maupin, R.R. Caldwell, M.A. Harris, T.I. Ivahnenko, J.K. Lovelace, N.L.
Barber, and K.S. Linsey. 2018. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2015. USGS
Circular 1441, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accessed October 19, 2020, at
https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1441/circ1441.pdf.
34
35
36
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1997a. Biocide Usage in Cooling Towers in the Electric
Power and Petroleum Refining Industries, Topical Report. DOE/BC -98000455, DOE.BC/W-31109-ENG38-3, Distribution Category UC-122, Washington, D.C.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-12
February 2023
References
1
2
3
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1997b. Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations,
Topical Report TR-109496. Washington, D.C. December. Accessed June 5, 2022, at
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf.
4
5
6
7
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1999. "DOE/EIS-0269: Final Programmatic Environmental
Impact Statement (April 1999)." DOES/EIS-0269, Washington, D.C. Accessed June 11, 2022,
at https://www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/doeeis-0269-final-programmatic-environmental-impactstatement-april-1999.
8
9
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2000. Transmission System Vegetation Management
Program, Final Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS-0285. Washington, D.C.
10
11
12
13
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic
Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca
Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14024A327.
14
15
16
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2004a. "EIS-0359: Final Environmental Impact Statement."
DOES/EIS-0359, Washington, D.C. Accessed June 11, 2022, at
https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0359-final-environmental-impact-statement.
17
18
19
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2004b. "EIS-0360: Final Environmental Impact Statement."
DOES/EIS-0360, Washington, D.C. Accessed June 11, 2022, at
https://www.energy.gov/nepa/downloads/eis-0360-final-environmental-impact-statement-0.
20
21
22
23
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2004c. RESRAD-BIOTA: A Tool for Implementing a
Graded Approach to Biota Dose Evaluation. ISCORS Technical Report 2004-02, Interagency
Steering Committee on Radiation Standards, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML21140A412.
24
25
26
27
28
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2007. Draft Supplement Analysis for Location(S) to
Dispose of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated from DOE's Inventory of
Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DOE/EID-0359-SA1 and DOE/EIS-0360-SA1). Washington,
D.C. March. Accessed June 11, 2022, at
http://web.evs.anl.gov/uranium/documents/sa/DUF6_SA.pdf.
29
30
31
32
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2008. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive
Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250F-S1, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML14024A329.
33
34
35
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2016. Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement for
the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C (GTCC) Low-Level Radioactive Waste and GTCC-Like
Waste, (DOE/EIS-0375). Washington, D.C. January. ADAMS Accession No. ML16063A484.
36
37
38
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2017. Alternatives for the Disposal of Greater-Than-Class
C Low-Level Radioactive Waste and Greater-Than-Class C-Like Waste. Report to Congress,
Washington, D.C. November.
February 2023
5-13
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2019. A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses
to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota. DOE-STD-1153-2019, Washington, D.C. Available at
https://www.standards.doe.gov/standards-documents/1100/1153-astd-2019/@@images/file.
4
5
6
7
8
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2021a. "FOTW #1208, Oct 18, 2021: Life Cycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions for a 2020 Electric Small SUV Were Half Those of a Conventional
Gasoline Small SUV." Accessed June 7, 2022, at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1208-oct-18-2021-life-cycle-greenhouse-gasemissions-2020-electric.
9
10
11
12
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2021b. Hydrogen Shot: An Introduction. Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Technology Office. Washington,
D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/hydrogen-shotintroduction.
13
14
15
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2022a. "Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Office
of Nuclear Energy". Washington, D.C. Available at https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-smallmodular-reactors-smrs.
16
17
18
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2022b. Offshore Wind Energy Strategies. Washington,
D.C. Accessed June 16, 2022, at https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/offshorewind-energy-strategies-report-january-2022.pdf.
19
20
21
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated-a. "Fuel Cell Basics: Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cell-basics.
22
23
24
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated-b. "Geothermal Basics: Geothermal."
Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-basics.
25
26
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated-c. "Types of Hydropower Plants." Washington,
D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/types-hydropower-plants.
27
28
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated-d. "Vogtle Loan Program Office." Washington,
D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.energy.gov/lpo/vogtle.
29
30
31
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated-e. "WINDExchange: Wind Energy State
Information." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://windexchange.energy.gov/states.
32
33
34
35
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2015a. Levelized
Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook
2015. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo15/pdf/electricity_generation_2015.pdf.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-14
February 2023
References
1
2
3
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2015b. Annual
Energy Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040. DOE/EIA-0383(2015), Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML16172A121.
4
5
6
7
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2017. "Today in
Energy: Oil-fired Power Plants Provide Small Amounts of U.S. Electricity Capacity and
Generation." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 6, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31232.
8
9
10
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Association). 2019a. "More new
natural gas combined-cycle power plants are using advanced designs." Washington, D.C.
Accessed May 17, 2022, at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39912.
11
12
13
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2019b. "Today In
Energy: Demand-side Management Programs Save Energy and Reduce Peak Demand."
Washington, D.C.
14
15
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Association). 2020a. Annual Energy
Outlook 2020, with projections to 2050. AEO2020. Washington, D.C.
16
17
18
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2020b. "Electricity
Explained: Electricity Generation, Capacity, and Sales in the United States." Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML21140A433.
19
20
21
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2020c. "Form EIA860 Detailed Data with Previous Form Data (EIA-860A/860B)." Final 2019 Data, Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21141A320.
22
23
24
25
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2021a. "Electric
Power Monthly: Table 6.07.B Capacity Factors for Utility Scale Generators Primarily Using
Non-Fossil Fuels, Data for August 2021." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b.
26
27
28
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2021b. "Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQS)." November. Washington, D.C. Accessed May 10, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4.
29
30
31
32
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2021c. "Today in
Energy: Less Electricity Was Generated by Coal than Nuclear in the United States in 2020."
Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47196.
33
34
35
36
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2021d. "Today in
Energy: Solar Generation Was 3% of U.S. Electricity in 2020, But We Project It Will Be 20% by
2050." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50357.
February 2023
5-15
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2021e. "Today in
Energy: U.S. Large-Scale Battery Storage Capacity Up 35% in 2020, Rapid Growth to
Continue." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49236.
5
6
7
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022a. "Annual
Energy Outlook 2022." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 10, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/narrative/electricity/sub-topic-04.php.
8
9
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022b. Annual
Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050, Narrative. Washington, D.C.
10
11
12
13
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022c. Cost and
Performance Characteristics of New Generating Technologies, Annual Energy Outlook 2021.
Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf.
14
15
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022d. Electric
Power Annual 2020. Washington, D.C.
16
17
18
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022e. "Electricity
Explained: Electricity in the United States." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 11, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php.
19
20
21
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022f. "Hydrogen
Explained, Use of Hydrogen." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 16, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydrogen/use-of-hydrogen.php.
22
23
24
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022g. "Nuclear
explained, U.S. Nuclear Industry." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php.
25
26
27
28
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022h. "Today in
Energy: EIA Projects That Renewable Generation Will Supply 44% of U.S. Electricity by 2050."
Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698.
29
30
31
32
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022i. "Today in
Energy: U.S. nuclear electricity generation continues to decline as more reactors retire."
Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51978#.
33
34
35
36
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). Undated-a. "Electric
Power Annual 2020, Table 1.2. Summary Statistics for the United States, 2009–2019. Utility
Scale Capacity: Solar Photovoltaic." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_02.html.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-16
February 2023
References
1
2
3
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). Undated-b. Form
EIA-861 Annual Electric Power Industry Report Instructions. Washington, D.C. Accessed June
12, 2022, at https://www.eia.gov/survey/form/eia_861/instructions.pdf.
4
5
6
Donaldson, M., S. Cooke, D.A. Patterson, and J.S. MacDonald. 2008. "Cold shock and fish."
Journal of Fish Biology 73(7):1491-1530. DOI:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02061.x. Hoboken,
New Jersey. Accessed June 6, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2008.02061.x.
7
8
9
Duke Energy. 2017. Why Nuclear Plants Are Great Places For Wildlife. Charlotte, North
Carolina. Accessed June 6, 2022, at https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2017/09/29/why-nuclearplants-are-a-great-place-for-wildlife.
10
11
12
EA Engineering. (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.) 2015. Final Impingement
and Entrainment Characterization Study LaSalle County Station. Exelon Generation Company,
LLC. Kennett Square, Pennsylvania. ADAMS Accession No. ML15243A204.
13
14
15
Ellingson, E.F. 1979. "Transformer Noise Abatement Using Tuned Sound Enclosure Panels."
1979 7th IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition. Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
16
Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.
17
18
19
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12241A393.
20
21
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1981. Noise Effects Handbook: A Desk
Reference to Health and Welfare, Effects of Noise. EPA 350/9-82-106. Washington, D.C.
22
23
24
25
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA 440/5-86001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Accessed June
13, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/documents/quality-criteria-water1986.pdf.
26
27
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. Natural Wetlands and Urban Stormwater:
Potential Impacts and Management. 843-R-9300. Washington, D.C.
28
29
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1996. A Guide to Stormwater Best Management
Practices. EPA-B43-B-96-001. Washington, D.C.
30
31
32
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Case Study Analysis for the Proposed
Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule, Part A - B. EPA-821-R-02-002. Washington,
D.C.
February 2023
5-17
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
5
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment
Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey:
Second Edition. EPA-823-R-04-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science
and Technology, Washington, D.C. Accessed June 13, 2022, at
https://archive.epa.gov/water/archive/polwaste/web/pdf/nsqs2ed-complete-2.pdf.
6
7
8
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. Climate Change Indicators in the United
States 2016. Fourth Edition, EPA 430-R-16-004, Washington, D.C. Accessed June 7, 2022, at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/climate_indicators_2016.pdf.
9
10
11
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Water Quality Standards Handbook.
EPA-823-B-17-001. EPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.
Accessed June 6, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-quality-standards-handbook.
12
13
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2019. "How is Mixed Waste Regulated?"
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No ML21141A337.
14
15
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2020a. "Categories of Hazardous Waste
Generators." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21141A344.
16
17
18
19
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2020b. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance:
Indirect Emissions from Purchased Electricity. EPA Center for Corporate Climate Leadership.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Accessed May 23, 2022, at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/electricityemissions.pdf.
20
21
22
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021a. "Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and
Global Precipitation." Washington, D.C. Available at https://www.epa.gov/climateindicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation.
23
24
25
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021b. "EPA Center for Corporate Climate
Leadership: Scope 1 and Scope 2 Inventory Guidance." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 24,
2022, at https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory-guidance.
26
27
28
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021c. "Impaired Waters and TMDLs: Overview
of Listing Impaired Waters under CWA Section 303(d)." Washington, D.C. Available at
https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/overview-listing-impaired-waters-under-cwa-section-303d.
29
30
31
32
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022a. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2020. EPA 430-R-22-003. Washington, D.C. Accessed May 23,
2022, at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/us-ghg-inventory-2022-maintext.pdf.
33
34
35
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022b. "Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS)."
Washington D.C. Accessed June 6, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/vessels-marinas-andports/aquatic-nuisance-species-ans.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-18
February 2023
References
1
2
3
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022c. "EPA Center for Corporate Climate
Leadership: Scope 3 Inventory Guidance." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 24, 2022, at
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/scope-3-inventory-guidance.
4
5
6
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022d. "Facility Level Information on
GreenHouse Gases Tool (FLIGHT): 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities."
Washington, D.C. Available at https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do.
7
8
9
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022e. "Green Book GIS Download."
Washington, D.C. Accessed May 23, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-gisdownload.
10
11
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022f. "NAAQS Table." Washington, D.C.
Accessed May 2, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.
12
13
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022g. "NPDES Permit Basics." Washington,
D.C. Accessed May 26, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/npdes-permit-basics.
14
15
16
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022h. "What are Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs)?" Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/indoor-airquality-iaq/what-are-volatile-organic-compounds-vocs.
17
18
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 1982. Transmission Line Reference Book, 345 kV
and Above/Second Edition. DE82-905-265. Palo Alto, California.
19
20
21
22
23
Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, K.J. Sernka, and R.E. Good. 2001. Avian
Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other
Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating
Committee Resource Document. Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
DOI:10.2172/822418. Accessed June 9, 2022, at https://dx.doi.org/10.2172/822418.
24
25
26
27
Erickson W.P., M.M. Wolfe, K.J. Bay, D.H. Johnson, and J.L. Gehring. 2014. "A
Comprehensive Analysis of Small-Passerine Fatalities from Collision with Turbines at Wind
Energy Facilities." PLoS ONE 9(9): e107491. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.010749. San
Francisco, California. Accessed June 9, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107491.
28
29
30
Evans, D.R., and J.E. Gates. 1997. "Cowbird Selection of Breeding Areas: The Role of Habitat
and Bird Species Abundance." Wilson Bulletin 109(3):470–480. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Accessed May 17, 2022, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/4163842.
31
32
33
34
Evans, M.S., G.J. Warren, and D.I. Page. 1986. "The Effects of Power Plant Passage on
Zooplankton Mortalities: Eight Years of Study at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant." Water
Research 20(6):725-734. DOI:10.1016/0043-1354(86)90096-5. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(86)90096-5.
February 2023
5-19
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
Exelon (Exelon Generation Company). 2011. "Peach Bottom Receives International Habitat
Conservation Award." Chicago, Illinois. Accessed June 6, 2022, at
https://www.exeloncorp.com/NEWSROOM/Pages/pr_20110106_nuclear_peachbottomWHCrele
ase3.aspx.
5
6
7
Exelon (Exelon Generation Company). 2012. "Exelon’s Braidwood and LaSalle Awarded
Wildlife at Work Certification." Chicago, Illinois. Accessed June 6, 2022, at
https://www.exeloncorp.com/newsroom/Pages/pr_03293012_nuclear_Wildlifeatworka.aspx.
8
9
10
11
12
Exelon Generation Company, LLC. 2013. Letter from M.P. Gallagher, Vice President, to NRC,
dated December 19, 2013, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information,
dated November 21, 2013, related to the Byron and Braidwood Stations, Units 1 and 2 License
Renewal Application, Byron Station Applicant's Environmental Report." Kennett Square,
Pennsylvania. ADAMS Accession No. ML14007A082.
13
14
15
16
17
Exelon Generation Company, LLC. 2014. Letter from M.P. Gallagher, Vice President, to NRC,
dated January 21, 2014, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information, dated
December 20, 2013, related to the Byron and Braidwood Stations, Units 1 and 2 License
Renewal Application, Braidwood Station Applicant's Environmental Report." Kennett Square,
Pennsylvania. ADAMS Accession No. ML14030A264.
18
19
20
Fairbanks, R.B., and R.P. Lawton. 1977. "Occurrence of Large Striped Mullet, Mugil cephalus,
in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts." Chesapeake Science 18:309-310. DOI:10.2307/1350805.
Cham, Switzerland. Accessed June 13, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.2307/1350805.
21
Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq.
22
23
24
FCC (Federal Communications Commission). Undated. Antenna Structure Registration.
Washington D.C. Accessed June 11, 2022, at
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistrationSearch.jsp.
25
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.
26
27
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act). 33
U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
28
29
30
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2021. "Flood Insurance Manuals - Effective
October 1, 2021." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 9, 2022, at https://www.fema.gov/floodinsurance/work-with-nfip/manuals/current.
31
32
33
34
35
Fernie, K.J., and S.J. Reynolds. 2005. "The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields From Power
Lines on Avian Reproductive Biology and Physiology: A Review." Journal of Toxicology and
Environmental Health, Part B: Critical Reviews 8(2):127-140.
DOI:10.1080/10937400590909022. London, England. Accessed June 6, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1080/10937400590909022.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-20
February 2023
References
1
2
3
FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013, Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee,
Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
4
5
6
7
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Letter from M.J. LeValley, Field Supervisor to A.
Imboden, Branch Chief, NRC, dated April 2, 2012, regarding "Conclusion of ESA Section 7
Consultation for Wolf Creek License Renewal." FWS Tracking # 2012-CPA-0577. Manhattan,
Kansas. ADAMS Accession No. ML12122A447.
8
9
10
11
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. Letter from F. Clark, Acting Field Supervisor to
D.J. Wrona, NRC, dated September 30, 2014, regarding "Threatened and endangered species
within the vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station." TAILS: 03E15000-2014-I-1089.
Columbus, Ohio. ADAMS Accession No. ML14296A559.
12
13
14
15
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015a. Letter from T.R. Chapman to D.J. Wrona, NRC,
dated December 7, 2015, regarding "Submittal of Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Fermi 2 and request for concurrence under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act." East Lansing, Michigan. ADAMS Accession No. ML16029A074.
16
17
18
19
20
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015b. Letter from D.A. Stilwell to D.J. Wrona, NRC,
dated July 14, 2015, regarding "This responds to your July 1, 2015, letter regarding the
proposed renewal of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-26 and DPR-64 for an additional 20 years
at the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 and 3 located in the Village of Buchanan,
Westchester County, New York." Cortland, New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML15196A013.
21
22
23
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Final 4(d)
Rule for the Northern Long-Eared Bat and Activities Excepted from Take Prohibitions. Midwest
Regional Office, Bloomington, Minnesota.
24
25
26
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2018. Letter from T.R. Chapman to B. Beasley, NRC,
dated September 20, 2018, regarding "Seabrook Station Unit 1 License Renewal, Seabrook
NH." TAILS: 2018-l-2970, Concord, New Hampshire. ADAMS Accession No. ML18263A200.
27
28
29
30
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019a. Letter from R. Hiznman, Field Supervisor to
B. Grange, Conservation Biologist, NRC, dated July 25, 2019, regarding "Service Consultation
Code: 04EF2000-2014-F-0177-R001, Project: Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4
License Renewal." Vero Beach, Florida. ADAMS Accession No. ML19221B583.
31
32
33
34
35
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2019b. Letter from Virginia Ecological Services Field
Office, dated June 6, 2019, regarding "Updated list of threatened and endangered species that
may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project."
Consultation Code: 05E2VA00-2019-SLI-1750, Gloucester, Virginia. ADAMS Accession No.
ML19157A113.
February 2023
5-21
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
5
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2021. Letter from D. Simpkins, FWS, to A. Briana, NRC,
dated November 10, 2021, regarding "NRC Request for Concurrence with Endangered Species
Act Determination for Point Beach Subsequent License Renewal, Issuance of Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and Opportunity for Public Comment." FWS
No. 03E17000-2021-SLI-0702. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21314A421.
6
7
8
9
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022a. Amendment to the July 25, 2019 Biological
Opinion for the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 3 and 4 License Renewal, 2014-F-0177-R001,
memorandum. Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Gainesville, Florida. ADAMS
Accession No. ML22089A060.
10
11
12
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022b. "National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Data
Layer." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 5, 2022, at https://www.fws.gov/program/nationalwetlands-inventory/wetlands-data.
13
14
15
FWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998.
Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting Section 7
Consultation and Conference. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14171A801.
16
17
18
19
20
21
FWS/NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Programmatic Biological Opinion on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s Issuance and Implementation of the Final Regulations
Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Arlington, Virginia, and Silver Spring, Maryland.
Accessed June 11, 2022, at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/201504/documents/final_316b_bo_and_appendices_5_19_2014.pdf.
22
23
24
25
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 2015. Technology Assessment, Nuclear Reactors,
Status and Challenges in Development and Deployment of New Commercial Concepts.
Washington, D.C. July. Accessed June 15, 2022, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-15652.pdf.
26
27
28
Gibbs, J.P. 1998. "Distribution of Woodland Amphibians along a Forest Fragmentation
Gradient." Landscape Ecology 13:263–268. DOI:10.1023/A:1008056424692. Cham,
Switzerland. Accessed June 11, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008056424692.
29
30
31
Gilmer, D.S., and R.E. Stewart. 1983. "Ferruginous Hawk Populations and Habitat Use in
North Dakota." Journal of Wildlife Management 47(1):146–157. DOI: 10.2307/3808061.
Hoboken, New Jersey. Accessed June 11, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.2307/3808061.
32
33
34
35
Gray, R.H., T.L. Page, and M.G. Saroglia. 1983. "Behavioral Response of Carp, Cyprinus
carpio, and Black Bullhead, Ictalurus melas, from Italy to Gas Supersaturated Water."
Environmental Biology of Fishes 8:163-167. DOI:10.1007/BF00005183. Cham, Switzerland.
Accessed June 13, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00005183.
36
37
38
Greenberg, B., and V. Bindokas. 1985. Extra-High Voltage Transmission Lines: Mechanisms
of Biological Effects on Honeybees. Final Report. EPRI EA-4218. Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, California.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-22
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
Greenberg, B., V.P. Bindokas, and J.R. Gaujer. 1981. "Biological effects of a 760-kV
transmission line: Exposures and thresholds in honeybee colonies." Bioelectromagnetics
2(4):315-328. DOI: 10.1002/bem.2250020404. Hoboken, New Jersey. Accessed June 6,
2022, at https://doi.org/10.1002/bem.2250020404.
5
H.J. Res. 87. 42 U.S.C. § 10135 Note. Public Law 107-200.
6
7
8
9
Hall, C.A.S., R. Howarth, B. Moore, III, and C.J. Vörösmarty. 1978. "Environmental Impacts of
Industrial Energy Systems in the Coastal Zone." Annual Review of Energy (3):395-475, Annual
Reviews Inc., San Mateo, California. Accessed June 9, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.eg.03.110178.002143.
10
11
12
Harness, R.E., and K.R. Wilson. 2001. "Electric-Utility Structures Associated with Raptor
Electrocutions in Rural Areas.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(2):612-623. Hoboken, New Jersey.
Accessed June 21, 2022, at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3784188.
13
14
15
16
Harrison, F.L. 1985. "Effect of Physiochemical Form on Copper Availability to Aquatic
Organisms." In Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh Symposium. ASTM STP
854, pages 469-484. R.C. Bahner, ed. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. DOI: 10.1520/STP36284S.
17
18
HDR (HDR Engineering). 2017. 2015-2016 Impingement Characterization Study Report. Surry
Power Station. VPDES Permit VA0004090. HDR Engineering, Surry, Virginia.
19
20
21
Henderson, P.A., and R.M.H. Seaby. 2000. Technical Evaluation of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Proposed Cooling Water Intake Regulations for New Facilities. Pisces
Conservation Ltd., Lymington, England. ADAMS Accession No. ML090770970.
22
23
24
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and
Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series
332, Vienna, Austria.
25
26
27
28
ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection). 1998. "Guidelines
for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to
300 GHz)." Health Physics 74(4):494-522, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Accessed October 7,
2020, at https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf.
29
30
31
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 1977. Recommendations of the
International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 26, Pergamon Press,
New York, New York.
32
33
34
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of
the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon
Press, New York, New York.
February 2023
5-23
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2007. "The 2007
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection." ICRP
Publication 103, Ann. ICRP, 37(2-4). Amsterdam, Netherlands. Elsevier. Available at
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/ANIB_37_2-4.
5
6
7
8
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2008a. "Environmental Protection
- the Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants." ICRP Publication 108. Annals of the
ICRP 38(4-6). Ottawa, Canada. Accessed June 7, 2022, at
https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=icrp%20publication%20108.
9
10
11
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2008b. Nuclear Decay Data for
Dosimetric Calculations. ICRP Publication 107, Ann ICRP 38(3):7-96, DOI:
10.1016/j.icrp.2008.10.004.
12
13
14
15
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2009. "Environmental Protection:
Transfer Parameters for Reference Animals and Plants." ICRP Publication 114. Annals of the
ICRP 39(6). DOI: 10.1016/j.icrp.2011.08.009. Ottawa, Canada. Accessed June 7, 2022, at
https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icrp.2011.08.009.
16
17
18
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2022. "BiotaDC v.1.5.2. A
Complement to ICRP Publication 136." Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Accessed July 28, 2022, at
http://biotadc.icrp.org.
19
20
IEEE SA (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association). 2017. 2017
National Electrical Safety Code. IEEE C2-2017. Piscataway, New Jersey.
21
22
23
24
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2000. Summary for Policymakers,
Emissions Scenarios, A Special Report of IPCC Working Group III. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed June 11, 2022, at
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/sres-en.pdf.
25
26
27
28
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ADAMS No. ML112710385. Accessed May
23, 2022, at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf.
29
30
31
32
33
34
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor,
S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley, eds. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Accessed May 25, 2022, at
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.
35
36
37
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2014, Synthesis
Report. Geneva, Switzerland. Accessed June 11, 2022, at https://ar5syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/ipcc/resources/pdf/IPCC_SynthesisReport.pdf.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-24
February 2023
References
1
2
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2021. "Climate Change 2021: The
Physical Science Basis." Accessed May 24, 2022, at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
3
4
5
Janes, D.E. 1978. Evaluation of Health and Environmental Effects of Extra-High-Voltage (EHV)
Transmission. 520179501, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation
Programs, Washington, D.C.
6
7
8
9
Janss, G.F.E. 2000. "Avian Mortality from Power Lines: A Morphological Approach of a
Species-Specific Mortality." Biological Conservation 95(3):353-359. DOI:10.1016/S00063207(00)00021-5. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Accessed June 9, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00021-5.
10
11
12
13
Johnson, D.H., S.R. Loss, K.S. Smallwood, and W.P. Erickson. 2016. "Avian Fatalities at Wind
Energy Facilities in North America: a Comparison of Recent Approaches." Human-Wildlife
Interactions 10(1):7-18. DOI:10.26077/a4ec-ed37. Logan, Utah. Accessed June 7, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.26077/a4ec-ed37.
14
15
16
17
Jones, C.E., K. An, R.G. Blom, J.D. Kent, E.R. Ivins, and D. Bekaert. 2016. “Anthropogenic
and geologic influences on subsidence in the vicinity of New Orleans, Louisiana.” Journal of
Geophysical Research, Solid Earth, 121(5):3867–3887. DOI: 10.1002/2015JB02636. Hoboken,
New Jersey. Accessed May 16, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JB012636.
18
19
20
Kagel, A., D. Bates, and K. Gawell. 2005. A Guide to Geothermal Energy and the
Environment. Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, D.C. Accessed June 1, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.2172/897425.
21
22
23
24
Kemper, C. 1996. "A Study of Bird Mortality at a West Central Wisconsin TV Tower from 19571995." The Passenger Pigeon 58:219-235. Madison, Wisconsin. Accessed June 14, 2022, at
https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/AKZ4IZ3KFBZNZU8S/pages/AGWK5M6OG7BQOB8H?as
=text&view=one.
25
26
27
Kennish, M.J., and R.A. Lutz. 1984. Ecology of Barnegat Bay. Lecture Notes on Coastal and
Estuarine Studies. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York. ADAMS Accession No.
ML20079N264.
28
29
30
Kosciuch, K., D. Riser-Espinoza, M. Gerringer, and W. Erickson. 2020. A Summary of Bird
Mortality at Photovoltaic Utility Scale Solar Facilities in the Southwestern U.S. PLoS ONE
15(4):e0232034. Available at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232034.
31
32
33
34
Kristmannsdottir, H., and H. Armannsson. 2003. "Environmental Aspects of Geothermal
Energy Utilization." Geothermics 32(4-6):451-461. DOI:10.1016/S0375-6505(03)00052-X.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Accessed June 7, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1016/S03756505(03)00052-X.
35
36
37
38
Kroodsma, R.L. 1984. "Effects of Power-Line Corridors on the Density and Diversity of Bird
Communities in Forested Areas." In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on
Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, pp 551-561, Mississippi State,
Mississippi.
February 2023
5-25
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
Kroodsma, R.L. 1987. "Edge Effect on Breeding Birds Along Power-Line Corridors in East
Tennessee." American Midland Naturalist 118(2):275–283. DOI:10.2307/2425785. South
Bend, Indiana. Accessed June 11, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.2307/2425785.
4
5
Lagler, K.F., J.E. Bardach, and R.R. Miller. 1962. Ichthyology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, New York.
6
7
Laist, D.W., and J.E. Reynolds, III. 2005. "Florida Manatees, Warm-Water Refuges, and an
Uncertain Future." Coastal Management (33):279-295, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
8
9
10
11
12
13
Langford, T.E. 1975. "The Emergence of Insect from a British River, Warmed by Power Station
Cooling-Water. Part II: The Emergence Patterns of Some Species of Ephemeroptera,
Trichoptera and Megaloptera in Relation to Water Temperature and River Flow, Upstream and
Downstream of the Cooling-Water Outfalls." Hydrobiologia 47(1):91–133.
DOI:10.1007/BF00036746. Cham, Switzerland. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00036746.
14
15
Langford, T.E. 1983. Electricity Generation and the Ecology of Natural Waters. Liverpool
University Press, Liverpool, England.
16
17
18
Larkin, R.P., and B.A. Frase. 1988. "Circular Paths of Birds Flying near a Broadcasting Tower
in Cloud." Journal of Comparative Physiology 102(1):90-93. DOI:10.1037/0735-7036.102.1.90.
Washington, D.C. Accessed June 14, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.102.1.90.
19
20
21
22
Lee, G.F., and P.H. Martin. 1975. "Dissolved Gas Supersaturation and Dilution in Thermal
Plumes from Steam Electric Generating Stations." Water Research 9(7):643-648.
DOI:/10.1016/0043-1354(75)90170-0. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Accessed June 13, 2022,
at https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(75)90170-0.
23
24
25
26
Lee, J.M., V.L. Chartier, D.P. Hartmann, G.E. Lee, K.S. Pierce, F.L. Shon, R.D. Stearns, and
M.T. Zeckmeister. 1989. Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review.
DOE/BP-945. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.
June. Accessed June 1, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.2172/5712107.
27
28
29
Lee, J.M., Jr. 1980. "Raptors and the BPA Transmission System." In Proceedings of the
Workshop on Raptors and Energy Developments, pp. 41-55, Portland, Oregon. Accessed June
11, 2022, at https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Howard-and-Gore-1980.pdf.
30
31
32
33
34
Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D.G. Bert, L.M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S.A.
Gauthreaux Jr., M.L. Avery, R.L. Crawford, A.M. Manville II, E.R. Travis, and D. Drake. 2012.
An Estimate of Avian Mortality at Communication Towers in the United States and Canada.
PLoS ONE 7(4):e34025. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034025. San Francisco, California.
Accessed June 9, 2022, at https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034025.
35
36
37
Loss, S.R., T. Will, S.S. Loss, and P.P. Marra. 2014. "Bird–Building Collisions in the United
States: Estimates of Annual Mortality and Species Vulnerability." The Condor: Ornithological
Applications 116:8–23, Chicago, Illinois. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-26
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2015. "Direct Mortality of Birds from Anthropogenic
Causes." Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 46:99-120.
DOI:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054133. Palo Alto, California. Accessed June 7, 2022,
at https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054133.
5
6
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. 42 U.S.C. § 2021b et seq. Public Law 96573.
7
8
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, as amended. Public Law 99–
240, 99 Stat. 1842.
9
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.
10
11
12
Maize, K. 2019. "Waste-to-Energy: A Niche Market in Decline?" POWER, Rockville,
Maryland. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.powermag.com/waste-to-energy-a-nichemarket-in-decline/.
13
14
15
16
17
18
Manville, A.M., II. 2005. "Bird Strikes and Electrocutions at Power Lines, Communication
Towers, and Wind Turbines: State of the Art and State of the Science–Next Steps Toward
Mitigation." In Proceedings 3rd International Partners in Flight Conference 2002, U.S. Forest
Service General Technical Report PSW–GTR–191, Albany, California. Available at
https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_10511064_manville.pdf.
19
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.
20
21
22
Marston, L., Y. Ao, M. Konar, M.M. Mekonnen, and A.Y. Hoekstra. 2018. "High-Resolution
Water Footprints of Production of the United States." Water Resources Research, 54, 22882316. Available at https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR021923.
23
24
Maruvada, P.S. 2000. Corona Performance of High Voltage Transmission Lines. Research
Studies Press Ltd., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
25
26
27
28
MASCWG (Multiagency Avian-Solar Collaborative Working Group). 2016. Multiagency AvianSolar Science Coordination Plan. Multiagency Avian-Solar Collaborative Working Group,
Washington, D.C. Accessed June 7, 2022, at https://blmsolar.anl.gov/program/aviansolar/docs/Final_Avian-Solar_Science_Coordination_Plan.pdf.
29
30
31
Mayhew, D.A., L.D. Jensen, D.F. Hanson, and P.H. Muessig. 2000. "A Comparative Review of
Entrainment Survival Studies at Power Plants in Estuarine Environments." Environmental
Science & Policy 3:S295-S301, New York, New York.
32
33
34
35
MCAQD (Maricopa County Air Quality Department). 2010. Air Quality Permit, Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station, Tonopah, Arizona, Permit Number: 030132, Issue Date: August 8,
2005, Renewal Date: July 31, 2010. Phoenix, Arizona. November. ADAMS Accession No.
ML101620032.
February 2023
5-27
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
MCAQD (Maricopa County Air Quality Department). 2019. 2017 Periodic Emissions Inventory
for Ozone Precursors. Phoenix, Arizona. November.
3
4
5
6
7
McCormick, S.D., R.A. Cunjak, B. Dempson, M.F. O’Dea, and J.B. Carey. 1999.
"Temperature-Related Loss of Smolt Characteristics in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) in the
Wild." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56(9):1649–1658.
DOI:10.1139/f99-099. Ottawa, Canada. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1139/f99-099.
8
9
10
11
McInerny, M.C. 1990. "Gas-Bubble Disease in Three Fish Species Inhabiting the Heated
Discharge of a Steam-Electric Station Using Hypolimnetic Cooling Water." Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution 49:7-15. DOI:10.1007/BF00279506. Cham, Switzerland. Accessed June 13, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00279506.
12
13
14
15
MDNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources). 2019. "Environmental Radionuclide
Concentrations in the Vicinity of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant and the Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station: 2014 – 2015." PPRP-R-35. DNR Publication No. 12-092419-171.
Maryland Power Plant Research Program, Annapolis, Maryland.
16
17
18
Michaels, T., and K. Krishnan. 2019. Energy Recovery Council, 2018 Directory of Waste-toEnergy Facilities. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://energyrecoverycouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ERC-2018-directory.pdf.
19
20
21
Michel, J., A.C. Bejarano, C.H. Peterson, and C. Voss. 2013. Review of Biological and
Biophysical Impacts from Dredging and Handling of Offshore Sand. OCS Study, BOEM 20130119, Columbia, South Carolina.
22
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.
23
24
Miller, M.W. 1983. "Biological Effects from Exposure to Transmission Line Electromagnetic
Fields." Right of Way 30(3):8–15, Gardena, California.
25
26
Mitchell, C.A., and J. Carlson. 1993. "Lesser Scaup Forage on Zebra Mussels at Cook Nuclear
Plant, Michigan." Journal of Field Ornithology 64(2):219-222. Hoboken, New Jersey.
27
28
29
30
MMS (Minerals Management Service). 2007. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
for Alternative Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer
Continental Shelf, Volume II, Chapter 5. OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2007-046, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.
31
32
33
Morrow, Jr., J.V., and J.C. Fischenich. 2000. Habitat Requirements for Freshwater Fishes.
EMRRP Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-06. U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
34
35
Murdy, E.O., R.S. Birdsong, and J.A. Musick. 1997. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-28
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
NAI (Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 1998. Seabrook Station 1996 Environmental Monitoring in
the Hampton-Seabrook Area: A Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the
Operation of Seabrook Station. SBK-L-10185, Attachment 2, Volume 4. North Atlantic Energy
Service Corp., Seabrook, New Hampshire. ADAMS Accession No. ML103360306.
5
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
6
National Historic Preservation Act. 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.
7
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.
8
9
National Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992. 16 U.S.C. § 1431 Note.
Public Law 102-587.
10
11
12
National Research Council. 1995. Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards. The
National Academies Press. Washington, D.C. Accessed Jun 11, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.17226/4943.
13
14
National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation: BEIR VII Phase II. Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.17226/11340.
15
16
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 1991. Effects of Ionizing
Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland.
17
18
19
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 2009. Ionizing Radiation
Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, Maryland.
Available at https://app.knovel.com/kn/resources/kpIREPUS05/toc.
20
21
22
23
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 2019. Medical Radiation
Exposure of Patients in the United States (2019). Report No. 184, ISBN: 9781944888169,
Bethesda, Maryland. Available at https://ncrponline.org/shop/reports/report-no-184-medicalradiation-exposure-of-patients-in-the-united-states-2019/.
24
25
26
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 2018. Implications of
Recent Epidemiologic Studies for the Linear-Nonthreshold Model and Radiation Protection.
NCRP Commentary No. 27, Bethesda, Maryland.
27
28
29
30
Nebeker, A.V. 1971. "Effect of High Winter Water Temperatures on Adult Emergence of
Aquatic Insects." Water Resources 5(9):777–783. DOI:10.1016/0043-1354(71)90100-X.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1016/00431354(71)90100-X.
31
32
33
34
Nebeker, A.V., F.D. Baker, and S.L. Weitz. 1981. "Survival and Adult Emergence of Aquatic
Insects in Air-Supersaturated Water." Journal of Freshwater Ecology 1(3):243-250. London,
England. DOI:10.1080/02705060.1981.9664039. Accessed June 13, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1080/02705060.1981.9664039.
February 2023
5-29
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2011. 52nd Northeast Regional Stock
Assessment Workshop (52nd SAW): Assessment Summary Report. NEFSC Reference
Document 11-11. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Accessed
June 7, 2022, at https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/3843.
5
6
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2015a. Economic Impacts of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station. Washington, D.C.
7
8
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2015b. Economic Impacts of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power
Plant. Washington, D.C.
9
10
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2015c. The Economic Benefits of Texas’ Nuclear Power Plants.
Washington, D.C.
11
12
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2018. Economic Impacts of the Cooper Nuclear Station an
Analysis by the Nuclear Energy Institute. Washington, D.C.
13
14
15
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2019. Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative – Final
Guidance Document, Rev. 1. NEI-07-07, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML19142A071.
16
17
18
Neller, J., and D.A. Snow. 2003. "Cooling Towers." Plant Engineer's Reference Book. Second
Edition, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0750644525/50076-6.
19
20
21
NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory). 2019. Cost and Performance Baselined for
Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. NETL-PUB22638, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
22
23
24
NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory). Undated. "High Temperature Material Supply
Chain." Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Accessed June 15, 2022, at
https://netl.doe.gov/high_temp_materials_supply_chain.
25
26
New York v. NRC (State of New York et al. v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 681 F.3d
471 (D.C. Cir. 2012). ADAMS Accession No. ML14094A018.
27
28
29
30
NextEra Energy. 2010. Letter from P. Freeman, Site Vice President, to NRC dated November
23, 2010, regarding "Seabrook Station Response to Request for Additional Information NextEra
Energy Seabrook License Renewal Environmental Report." SBK-L-10185, Docket No. 50-443,
Juno Beach, Florida. ADAMS Accession No. ML103350639.
31
32
33
34
35
NextEra Energy. 2021. Letter from W. Maher, Licensing Director, to NRC dated May 10, 2021,
regarding "Subsequent License Renewal Application - Environmental Report Supplement 1,
Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, Dockets 50-266 and 50-301. Renewed License Nos.
DPR-24 and DPR 27. L-2021-100." Juno Beach, Florida. ADAMS Accession No.
ML21131A105.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-30
February 2023
References
1
2
3
NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). 2002. Electric and Magnetic
Fields Associated with the Use of Electric Power: Questions and Answers. National Institutes
of Health, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. ADAMS Accession No. ML112660024.
4
5
6
7
Niemi, G.J., and J.M. Hanowski. 1984. "Effects of a Transmission Line on Bird Populations in
the Red Lake Peatland, Northern Minnesota." Auk 101(3):487–98.
DOI:10.1093/auk/101.3.487. Oxford, United Kingdom. Accessed June 11, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/101.3.487.
8
9
10
11
Nightingale, B., and C. Simenstad. 2001. Overwater Structures: Marine Issues. White Paper.
Research Project T1803, Task 35. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia,
Washington. Accessed June 7, 2022, at
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/508.1.pdf.
12
13
NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health). 1996. EMFs In The Workplace.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21145A339.
14
15
16
NJ Admin. Code 7:27-6. 1998. Title 7, Chapter 27, Sub Chapter 6, "Control and Prohibition of
Particles from Manufacturing Processes." New Jersey State Department of Environmental
Protection, New Jersey Administrative Code, Trenton, New Jersey.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. Letter from J.E. Powers to H.N. Berkow,
dated August 8, 2002, regarding "Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation for the
operation of the Crystal River Energy Complex's (CREC) cooling water intake system located
near the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus County, Florida, and its effects on loggerhead turtles (Caretta
caretta), Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback turtles (Dermochelys
coriacea), hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata), and green turtles (Chelonia mydas)."
St. Petersburg, Florida. ADAMS Accession No. ML022460361.
24
25
26
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004a. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
Guidance. Version 1.1, Silver Spring, Maryland. Accessed September 2, 2020, at
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4187.
27
28
29
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004b. Preparing Essential Fish Habitat
Assessments: A Guide for Federal Action Agencies. Version 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML14309A276.
30
31
32
33
34
35
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. Letter from R.R. McInnis to P.T. Kuo, dated
September 18, 2006, regarding "Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) continued operation
of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS) on threatened and endangered species in accordance with Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended." Long Beach, California. ADAMS
Accession No. ML063000348.
February 2023
5-31
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
5
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Letter from P.D. Colosi, Assistant Regional
Administrator for Habitat Conservation, to C. Bladey, NRC dated, October 26, 2011, regarding
"Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, License Renewal for Seabrook Station
Including EFH Conservation Recommendations." Gloucester, Massachusetts. ADAMS
Accession No. ML11304A057.
6
7
8
9
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013. Letter from J.K. Bullard to A. Hull, dated
January 30, 2013, regarding "Biological Opinion for Continued Operation of Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3." Gloucester, Massachusetts. ADAMS Accession No.
ML13032A256.
10
11
12
13
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014a. Endangered Species Act Section 7
Consultation Biological Opinion for Tappan Zee Bridge Replacement April 2, 2014. NER-201310768. Northeast Regional Office, National Marine Fisheries Service. Gloucester,
Massachusetts.
14
15
16
17
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014b. Email from M. Magliocca, Habitat
Conservation Division, to M. Mosert, NRC dated August 13, 2014, regarding "EFH Conservation
Recommendations for License Renewal of Limerick Generation Station." Annapolis, Maryland.
ADAMS Accession No. ML14227A713.
18
19
20
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2014c. Final Biological Opinion for the Continued
Operation of Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations. NER-2010-6581, Greater Atlantic
Fisheries Office, Gloucester, Massachusetts. ADAMS Accession No. ML14202A146.
21
22
23
24
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2016. National Marine Fisheries Service
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Opinion on the Continued Operation of St. Lucie
Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 in St. Lucie County, Florida. SER-2006-832, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML16084A616.
25
26
27
28
29
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2017. Letter from B.A. Thom to J.J. Rikhoff, dated
March 10, 2017, regarding "Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat
Response for Renewing the Operating License for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland,
Washington." Portland, Oregon. ADAMS Accession No. ML17072A036.
30
31
32
33
34
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2018a. Letter from J.E. Crocker to B. Beasley,
dated April 10, 2018, regarding "Amended ITS for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 Indian Point
Amended ITS with all Appendices.pdf; Sturgeon Genetic Sample Submission sheet for
S7_v1.1_Form to Use.xlsx." Gloucester, Massachusetts. ADAMS Accession No.
ML18101A588.
35
36
37
38
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2018b. Letter from M. Pentony, Regional
Administrator, to B. Beasley, Chief, NRC dated February 9, 2018, regarding, "Amendment to the
January 30, 2013, Biological Opinion Issued to NRC." Gloucester, Massachusetts. ADAMS
Accession No. ML18043A130.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-32
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
5
6
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2018c. Letter from M. Asaro to B. Grange, dated
November 23, 2018, regarding "This correspondence serves to clarify the amount of take
exempted by the Incidental Take Statement included with the July 17, 2014, biological opinion
issued by us to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding the continued operations of
Salem Unit I and Salem Unit 2." Gloucester, Massachusetts. ADAMS Accession No.
ML18348A467.
7
8
9
10
11
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2019. Letter from L. Chiarella, Assistant Regional
Administrator for Habitat Conservation, to B. Grange, Consultation Coordinator, NRC dated
December 19, 2019, regarding, "Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2 License Renewal, Draft
SEIS and EFH Assessment." Gloucester, Massachusetts. ADAMS Accession No.
ML20006F317.
12
13
14
15
16
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2020a. Letter from J. Anderson to B. Grange,
dated October 5, 2020, regarding "By this letter, we amend the 2018 ITS to remove the
requirement to make up the missed April 2020 sampling dates at IP2 and the April and May
2020 sampling dates at IP3." Gloucester, Massachusetts. ADAMS Accession No.
ML20280A271.
17
18
19
20
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2020b. Letter from B. Grange, FWS, to A. Briana,
NRC, dated January 30, 2020, regarding "Endangered Species Act Consultation - Surry Power
Station Proposed License Renewal." Gloucester, Massachusetts. ADAMS Accession No.
ML20030B278.
21
22
23
24
25
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2022. Letter from N.A. Farmer, Chief, Species
Conservation Branch, to J.D. Parrott, NRC, dated January 34, 2022, regarding "Status of
Section 7 Consultation Under The Endangered Species Act for the cooling water intake system
at the Crystal River Energy Complex (F/SER/2001/01080)." St. Petersburg, Florida. ADAMS
Accession No. ML22024A214.
26
27
28
29
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. Overview of Conducting
Consultation Pursuant to Section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. September
2009. Silver Spring, Maryland. Accessed October 13, 2020, at
https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/pdfs/304d.pdf.
30
31
32
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013a. Regional Climate Trends
and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 2. Climate of the Southeast U.S.
Technical Report NESDIS 142-2. Washington, D.C.
33
34
35
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013b. Regional Climate Trends
and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 3. Climate of the Midwest U.S.
Technical Report NESDIS 142-3. Washington, D.C.
36
37
38
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013c. Regional Climate Trends
and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 5. Climate of the Southwest U.S.
Technical Report NESDIS 142-5. Washington, D.C.
February 2023
5-33
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013d. Regional Climate Trends
and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 9. Climate of the Contiguous
United States. Technical Report NESDIS 142-9. Washington, D.C.
4
5
6
7
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2020. "Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern within Essential Fish Habitat." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 19, 2022, at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/habitat-conservation/habitat-areas-particular-concernwithin-essential-fish-habitat.
8
9
10
11
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2021. Frequently Asked Questions
about Essential Fish Habitat in the Pacific Islands. Washington, D.C. Accessed June 7, 2022,
at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pacific-islands/consultations/frequently-asked-questionsabout-essential-fish-habitat-pacific.
12
13
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2022a. "National Marine Sanctuary
System." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 11, 2022, at https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/.
14
15
16
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2022b. "Storm Events Database."
Washington, D.C. Accessed May 31, 2022, at
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/choosedates.jsp?statefips=-999%2CALL.
17
18
Noga, E.J. 2000. Fish Disease: Diagnosis and Treatment. Iowa State University Press, Ames,
Iowa.
19
20
NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2010. Sixth Northwest Conservation and
Electric Power Plan. Portland, Oregon. ADAMS Accession No. ML14093A352.
21
22
23
24
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1976. Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing
and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle. W.P. Bishop and F.J. Miraglia, Jr.
(eds.). NUREG–0116 (Supplement 1 to WASH–1248), Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML14098A013.
25
26
27
28
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from
Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML003740384.
29
30
31
32
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1991a. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Boiling Water Reactors (Generic Letter
89-01, Supplement No. 1). NUREG-1302, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML091050059.
33
34
35
36
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1991b. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors (Generic
Letter 89-01, Supplement No. 1). NUREG-1301, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML091050061.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-34
February 2023
References
1
2
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1994. Letter from I. Selin to The President dated
March 31, 1994. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML033210526.
3
4
5
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705, ML040690738.
6
7
8
9
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999a. Environmental Standard Review Plan,
Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1:
Operating License Renewal. NUREG–1555, Supplement 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML003702019.
10
11
12
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Addendum to Main Report, NUREG–1437, Volume 1,
Addendum 1. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML040690720.
13
14
15
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 1 Regarding Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power
Plant. NUREG–1437, Supplement 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML063400277.
16
17
18
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2000. Endangered Species Act - Section 7
Consultation Biological Opinion. Washington, D.C. January. ADAMS Accession No.
ML003689317.
19
20
21
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 5 Regarding Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
NUREG–1437, Final Report, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML020280236.
22
23
24
25
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 9 Regarding Catawba Nuclear Station,
Units 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG–1437, Supplement 9, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML030020316 and ML030020350.
26
27
28
29
30
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1: Regarding the Decommissioning of
Nuclear Power Reactors, Main Report - Final Report. NUREG–0586, Supplement 1, Volume 1
and 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML023470304, ML023470323,
ML023500187, ML023500211, ML023500223.
31
32
33
34
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2003a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 13: Regarding H.B. Robinson Steam
Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 13, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML033450517.
35
36
37
38
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2003b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 10 Regarding Peach Bottom Atomic Power
Station, Units 2 and 3 Final Report. NUREG–1437, Supplement 10, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML030270025, ML030270038, ML030270055.
February 2023
5-35
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004a. "Final Safety Evaluation Report Related
to Certification of the AP1000 Standard Design (NUREG-1793, Initial Report)." Washington,
D.C. Accessed June 14, 2022, at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1793/initial/index.html.
5
6
7
8
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 15: Regarding Virgil C. Summer Nuclear
Station, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 15, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML040540718.
9
10
11
12
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 17: Regarding Dresden Nuclear Power
Station, Units 2 and 3, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 17, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML041890266.
13
14
15
16
17
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004d. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook to
NRC Executive Director for Operations, dated May 13, 2004, regarding "Staff Requirements SECY-04-0055 - Plan for Evaluating Scientific Information and Radiation Protection
Recommendations." SRM-SECY-04-0055, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML041340304.
18
19
20
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004e. Policy Issue: Plan for Evaluating
Scientific Information and Radiation Protection Recommendations. SECY-04-0055 with
attachments, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Package Accession No. ML040820916.
21
22
23
24
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004f. Policy Issue: Request for Approval of
Staff Comments on the 2005 Recommendations of the International Commission on
Radiological Protection. SECY-04-0223, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML043230277.
25
26
27
28
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23 Regarding Point Beach Nuclear Plant
Units 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG–1437, Supplement 23, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML052230490.
29
30
31
32
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 21 Regarding Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
Units 1, 2, and 3. NUREG–1437, Final Report, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML051730443.
33
34
35
36
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 20, Regarding Donald C. Cook Nuclear
Plant, Units No. 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 20, Washington, D.C. May.
ADAMS Accession No. ML051150556.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-36
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 22 Regarding Millstone Power Station,
Units 2 and 3, Final Report. NUREG–1437, Supplement 22, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML051960295, ML051960299.
5
6
7
8
9
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005e. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook to
L.A. Reyes, dated January 4, 2005, regarding "Staff Requirements - SECY-04-0223 - Request
for Approval of Staff Comments on the 2005 Recommendations of the International Commission
on Radiological Protection." SRM-SECY-04-0223, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML050040487.
10
11
12
13
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005f. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook to
L.A. Reyes, dated January 4, 2005, regarding "Staff Requirements - SECY-06-0168 - Staff
Comments on the Draft Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection." SRM-SECY-06-0168, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML062350176.
14
15
16
17
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005g. Policy Issue: Staff Review of the
National Academies Study of the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation (BEIR VII). SECY-05-0202, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML052640532.
18
19
20
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006a. Frequently Asked Questions on License
Renewal of Nuclear Power Reactors, Final Report. NUREG-1850, Washington, D.C. March.
ADAMS Accession No. ML061110022.
21
22
23
24
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 24: Regarding Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station, Units 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 24, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML061290310.
25
26
27
28
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 26: Regarding Monticello Nuclear
Generating Plant, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 26, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML062490078.
29
30
31
32
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 27: Regarding Palisades Nuclear Plant,
Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 27, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML062710300.
33
34
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006e. Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons
Learned Task Force Final Report. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML083220312.
35
36
37
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006f. Occupational Radiation Exposure at
Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2005, Thirty-Eighth Annual Report.
NUREG-0713, Vol. 27, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML070600506.
February 2023
5-37
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006g. Policy Issue: Staff Comments on the
Draft Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. SECY-060168, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML061950113.
4
5
6
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007a. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for
Hope Creek Generating Station, Extended Power Uprate. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML071520463.
7
8
9
10
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 28: Regarding Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Final Report - Main Report. NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Supplement 28,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML070100234.
11
12
13
14
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 29: Regarding Pilgrim Nuclear Power
Station, Final Report - Main Report. NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Supplement 28, Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML071990020.
15
16
17
18
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 30: Regarding Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Station Final Report – Main Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 30, Volumes 1 and 2,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML072050012; ML072050013.
19
20
21
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007e. Meteorological Monitoring Programs for
Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML070350028.
22
23
24
25
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2008a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 32: Regarding Wolf Creek Generating
Station, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 32, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML081260608.
26
27
28
29
30
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2008b. Letter from J.G. Lamb to Public Service
Enterprise Group Inc. (PSEG), dated March 3, 2008, regarding "Hope Creek Generating
Station, Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to the
Proposed Extended Power Uprate (TAC NO. MD3002)." Docket No. 50-354, Hancocks Bridge,
New Jersey. ADAMS Accession No. ML080220549.
31
32
33
34
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2008c. Policy Issue: Options to Revise
Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance with Respect to the 2007 Recommendations of
the International Commission on Radiological Protection. SECY-08-0197, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML12089A650.
35
36
37
38
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 37 Regarding Beaver Valley Power Station,
Units 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG–1437, Supplement 37, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML091260011.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-38
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 37 Regarding Three Mile Island Nuclear
Station, Unit 1 Final Report. NUREG–1437, Supplement 37, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML091751063.
5
6
7
8
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants—Supplement 35 Regarding Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station Units 1 and 2. Final Report. NUREG–1437, Supplement 35, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML090700454.
9
10
11
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009d. "Memorandum and Order in the Matter of
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Tennessee Valley Authority." CLI–09–21, Rockville,
Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML093070690.
12
13
14
15
16
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009e. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook to
R.W. Borchardt, dated April 2, 2009, regarding "Staff Requirements - SECY-08-0197 - Options
to Revise Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance with Respect to the 2007
Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection." SRM-SECY08-0197, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML090920103.
17
18
19
20
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009f. Preliminary Deterministic Analysis of
Seismic Hazard at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant from Newly Identified "Shoreline Fault."
Research Information Letter RIL 09‑001. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML090330523.
21
22
23
24
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 38 Regarding Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Final Report, Main Report and Comment Responses. NUREG–
1437, Supplement 38, Volume 1. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML091260011.
25
26
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010b. Groundwater Task Force Final Report.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML101740509.
27
28
29
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010c. Memorandum from R.W. Borchardt to
Martin J. Virgilio et. al. Dated June 17, 2010, regarding "Groundwater Task Force Final Report,
June 2010." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML101680435.
30
31
32
33
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010d. "In the Matter of U.S. Department of
Energy (High Level Waste Repository): Memorandum and Order (Granting Intervention to
Petitioners and Denying Withdrawal Motion)." Docket No. 63-001-HLW, LBP-10-11, Rockville,
Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML101800299.
34
35
36
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010e. Memorandum from R.W. Borchardt, to
B.S. Mallett and C.A. Casto, dated March 5, 2010, regarding "Groundwater Contamination Task
Force." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML100640188.
February 2023
5-39
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 39 Regarding Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG–1437, Supplement 39, Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML11133A029.
5
6
7
8
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 45 Regarding Hope Creek Generating
Station and Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2—Final Report. NUREG–1437,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML11089A021.
9
10
11
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011c. Memorandum and Order in the Matter of
U.S. Department of Energy (High Level Waste Repository). LBP-11-24, Docket No. 63-001HLW, Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML11273A041.
12
13
14
15
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011d. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook to
R.W. Borchardt, dated August 15, 2011, regarding "Staff Requirements - SECY-11-0019 Senior Management Review of Overall Regulatory Approach to Groundwater Protection."
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML112270292.
16
17
18
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011e. Memorandum from Chairman Jaczko to
Commissioners Svinicki, Apostolakis, Magwood, and Ostendorff, dated March 21, 2011,
regarding "NRC Actions Following the Events in Japan." COMGBJ-11-0002, Washington, D.C.
19
20
21
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011f. Policy Issue (Information), Senior
Management Review of Overall Regulatory Approach to Groundwater Protection. SECY-110019. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML110050525.
22
23
24
25
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 47 Regarding Columbia Generating Station
Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 47, Volume 2 Appendices, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML12097A239, ML12097A258, ML12097A264, ML12097A271.
26
27
28
29
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 47 Regarding Columbia Generating Station
Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 47, Volume 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML12096A334.
30
31
32
33
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012c. Letter from A.S. Imboden to National
Marine Fisheries Service, dated March 20, 2012, regarding "Request to Initiate Abbreviated
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Proposed Extended Power Uprate at St. Lucie Plant,
Units 1 and 2 (TAC NO. ME5091)." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12053A345.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-40
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
5
6
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012d. Letter from E. Leeds to All Power
Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, dated
March 12, 2012, regarding "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3, of the Near-Term Task
Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident." Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML12053A340.
7
8
9
10
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012e. "Memorandum and Order in the Matter of
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Project, LLC; Detroit Edison Co.; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; et al.
(Received a Series of Substantively Identical Petitions to Suspend Final Licensing Decisions)."
CLI-12-16, Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML12220A096.
11
12
13
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012f. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook to
R.W. Borchardt, dated May 24, 2012, regarding "Staff Requirements - SECY-12-0046 - Options
for Revising the Regulatory Approach to Ground Water Protection." Washington, D.C.
14
15
16
17
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012g. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook to
R.W. Borchardt, dated September 6, 2012, regarding "Staff Requirements—COMSECY–12–
0016—Approach for Addressing Policy Issues Resulting from Court Decision to Vacate Waste
Confidence Decision and Rule." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12250A032.
18
19
20
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012h. Policy Issue Notation Vote: Options for
Revising the Regulatory Approach to Ground Water Protection. SECY-12-0046, Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12025A113.
21
22
23
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012i. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence
Analyses (SOARCA) Report. NUREG–1935, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML12332A057.
24
25
26
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [GEIS]. NUREG–1437, Revision 1, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Package Accession No. ML13107A023.
27
28
29
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 48, Regarding South Texas Project, Units 1
and 2, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML13322A890.
30
31
32
33
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013c. Memorandum from K.R. Hart to M.A.
Satorius, dated December 20, 2013, regarding "Staff Requirements - SECY-12-0108 - Staff
Recommendations for Addressing Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operations."
Washington, D.C.
34
35
36
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013d. Policy Issue Notation Vote: Staff
Recommendation for Addressing Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During Operations.
SECY-13-0108, Washington, D.C.
February 2023
5-41
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014a. Email from B.A. Grange to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, dated June 17, 2014, regarding "Davis Besse Operating License Renewal."
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14168A616.
4
5
6
7
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014b. Letter from D.J. Wrona to Greater
Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, dated July 24, 2014, regarding "Essential Fish Habitat
Assessment for License Renewal of the Limerick Generating Stations, Units 1 and 2." Docket
Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14195A346.
8
9
10
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Final Report, NUREG–2157, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Package Accession No. ML14198A440.
11
12
13
14
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 49: Regarding Limerick Generating
Station, Units 1 and 2, Chapters 1 to 12, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 49, Volumes
1 and 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14238A284, ML14238A290.
15
16
17
18
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014e. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 50: Regarding Grand Gulf Nuclear Station,
Unit 1, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 50, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML14328A171.
19
20
21
22
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014f. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 51: Regarding Callaway Plant, Unit 1, Final
Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 51, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML14289A140.
23
24
25
26
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014g. Letter from D.J. Wrona to L. Chiarella,
dated August 27, 2014, regarding "Response to Essential Fish Habitat Conservation
Recommendation for License Renewal of the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2."
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14233A270.
27
28
29
30
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015a. Biological Assessment on the Northern
Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis), Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Units 2 and 3, Proposed License Renewal. Docket Numbers 50-247 and 50-286,
Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML15161A086.
31
32
33
34
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 46: Regarding Seabrook Station, Final
Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 46, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML15209A575, ML15209A870.
35
36
37
38
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 54: Regarding Byron Station, Units 1 and
2, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 54, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML15196A263.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-42
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 55: Regarding Braidwood Station, Units 1
and 2, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 55, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML15314A814.
5
6
7
8
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015e. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 52: Regarding Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 52, Volume 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML15112A098.
9
10
11
12
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015f. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 53: Regarding Sequoyah Nuclear Plant,
Units 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 53, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML15075A438.
13
14
15
16
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016a. Final Report Supplement to the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye
County, Nevada. NUREG-2184, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML16125A032.
17
18
19
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016b. Environmental Impact Statement for
Combined Licenses (COLs) for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7. NUREG-2176,
Volume 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML16300A104.
20
21
22
23
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 56: Regarding Fermi 2, Nuclear Power
Plant, Final Report, Chapter 1 to 8. NUREG–1437, Volume 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML16259A103.
24
25
26
27
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 57: Regarding LaSalle County Station,
Units 1 and 2. Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 57. Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML16238A029.
28
29
30
31
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016e. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook to
V.M. McCree, dated December 21, 2016, regarding "Staff Requirements - SECY-16-0121 - Staff
Recommendations for Rulemaking to Address Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During
Operation." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML16356A583.
32
33
34
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016f. Policy Issue: Proposed Resolution of
Remaining Tier 2 and 3 Recommendations Resulting from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident.
SECY-15-0144, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML16286A552.
35
36
37
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016g. Rulemaking Issue Notation Vote: Staff
Recommendations for Rulemaking to Address Remediation of Residual Radioactivity During
Operation. SECY-16-0121, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML16235A298.
February 2023
5-43
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017. Memorandum to V.M. McCree from A.L.
Vietti-Cook, dated May 3, 2017, regarding "Staff Requirements – SECY-16-0144 – Proposed
Resolution of Remaining Tier 2 and 3 Recommendations Resulting From the Fukushima Daiichi Accident." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML17123A453.
5
6
7
8
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018a. Biological Evaluation of Impacts to
Northern Long-Eared Bat, Rufa Red Knot, Piping Plover, and Roseate Tern, Seabrook Station,
Unit 1, Proposed License Renewal to Operating License No. NPF-86. Docket No. 50-443,
Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML18186A692.
9
10
11
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018b. Environmental Impact Statement for an
Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Clinch River Nuclear Site, Draft Report for Comment. NUREG2226, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18100A220.
12
13
14
15
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 58: Regarding River Bend Station, Unit 1
Final. NUREG-1437, Supplement 58, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML18310A072.
16
17
18
19
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 59: Regarding Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 59, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML18323A103.
20
21
22
23
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018e. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Supplement 38: Regarding Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3. Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Volume 5,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18107A759.
24
25
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018f. Status of the Decommissioning Program
2018 Annual Report. Washington, D.C. November. ADAMS Accession No. ML18257A301.
26
27
28
29
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019a. Biological Assessment of Impacts to Sea
Turtles and Smalltooth Sawfish St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Continued Operations Under
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16. Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50389, Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML19093A064.
30
31
32
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019b. Environmental Impact Statement for an
Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Clinch River Nuclear Site. NUREG-2226, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Package Accession ML19087A266.
33
34
35
36
37
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 5, Second Renewal, Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4. NUREG1437, Supplement 5, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML19290H346.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-44
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
5
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 6, Second Renewal: Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for
Comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 6, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML19274C676.
6
7
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019e. "Greater-Than-Class C and Transuranic
Waste." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21145A383.
8
9
10
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019f. Occupational Radiation Exposure at
Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and other Facilities 2017, Fiftieth Annual Report.
NUREG-0173, Volume 39. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19091A130.
11
12
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020a. 2020–2021 Information Digest. NUREG1350, Volume 32, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20282A632.
13
14
15
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020b. "Biological Opinion for Oyster Creek
Generating Station Shutdown and Decommissioning." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML20153A226.
16
17
18
NRC (U.S. Regulatory Commission). 2020c. "Design Certification Application for New
Reactors." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors/design-cert.html.
19
20
21
22
23
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020d. Letter from NRC to J.M. Welsch at
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, dated May 8, 2020, regarding "Diablo Canyon Power Plant,
Unit Nos. 1 and 2 – Documentation of the Completion of Required Actions Taken in Response
to the Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident." Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML20093B934.
24
25
26
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020e. "Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for In Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities (NUREG-1910)." Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML21145A382.
27
28
29
30
31
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020f. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 6, Second Renewal: Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG1437, Supplement 6, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML20071D538.
32
33
34
35
36
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020g. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 10, Second Renewal, Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Final
Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML20023A937.
37
38
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020h. "Low-Level Waste Disposal."
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21145A388.
February 2023
5-45
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020i. Occupational Radiation Exposure at
Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2018, Fifty-First Annual Report.
NUREG-0713, Volume 40, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20087J424.
4
5
6
7
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020j. "Public Scoping Meeting to Discuss the
Review and Potential Update of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants - Final Report (LR GEIS)." August 27, 2020, Webinar
Corrected Transcript, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Package Accession No. ML20296A250.
8
9
10
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020k. "Typical Dry Cask Storage System."
Washington, D.C. Accessed June 2, 2022, at https://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuelstorage/diagram-typical-dry-cask-system.html.
11
12
13
14
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021a. LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2,
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Related to a Requested
Revise the Ultimate Heat Sink Technical Specifications. NRC-2021-0034. U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21008A328.
15
16
17
18
19
20
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021b. Letter from J.S. Wiebe, Senior Project
Manager, to D.P. Rhoades, Senior Vice President, Exelon Generation Company, LLC dated
June 30, 2021, regarding "Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 - Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact Related to a Requested Increase in Ultimate Heat Sink
Temperature." EPID: L-2021-LLA-0095. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML21008A328.
21
22
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021c. 2021-2022 Information Digest. NUREG1350, Volume 33. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21300A280.
23
24
25
26
27
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021d. "Appendix B to Part 20—Annual Limits
on Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational
Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage." Washington,
D.C. Accessed February 21, 2022, at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/cfr/part020/part020-appb.html.
28
29
30
31
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021e. Environmental Impact Statement Scoping
Process Summary Report Review and Update of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Rockville, Maryland. ADAMS Accession
No. ML21039A576.
32
33
34
35
36
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021f. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23: Second Renewal Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for
Comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML21306A226.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-46
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
5
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021g. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7, Second Renewal: Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for
Comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 7, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML21228A084.
6
7
8
9
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021h. Letter from S.R. Helton to J.D. Isakson,
dated September 13, 2021, regarding "Issuance of Materials License No. SNM-2515 for the
WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (Docket
No. 72-1050)." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21188A096.
10
11
12
13
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021i. "Licensed and Operating Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installations by State." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 2, 2022, at
https://www.nrc.gov/images/reading-rm/doc-collections/maps/isfsi-facility-types-withoutsites.png.
14
15
16
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021j. List of Leaks and Spills at Operating U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants October, 2021. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML21278A082.
17
18
19
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021k. "Plant Sites with Licensed Radioactive
Material in Groundwater." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 13, 2022, at
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/sites-grndwtr-contam.html.
20
21
22
23
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021l. Policy Issue Notation Vote: Rulemaking
Plan For Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses – Environmental Review (RIN
3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296). SECY-21-0066, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML20364A007.
24
25
26
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021m. "Power Reactor Status Report for
August 24, 2014." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 26, 2022, at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-status/2014/20140824ps.html.
27
28
29
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021n. "Power Reactor Status Report for August
28, 2018. "Washington, D.C. Accessed May 26, 2022, at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/event-status/reactor-status/2018/20180828ps.html.
30
31
32
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021o. "Power Reactor Status Report for July 1,
2012." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 26, 2022, at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/event-status/reactor-status/2012/20120701ps.html.
33
34
35
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021p. "Power Reactor Status Report for July
25, 2016." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 26, 2022, at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/event-status/reactor-status/2016/20160725ps.html.
36
37
38
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021q. Seismic Hazard Evaluations for U.S.
Nuclear Power Plants: Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Results. NUREG/KM0017, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21344A126.
February 2023
5-47
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021r. Status of the Decommissioning Program
2021 Annual Report. Washington, D.C. November. ADAMS Accession No. ML21280A402.
3
4
5
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022a. "Design Certification Application –
NuScale." Washington, D.C. Available at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors/smr/nuscale.html.
6
7
8
9
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022b. Memorandum from D.H. Dorman to The
Commissioners, dated March 25, 2022, regarding "Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear
Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC 2018-0296)."
SECY-22-0024, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML22062B643.
10
11
12
13
14
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022c. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook to
D.H. Dorman, dated February 24, 2022, regarding "Staff Requirements – SECY-21-0066 –
Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses – Environmental
Review (RIN 3150 AK32; NRC 2018 0296)." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML22053A308.
15
16
17
18
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022d. Memorandum from B.P. Clark to
D.H. Dorman, dated April 5, 2022, regarding "Staff Requirements - SECY-22-0024 - Rulemaking
Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review (RIN 3150AK32; NRC 2018-0296)." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML22096A035.
19
20
21
22
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023. Standard Review Plans for Environmental
Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, Draft Report for
Comment. NUREG–1555, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML22165A070.
23
24
25
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 1997. The Environmental Costs and Benefits
of Biomass Energy Use in California. NREL/SR-430-22765, UC Category 600, DE97000254,
Golden, Colorado. Accessed June 9, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.2172/481490.
26
27
28
29
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2003. Biopower Technical Assessment:
State of the Industry and the Technology. NREL/TP-510-33123, U.S. Department of Energy,
Golden, Colorado. March. Accessed June 2, 2022, at
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33123.pdf.
30
31
32
33
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2004. Biomass Power and Conventional
Fossil Systems with and without CO2 Sequestration – Comparing the Energy Balance,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economics. NREL/SR-430-22765, Golden, Colorado.
Accessed June 9, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.2172/15006537.
34
35
36
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2011. A Review of Operational Water
Consumption and Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies. NREL/TP–
6A20–50900, Golden, Colorado. ADAMS Accession No. ML14286A088.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-48
February 2023
References
1
2
3
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures Study.
NREL/TP-6A20-52409, 4 Volumes, Golden, Colorado. Accessed June 15, 2022, at
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/52409-ES.pdf.
4
5
6
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2016. Water-Related Power Plant
Curtailments: An Overview of Incidents and Contributing Factors. NREL/TP-6A20-67084,
Golden, Colorado.
7
8
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Undated. "Concentrating Solar Power."
Golden, Colorado. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.nrel.gov/csp/index.html.
9
10
11
12
NSP (Northern States Power Company). 1978. Environmental Monitoring Program and
Ecological Studies Program, 1978 Annual Report, Volume 1, Prairie Island Nuclear Generating
Plant. Volume 1. Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota. ADAMS
Accession No. ML19246A546.
13
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. 42 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq.
14
15
NuScale (NuScale Power LLC). 2022. "Frequently Asked Questions: NuScale FAQS."
Portland, Oregon. Available at https://www.nuscalepower.com/about-us/faq.
16
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended. 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.
17
18
19
20
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus Regarding Aiken County, et al., Petitioners, State of Nevada,
Intervenor 11-1271 (D.C. Cir) Opinion Granting Writ. USCA Case #11-1271, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Decision, August 13, 2013. ADAMS Accession No.
ML13234A460.
21
22
Orsted. Undated. "Our Offshore Wind Projects in the U.S." Boston, Massachusetts. Accessed
June 12, 2022, at https://us.orsted.com/wind-projects.
23
24
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 2015. "Information Sheet: Health
Effects from Contaminated Water in Eyewash Stations." Washington, D.C.
25
26
27
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Undated. "Legionellosis (Legionnaires’
Disease and Pontiac Fever), Hazard Recognition." Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12, 2022,
at https://www.osha.gov/legionnaires-disease/hazards.
28
29
30
31
32
33
OSHA/NRC (Occupational Safety and Health Administration/U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission). 2013. "Memorandum of Understanding Between The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and The Occupational Safety and Health Administration." Washington, D.C.
Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/mou/2013-0906#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this%20Memorandum,to%20achieve%20worker%20prot
ection%20at.
34
35
36
Parker, P.L., and T.F. King. 1998. "Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional
Cultural Properties." National Register Bulletin 38, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML13011A335.
February 2023
5-49
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
Partridge, TF, J.M. Winter, E.C. Osterberg, D.W. Hyndman, A.D. Kendall, and F.J. Magilligan.
2018. "Spatially Distinct Seasonal Patterns and Forcings of the U.S. Warming Hole."
Geophysical Research Letters 45(4):2055–2063. DOI: 10.1002/2017GL076463. Washington,
D.C. Accessed May 17, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076463.
5
6
7
8
Paton, P.W.C. 1994. "The Effect of Edge on Avian Nest Success: How Strong Is the
Evidence?" Conservation Biology 8(1):17–26. DOI:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1994.08010017.x.
Hoboken, New Jersey. Accessed June 9, 2022, at https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.15231739.1994.08010017.x.
9
10
11
12
Petersen, W., E. Willer, and C. Williamowski. 1997. "Remobilization of Trace Elements from
Polluted Anoxic Sediments After Resuspension in Oxic Water." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution
99(1-4):515-522. DOI:10.1007/BF02406891. Cham, Switzerland. Accessed June 13, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02406891.
13
14
15
16
17
Petersen, M.D., A.M. Shumway, P.M. Powers, C.S. Mueller, M.P. Moschetti, A.D. Frankel, S.
Rezaeian, D.E. McNamara, N. Luco, O.S. Boyd, K.S. Rukstales, K.S. Jaiswal, E.M. Thompson,
S.M. Hoover, B.S. Clayton, E.H. Field, and Y. Zeng. 2020. "The 2018 update of the U.S.
National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview of model and implications." Earthquake Spectra
36(1):5-41, Los Angeles, California.
18
19
20
21
22
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2007. Letter from J.R. Becker, Site Vice President
and Station Director, to J.G. Cordaro, Wildlife Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service dated
November 20, 2007, regarding "Enclosed is a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Marine
Mammal and Marine Turtle Stranding Report for a dead California sea lion." PG&E Letter DCL2007-553. Avila Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML073330470.
23
24
25
26
27
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2008a. Letter from J.R. Becker, Site Vice
President and Station Director, to J.G. Cordaro, Wildlife Biologist, National Marine Fisheries
Service dated February 15, 2008, regarding "Enclosed is a National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) Marine Mammal and Marine Turtle Stranding Report for a dead California sea lion."
PG&E Letter DCL-2008-508. Avila Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML080580202.
28
29
30
31
32
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2008b. Letter from J.R. Becker, Site Vice
President and Station Director, to J.G. Cordaro, Wildlife Biologist, National Marine Fisheries
Service dated July 18, 2008, regarding "Enclosed is a National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) Marine Mammal and Marine Turtle Stranding Report for Live elephant seal." PG&E
Letter DCL-2008-533. Avila Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML082140271.
33
34
35
36
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2008c. Letter from J.R. Becker, Site Vice President
and Station Director, to J.G. Cordaro, Wildlife Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service dated
June 3, 2008, regarding "Marine Mammal Stranding Report for Dead California Sea Lion."
PG&E Letter DCL-2008-521. Avila Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML081700237.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-50
February 2023
References
1
2
3
4
5
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2008d. Letter from K.J. Peters, Station Director, to
J.G. Cordaro, Wildlife Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service dated November 26, 2008,
regarding "Marine Mammal Stranding Report for Dead California Sea Lion." PG&E Letter DCL2008-557. PG&E Letter DCL-2008-521. Avila Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No.
ML083440312.
6
7
8
9
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2009a. Letter from K.J. Peters, Station Director, to
J.G. Cordaro, Wildlife Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service dated July 17, 2009,
regarding "Marine Mammal Stranding Report for Dead Harbor Seal." PG&E Letter DCL-2009527. Avila Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML092090196.
10
11
12
13
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2009b. Letter from K.J. Peters, Station Director, to
J.G. Cordaro, Wildlife Biologist, National Marine Fisheries Service dated May 27, 2009,
regarding "Marine Mammal Stranding Report for Dead Harbor Seal." PG&E Letter DCL-2009519. Avila Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML091680382.
14
15
16
17
18
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2014a. Letter from K.W. Cortese, Manager of
Chemistry and Environmental Operations, to J. Viezbicke, California Stranding Network
Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service dated June 17, 2014, regarding "Marine
Mammal Strandinq Report (Sea Lion) Diablo Canyon Power Plant." PG&E Letter DCL-2014523. Avila Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML14191A634.
19
20
21
22
23
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2014b. Letter from K.W. Cortese, Manager of
Chemistry and Environmental Operations, to J. Viezbicke, California Stranding Network
Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service dated May 19, 2014, regarding "Marine Mammal
Stranding Report (Harbor Seal) Diablo Canyon Power Plant." PG&E Letter DCL-2014-521.
Avila Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML14167A076.
24
25
26
27
28
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2015a. Letter from K.W. Cortese, Manager of
Chemistry and Environmental Operations, to J. Viezbicke, California Stranding Network
Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service dated March 17, 2015, regarding "Marine
Mammal Stranding Report (Sea Lion) Diablo Canyon Power Plant." PG&E Letter DCL-2015513. Avila Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML15097A179.
29
30
31
32
33
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2015b. Letter from K.W. Cortese, Manager of
Chemistry and Environmental Operations, to J. Viezbicke, California Stranding Network
Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service dated March 24, 2015, regarding "Marine
Mammal Stranding Report (Sea Lion) Diablo Canyon Power Plant." PG&E Letter DCL-2015517. Avila Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML15097A261.
34
35
36
37
38
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2015c. Letter from K.W. Cortese, Manager of
Chemistry and Environmental Operations, to J. Viezbicke, California Stranding Network
Coordinator, National Marine Fisheries Service dated May 27, 2015, regarding "Marine Mammal
Stranding Report (Sea Lion) Diablo Canyon Power Plant." PG&E Letter DCL-2015-525. Avila
Beach, California. ADAMS Accession No. ML15161A317.
39
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq.
February 2023
5-51
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
Popeck, R.A., and R.F. Knapp. 1981. "Measurement and Analysis of Audible Noise from
Operating 765 kV Transmission Lines." IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems,
PAS-100(4):2138-2148. The Detroit Edison Company, Detroit, Michigan.
4
5
6
Poznaniak, D.T., and T.J. Reed. 1978. "Recent Studies Examining the Biological Effects of
UHV Transmission Line Ground Gradients." Proceedings of the American Power Conference,
40:1272-1284. Chicago, Illinois.
7
8
Pruppacher, H.R., and J.D. Klett. 1980. Microphysics of Clouds and Precipitation. D. Reidel
Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland.
9
10
Raloff, J. 1998. "Something's Bugging Nuclear Fuel." Science News, 153(21):325,
Washington, D.C.
11
12
13
14
Ramsdell, J.V. Jr., C.E. Beyer, D.D. Lanning, U.P. Jenquin, R.A. Schwarz, D.L. Strenge, P.M.
Daling, and R.T. Dahowski. 2001. Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel Burnup Above
60 GWd/MTU. NUREG/CR-6703, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,
Washington. ADAMS Accession No. ML010310298.
15
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.
16
17
18
19
Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995.
"Regional Forest Fragmentation and the Nesting Success of Migratory Birds." Science
31(5206):1987–1990. DOI:10.1126/science.267.5206.1987. Washington, D.C. Accessed June
9, 2022, at https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.267.5206.1987.
20
21
22
Roffman, A., and L.D. Van Vleck. 1974. "The State-of-the-Art of Measuring and Predicting
Cooling Tower Drift and Its Deposition." Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
24(9):855-859, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
23
24
25
Rogers, L., and R. Hinds. 1983. Environmental Studies for a 1100-kV Power Line in Oregon.
A Special Report. DOE/BP-181. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland,
Washington.
26
27
28
29
Rogers, L.E., P.A. Beedlow, D.W. Carlile, and K.A. Gano. 1984. Environmental Studies of a
1100-kV Prototype Transmission Line: Effects on Trees Growing Below the Line. An Annual
Report for the 1984 Study Period. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland,
Washington.
30
31
32
Romberg, G.P., S.A. Spigarelli, W. Prepejchal, M.M. Thommes, J.W. Gibbons, and R.R. Sharitz.
1974. "Fish Behavior at a Thermal Discharge into Lake Michigan." Thermal Ecology
Symposium. CONF-730505. Aiken, South Carolina.
33
34
35
36
Roosenburg, W.H. 1969. "Greening and Copper Accumulation in the American Oyster,
Crassostrea virginica, in the Vicinity of a Steam Electric Generating Station." Chesapeake
Science 10(3):241–252. DOI: 10.2307/1350461. Berlin, Germany. Accessed May 12, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.2307/1350461.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-52
February 2023
References
1
2
3
Rothermel, B.B. 2004. "Migratory Success of Juveniles: A Potential Constraint on Connectivity
for Pond-Breeding Amphibians." Ecological Applications 14(5):1535–1546. Hoboken, New
Jersey. DOI:10.1890/03-5206. Accessed June 11, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5206.
4
5
6
Rukstales, K.S., and M.D. Petersen. 2019. "Data Release for 2018 Update of the U.S. National
Seismic Hazard Model." U.S. Geological Survey data release. December. Washington, D.C.
Accessed May 4, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.5066/P9WT5OVB.
7
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq.
8
9
10
11
Schreiber, R.K., W.C. Johnson, J.D. Story, C. Wenzel, and J.T. Kitchings. 1976. "Effects of
Power Line Rights-of-Way on Small Nongame Mammal Community Structure.” In Proceedings
of the First National Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management, pp.
264–273. Mississippi State, Mississippi.
12
13
14
15
Schubel, J.R., C.F. Smith, and T.S. Koo. 1977. "Thermal Effects of Power Plant Entrainment
on Survival of Larval Fishes: A Laboratory Assessment." Chesapeake Science 18(3):290–298.
DOI:10.2307/1350803. Cham, Switzerland. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.2307/1350803.
16
17
18
19
20
Scott-Walton, B., K.M. Clark, B.R. Holt, D.C. Jones, S.D. Kaplan, J.S. Krebs, P. Polson, R.A.
Shepherd, and J.R. Young. 1979. Potential Environmental Effects of 765-kV Transmission
Lines: Views Before the New York State Public Service Commission, Cases 26529 and 26559,
1976–1978. DOE/EV-0056, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Accessed June 1,
2022, at https://doi.org/10.2172/5766103.
21
22
23
Smallwood, K.S., D.A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. "Dogs Detect Larger Wind Energy Effects
on Bats and Birds." Journal of Wildlife Management 84(5):852-864. DOI:10.1002/jwmg.21863.
Hoboken, New Jersey. Accessed June 9, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21863.
24
25
26
Smith, J. 1999. "Zapus hudsonius: Meadow Jumping Mouse." Animal Diversity Web. Ann
Arbor, Michigan. Accessed July 28, 2022, at
https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Zapus_hudsonius/.
27
28
29
30
SNYPSC (State of New York Public Service Commission). 1978. Opinion No. 78-13, Opinion
and Order Determining Health and Safety Issues, Imposing Operating Conditions, and
Authorizing, in Case 26529, Operation Pursuant to Those Conditions. Power Authority of the
State of New York, Albany, New York.
31
32
33
34
Stachowicz, J.J., and J.E. Byrnes. 2006. "Species diversity, invasion success, and ecosystem
functioning: disentangling the influence of resource competition, facilitation, and extrinsic
factors." Marine Ecology Progress Series 311:251-262. DOI:10.3354/meps311251. Oldendorf,
Germany. Accessed June 7, 2022, at https://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps311251.
35
36
37
38
Stantial, M.L. 2014. Flight Behavior of Breeding Piping Plovers: Implications for Risk of
Collision with Wind Turbines. Master of Science Thesis, State University of New York.
Syracuse, New York. Accessed June 10, 2022, at
https://www.njfishandwildlife.org/ensp/pdf/plover-turbine_stantialthesis14.pdf.
February 2023
5-53
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
Stantial, M.L., and J.B. Cohen. 2015. "Estimating Flight Height and Flight Speed of Breeding
Piping Plover." Journal of Field Ornithology 86(4)369-377. Hoboken, New Jersey. DOI:
10.1111/jofo.12120. Accessed May 12, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1111/jofo.12120.
4
5
6
7
State of New Jersey. 2021. Air Pollution Control Operating Permit Minor Modification. New
Jersey Department of Environment Operating Permit, Hope Creek and Salem Generating
Stations, Title V, Permit Activity Number: BOP210001, Program Interest Number: 65500,
Trenton, New Jersey.
8
9
10
11
Steenhof, K., M.N. Kochert, and J.A. Roppe. 1993. "Nesting by Raptors and Common Ravens
on Electrical Transmission Line Towers." Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2):271–281.
DOI:10.2307/3809424. Hoboken, New Jersey. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.2307/3809424.
12
13
14
15
Su, S.H., L.C. Pearlman, J.A. Rothrock, T.J. Iannuzzi, and B.L. Finley. 2002. "Potential LongTerm Ecological Impacts Caused by Disturbance of Contaminated Sediments: A Case Study."
Environmental Management 29(2):234-249. DOI:10.1007/s00267-001-0005-3. Cham,
Switzerland. Accessed June 13, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-001-0005-3.
16
17
18
Summerfelt, R.C., and D. Mosier. 1976. Final Report, Evaluation of Ultrasonic Telemetry to
Track Striped Bass to Their Spawning Grounds 15 January 1974 – 30 June 1975. Stillwater,
Oklahoma.
19
20
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. 16 U.S.C. § 1801 Note. Public Law 104-297, October 11,
1996, 110 Stat. 3559.
21
22
23
Taylor, W.K., and M.A. Kershner. 1986. "Migrant Birds Killed at the Vehicle Assembly Building
(VAB), John F. Kennedy Space Center." Journal of Field Ornithology 57:142-154. Portland,
Maine. Accessed June 14, 2022, at https://sora.unm.edu/node/51254.
24
25
26
Temme, M., and W.B. Jackson. 1979. "Cooling Towers as Obstacles in Bird Migrations." In
Proceedings of the 8th Bird Control Seminar. pp. 111-118. Stevens Point, Wisconsin.
Accessed June 11, 2022, at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdmbirdcontrol/16/.
27
28
Tetra Tech. 2010. Cooling Tower Noise, Plume and Drift Abatement Costs, Technical
Memorandum. AR-330. Fairfax, Virginia.
29
30
31
32
The White House. 2010. "Presidential Memorandum - Blue Ribbon Commission on America's
Nuclear Future." Washington, D.C. Accessed June 13, 2022, at
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-blue-ribboncommission-americas-nuclear-future.
33
34
35
36
Thorne, J.H., R. Boynton, L. Flint, A. Flint, and T. N'goc Le. 2012. Development and
Application of Downscale Hydroclimatic Predictor Variable for Use in Climate Vulnerability and
Assessment Studies. CEC-500-2012-010. California Energy Commission, Sacramento,
California. Accessed May 25, 2022, at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/160016sh.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-54
February 2023
References
1
2
3
Todar, K. 2004. "Pseudomonas aeruginosa." In Todar’s Online Textbook of Bacteriology.
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Bacteriology, Madison, Wisconsin. Accessed
June 12, 2022, at http://textbookofbacteriology.net/pseudomonas.html.
4
Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended. 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.
5
6
7
8
9
TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority). 2013. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, License
Renewal Application, Appendix E, Applicant’s Environmental Report, Operating License
Renewal Stage. Chattanooga, Tennessee: TVA. January 7, 2013. ADAMS Nos.
ML13024A012, ML13024A013, ML13024A006, ML13024A007, ML13024A008, ML13024A009,
and ML13024A010.
10
11
12
13
Tyndall, R.L. 1982. Presence of Pathogenic Microorganisms in Power Plant Cooling Waters,
Report for October 1, 1979 to September 30, 1981. NUREG/CR-2980, ORNL/TM-8523, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6738834-presencepathogenic-microorganisms-power-plant-cooling-waters-report-october-september.
14
15
16
Tyndall, R.L. 1983. Presence of Pathogenic Microorganisms in Power Plant Cooling Waters,
Final Report for October 1, 1981 to June 30, 1983. NUREG/CR-3364, ORNL/TM-8809, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. ADAMS Accession No. ML20080C001.
17
18
Tyndall, R.L. 1985. Legionnaires' Disease Bacteria in Power Plant Cooling Systems: Phase 2.
EPRI EA-4017, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. ADAMS Accession No. ML093240284.
19
20
21
22
23
UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). 2010.
"Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly
with Scientific Annexes. Volume 1: Sources." New York, New York. Available at
https://www.unscear.org/unscear/uploads/documents/unscearreports/UNSCEAR_2008_Report_Vol.I-CORR.pdf.
24
25
USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). Undated. "Geographic Entities and Concepts, Geography
Division." Washington, D.C.
26
27
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2019. "Web Soil Survey, Home." Washington, D.C.
Accessed May 9, 2022, at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm.
28
29
30
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2021. "Gridded National Soil Survey Geographic
(gNATSGO) Database for the Conterminous United States." Washington, D.C. Accessed June
10, 2022, at https://nrcs.app.box.com/v/soils.
31
32
33
USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in
the United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (editors). Cambridge University
Press, New York, New York. ADAMS Accession No. ML100580077.
34
35
36
37
USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the
United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W.
Yohe (eds.). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML14129A233.
February 2023
5-55
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
References
1
2
3
4
USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2017. Climate Science Special Report:
Fourth National Climate Assessment. Volume I. D.J. Wuebbles, D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard,
D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML19008A410. DOI: 10.7930/J0J964J6.
5
6
7
8
USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2018. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in
the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment. Volume II. D.R. Reidmiller, C.W.
Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.).
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19008A414. DOI: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.
9
10
11
12
13
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1999. Ecological Status and Trends of the Upper Mississippi
River System 1998: A Report of the Long Term Resources Monitoring Program. LTRMP 99T001, U.S. Geological Survey, Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, La Crosse,
Wisconsin. Accessed May 17, 2022, at
https://www.umesc.usgs.gov/reports_publications/status_and_trends.html.
14
15
16
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2008. Assessment of Moderate- and High-Temperature
Geothermal Resources of the United States. Fact Sheet 2008–3082, Menlo Park, California.
Accessed June 12, 2022, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/pdf/fs2008-3082.pdf.
17
18
19
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2019a. "NLCD 2019 Land Cover (CONUS)." Multi-Resolution
Land Characteristics Consortium Project. Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Accessed May 6, 2022,
at https://www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2019-land-cover-conus.
20
21
22
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2019b. Withdrawal and Consumption of Water by
Thermoelectric Power Plants in the United States, 2015. M.A. Harris and T.H. Diehl (eds.).
Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5103, Reston, Virginia.
23
24
25
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2021. "The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale." Washington,
D.C. Accessed May 31, 2022, at https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/modifiedmercalli-intensity-scale.
26
27
28
29
30
Varfalvy, L., R.D. Dallaire, P.S. Maruvada, and N. Rivest. 1985. "Measurement and Statistical
Analysis of Ozone from HVDC and HVAC Transmission Lines." IEEE Transactions on Power
Apparatus and Systems PAS- 104(10):2789 - 2797. DOI: 10.1109/TPAS.1985.319122.
Piscataway, New Jersey. Accessed May 16, 2022, at
https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPAS.1985.319122.
31
32
33
Vér, I.L., and L.L. Beranek. 2005. Noise and Vibration Control Engineering: Principles and
Applications. Second Edition, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available at
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9780470172568.
34
35
36
37
Weaver, S.P., A.K. Jones, C.D. Hein, and I. Castro-Arellano. 2020. "Estimating bat fatality at a
Texas wind energy facility: implications transcending the United States–Mexico border."
Journal of Mammalogy 101(6):1533–1541. DOI:10.1093/jmammal/gyaa132. Oxford, United
Kingdom. Accessed June 7, 2020 at https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyaa132.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
5-56
February 2023
References
1
2
3
Wertheimer, N., and E. Leeper. 1979. "Electrical Wiring Configurations and Childhood
Cancer." American Journal of Epidemiology, 109(3):273–284. Oxford, England. Accessed
June 12, 2022, at https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112681.
4
5
6
WHO (World Health Organization). 2020. "What are Electromagnetic Fields?" Geneva,
Switzerland. Accessed October 1, 2020, at https://www.who.int/pehemf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index3.html.
7
8
9
10
Wilber, D.H., D.G. Clarke, and M.H. Burlas. 2006. "Suspended Sediment Concentrations
Associated with a Beach Nourishment Project on the Northern Coast of New Jersey." Journal of
Coastal Research 22(5):1035-1042. DOI:10.2112/04-0268.1. Accessed June 8, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.2112/04-0268.1.
11
12
13
Wilcove, D.S. 1988. "Changes in the Avifauna of the Great Smoky Mountains: 1947–1983."
Wilson Bulletin 100(2):256–271. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Accessed June 9, 2022, at
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4162565.
14
15
16
Wiser, R., and M. Bolinger. 2019. 2018 Winder Technologies Market Report. Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C. Accessed June 12, 2022, at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2018-wind-technologies-market-report.
17
18
19
20
Wolff, J.O., E.M. Schauber, and W.D. Edge. 1997. "Effects of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
on the Behavior and Demography of Gray-Tailed Voles." Conservation Biology 11(4):945–956.
DOI:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96136.x. Hoboken, New Jersey. Accessed June 11, 2022, at
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96136.x.
21
22
23
Worden, C.B., E.M. Thompson, M. Hearne, and D.J. Wald. 2020. ShakeMap 4 Manual. Online
Manual, Technical Manual, User's Guide, and Software Guide, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
Virginia. Accessed May 31, 2022, at DOI: https://doi.org/10.5066/F7D21VPQ.
24
25
26
Wright, T., J. Tomlinson, T. Schueler, K. Cappiella, A. Kitchell, and D. Hirschman. 2006. Direct
and Indirect Impacts of Urbanization on Wetland Quality. Center for Watershed Protection.
Ellicott City, Maryland. ADAMS Accession No. ML091520194.
27
28
29
WSEC (Wind Science and Engineering Center). 2006. Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF-Scale),
Revision 2. Submitted to The National Weather Service and Other Interested Users. Lubbock,
Texas.
30
31
32
33
34
Zimmerling, J.R., A.C. Pomeroy, M.V. d’Entremont, and C.M. Francis. 2013. "Canadian
Estimate of Bird Mortality Due to Collisions and Direct Habitat Loss Associated with Wind
Turbine Developments." Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):10. DOI:10.5751/ACE-00609080210. Nova Scotia, Canada. Accessed June 7, 2022, at http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE00609-080210.
February 2023
5-57
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
6.0
1
LIST OF PREPARERS
2
3
4
5
This revision of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS) was prepared by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in
the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (see Table 6-1) with assistance from other
NRC organizations, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Table 6-2).
6
Table 6-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Preparers
Name
Education/Expertise
Contribution
Beth Alferink
M.S., Environmental Engineering;
M.S., Nuclear Engineering;
B.S., Nuclear Engineering; 25 years of national
laboratory, industry, and government experience
including radiation detection and measurements,
nuclear power plant emergency response,
operations, health physics, decommissioning,
shielding and criticality
Human Health; Waste
Management;
Decommissioning
Briana Arlene
Masters Certification, National Environmental
Policy Act;
B.S., Conservation Biology; 16 years of
experience in ecological impact analysis,
Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations,
and Essential Fish Habitat consultations
Aquatic Resources;
Terrestrial Resources;
Federally Protected
Ecological Resources
Phyllis Clark
M.S., Nuclear Engineering;
M.B.A., Business Administration;
B.S., Physics; 39 years of industry and
government experience including nuclear power
plant and production reactor operations, systems
engineering, reactor engineering, fuels
engineering, criticality analysis, safety analysis,
nuclear power plant emergency response, and
project management
Waste Management;
Uranium Fuel Cycle;
Human Health
Jennifer Davis
B.A., Historic Preservation and Classical
Civilization (Archaeology); 5 years of
archaeological fieldwork; 20 years of experience
in NEPA compliance, project management,
cultural resources impact analysis, and National
Historic Preservation Act Section 106
consultations
Project Manager; Historic
and Cultural Resources
Jerry Dozier
M.S., Reliability Engineering;
M.B.A., Business Administration;
B.S., Mechanical Engineering; 30 years of
experience including operations, reliability
engineering, technical reviews, and NRC branch
management
Postulated Accidents;
Severe Accident
Mitigation Alternatives
February 2023
6-1
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
List of Preparers
Name
1
2
Education/Expertise
Contribution
Kevin Folk
M.S., Environmental Biology;
B.A., Geoenvironmental Studies; 33 years of
experience in NEPA compliance; geologic,
hydrologic, and water quality impacts analysis;
utility infrastructure analysis, environmental
regulatory compliance; and water supply and
wastewater discharge permitting
Project Manager;
Geologic Environment;
Water Resources;
Cumulative Effects;
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Lifeng Guo
Ph.D., M.S., Geology;
B.S., Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology;
Certified Professional Geologist; over 30 years of
combined experience in hydrogeologic
investigation, remediation, and research
Water Resources
Bob Hoffman
B.S., Environmental Resource Management;
35 years of experience in NEPA compliance,
environmental impact assessment, alternatives
identification and development, and energy
facility siting
Alternatives;
Meteorology, Air Quality,
and Noise; Historic and
Cultural Resources
Nancy Martinez
B.S., Earth and Environmental Science;
A.M., Earth and Planetary Science; 9 years of
experience in environmental impact analysis
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; Meteorology,
Air Quality, and Noise;
Socioeconomic
Resources;
Environmental Justice;
Water Resources
Don Palmrose
B.S., Nuclear Engineering;
M.S., Nuclear Engineering;
Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering; 35 years of
experience including operations on U.S. Navy
nuclear powered surface ships, technical safety
and NEPA analyses, nuclear authorization basis
support for DOE, and NRC project management
Uranium Fuel Cycle;
Postulated Accidents;
Severe Accident
Mitigation Alternatives;
Human Health
Jeffrey Rikhoff
B.A., English;
M.S., Development Economics;
M.R.P., Regional Planning; 42 years of industry
and government experience including 35 years in
NEPA compliance, comprehensive land use and
development planning, energy facility siting and
permitting, socioeconomics, and environmental
justice impact analysis, and historic and cultural
resource impacts
Land Use;
Socioeconomics;
Environmental Justice;
Alternatives; Cumulative
Effects; Termination of
Reactor Operations and
Decommissioning
DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; NRC = U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision2
6-2
February 2023
List of Preparers
Table 6-2 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory(a) Preparers
1
Name
Education/Expertise
Contribution
Dave Anderson
B.S., Forest Resources;
M.S., Forest Economics; 25 years of experience
in NEPA compliance, socioeconomics, and
environmental justice impact analysis
Socioeconomic
Resources;
Environmental Justice
Teresa Carlon
B.S., Information Technology; 25 years
SharePoint Administer and database experience
Reference Coordinator
Garill Coles
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 30 years of
nuclear safety analysis, Probabilistic Risk
Assessment, risk research, and review of riskinformed applications for NRC
Postulated Accidents;
Severe Accident
Mitigation Alternatives
Caitlin Condon
B.S., Environmental Health and Industrial
Hygiene;
Ph.D., Radiation Health Physics; 3 years of
experience in NEPA compliance in human
health, waste management/fuel cycle, and
decommissioning
Human Health; Waste
Management/Fuel Cycle;
Decommissioning
Susan Ennor
B.J., Journalism; more than 40 years of
experience in full-spectrum communications and
document production services
Document production,
technical
editing/formatting
Julia Flaherty
B.S., Civil Engineering;
M.S., Environmental Engineering; 17 years of
experience in boundary layer meteorology,
emergency response, project management, and
NEPA
Meteorology, Air Quality,
and Noise
Harish Gadey
B.S., Mechanical Engineering;
M.S., Nuclear Engineering;
Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering (Health Physics
Minor); 6 years of experience in radiation
detection, simulations, and spent fuel analysis
Human Health; Waste
Management/Fuel Cycle;
Decommissioning
Dave Goodman
B.S., Economics;
J.D., Law; 12 years of experience in NEPA
compliance, land use and visual resources,
noise, and alternatives
Land Use and Visual
Resources; Noise;
Alternatives
Ellen Kennedy
B.A., Anthropology;
M.A., Anthropology; 25 years of experience in
NEPA and NHPA Section 106 assessment and
consultation, and Tribal Nation engagement
Historic and Cultural
Resources
Kim Leigh
B.S., Environmental Science; 20 years of
experience in NEPA compliance, project
management, and human health
Deputy Team Lead;
Human Health
February 2023
6-3
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
List of Preparers
Name
Education/Expertise
Contribution
Philip Meyer
B.A., Physics;
M.S., Civil Engineering;
Ph.D., Civil Engineering; 30 years of experience
in the application of hydrologic principles to the
solution of environmental and engineering
problems, including 13 years of NEPA
experience in water, soil, and geological
resources impact evaluations
Groundwater Resources;
Geological Environment;
Cooling Water Systems
Ann Miracle
B.A., Biology;
M.S., Population Genetics;
Ph.D., Molecular Genetics; 12 years of
experience in NEPA compliance and 25 years in
ecological resources
Ecological Resources
Sadie Montgomery
B.S., Mathematics; 12 years of experience in GIS
data processing, visualizations, and mapping
Geographic Information
Systems
Jon Napier
B.S., Environmental Science;
Ph.D. and M.S. in Radiation Health Physics;
3 years of experience in Radiological Air
Monitoring Inspection and Licensing, 2 years of
experience in Occupational Health Physics,
1 year experience in NEPA compliance, human
health, waste management/fuel cycle, and
decommissioning
Human Health; Waste
Management/Fuel Cycle;
Decommissioning
Tara O’Neil
B.A., Anthropology;
MBA, Business Administration; 30 years of
experience project management, NEPA
compliance, environmental impact assessment,
cultural resource compliance, NHPA Section 106
consultation, Tribal engagement
Historic and Cultural
Resources; Program
Management
Mike Parker
B.S., English Literature and Creative Writing;
25 years of experience copyediting, document
design, and formatting and 20 years of
experience in technical editing
Technical Editing
Rajiv Prasad
B.E., Civil Engineering;
Master in Technology, Hydraulic and Water
Resources Engineering;
Ph.D., Civil and Environmental Engineering;
25 years of experience in applying hydrologic
principles to water resources engineering,
hydrologic design, flooding assessments,
environmental engineering, and impacts
assessment including 15 years of experience in
NEPA environmental assessments of surface
water resources
Water Resources
Bo Saulsbury
B.A., History;
M.S., Planning; 35 years of experience in NEPA
environmental assessment, land use,
socioeconomics, and alternatives
Alternatives
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision2
6-4
February 2023
List of Preparers
Name
1
2
3
4
5
Education/Expertise
Contribution
Kacoli Sen
B.S., Zoology;
M.S., Zoology (Ecology specialization);
Ph.D., Cancer Biology,
Diploma in Environmental Law; 3 years postdoctoral experience in cancer nanotherapeutics;
and 3 years of editing experience
Document Production;
Technical
Editing/Formatting;
References
Steven Short
M.S., Nuclear Engineering;
M.B.A., Business Administration;
B.S., Nuclear Engineering; 38 years of
experience including nuclear safety analysis,
probabilistic risk assessment, technical reviews
of risk-informed license amendment requests
and severe accident mitigation alternative
analyses
Postulated Accidents;
Severe Accident
Mitigation Alternatives
Kazi Tamaddun
B.S., Civil Engineering;
M.B.A., Business Administration;
M.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering;
Ph.D., Civil and Environmental Engineering;
8 years of experience in hydrologic, hydraulic,
ecosystem, and water systems modeling; hydroclimatology; climate change modeling and
analysis
Water Resources
Kenneth Thomas
B.S., Mathematics;
M.S., Mathematics;
35 years of experience in operations in Navy
nuclear and conventional powered surface ships,
and teaching at Naval Nuclear Power Training
Command; training, operations, and emergency
preparedness at two commercial nuclear power
plants; nuclear reactor licensing, policy and
rulemaking at the NRC; and emergency
management policy at NNSA
Senior Advisor; Nuclear
power plant operations
and infrastructure
Katie Wagner
B.S., Biology;
M.S., Biology; 12 years of experience in project
management and aquatic ecology; 8 years of
experience in NEPA compliance and ecological
resources
Team Lead; Ecological
Resources
DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; GIS = geographic information system; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969; NHPA = National Historic Preservation Act; NNSA = National Nuclear Security Administration; NRC = U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is managed for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial
Institute.
February 2023
6-5
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
7.0
1
DISTRIBUTION LIST
2
George Brozowski
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6
3
4
Glenn Corbin
Texas Department of State Health Services, Radiation Control
Program
5
Cliff Custer
Preferred Licensing Services, Inc.
6
Lloyd Generette
EPA, Region 4
7
Arun Kapur
Duke Energy
8
Peter Kissinger
Nuclear Energy Institute
9
Thomas Lentz
Energy Harbor
10
Tony Leshinskie
Vermont Public Service Department
11
Beckie Maddox
Exelon
12
Lisa Matis
Tetra Tech
13
Alexandra McCleary
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California
14
Richard Orthen
Private Citizen
15
Joseph Rustick
EPA
16
17
Maggie Sager
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Fisheries
18
Jay Santillan
EPA
19
Daniel Schultheisz
EPA
20
Alberto Sifuentes
Federal Emergency Management Agency
21
Amanetta Somerville
EPA, Region 4
22
Allison Stalker
Exelon Generation
23
Robert Tomiak
EPA, Office of Federal Activities
24
Rachel Turney-Work
Enercon Services, Inc.
25
Steve Vance
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
February 2023
7-1
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8.0
1
GLOSSARY
2
3
absorbed dose: The energy imparted by ionizing radiation per unit mass of tissue. The units
of absorbed dose are the rad and the gray (Gy).
4
acid: A solution with a potential of hydrogen (pH) measurement less than 7.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
acid rain: Also called acid precipitation or acid deposition, acid rain is precipitation containing
harmful amounts of nitric and sulfuric acids formed from the smokestacks of coal and oil burning
power plants and from nitrogen oxides emitted by motor vehicles. It can be wet precipitation
(rain, snow, or fog) or dry precipitation (absorbed gaseous and particulate matter, aerosol
particles, or dust). The term pH is a measure of acidity or alkalinity and ranges from 0 to 14. A
pH measurement of 7 is regarded as neutral. Normal rain has a pH of about 5.6, which is
slightly acidic. Acid rain has a pH below 5.6.
12
13
activation products: Radionuclides produced from the interaction of radiation with matter.
Generally it is the neutrons that interact with stable atoms and make them radioactive.
14
15
activity: The rate of disintegration (transformation) or decay of radioactive material. The units
of radioactivity are the curie (Ci) and the Becquerel (Bq).
16
17
18
acute effects: Effects resulting from short-term exposure to relatively high levels of a stressing
factor (e.g., contaminant, disease, electromagnetic field, noise, and radionuclides) over long
periods.
19
20
acute radiation exposure: A single accidental exposure to high doses of radiation for a short
period of time, which may produce biological effects within a short time after exposure.
21
22
adverse environmental impacts: Impacts that are determined to be harmful to the
environment.
23
24
25
26
27
28
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP): Established by the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is an independent
Federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of the
nation's historic resources and advises the President and the Congress on national historic
preservation policy. The agency provides guidance on the application of Federal law
concerning cultural resources and serves as an arbiter when disputes arise.
29
aerobic: Requiring the presence of oxygen to support life.
30
31
32
33
air quality: Assessment of the health-related and visual characteristics of the air often derived
from quantitative measurements of the concentrations of specific injurious or contaminating
substances. Air quality standards are the prescribed levels of substances in the outside air that
cannot be exceeded during a specific time in a specified area.
34
35
36
37
38
ALARA: Acronym for “as low as (is) reasonably achievable.” This means making every
reasonable effort to maintain exposures to ionizing radiation as far below the dose limits as
practical, consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into
account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of
technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and
February 2023
8-1
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to utilization of
nuclear energy and licensed materials in the public interest (see 10 CFR 20.1003).
3
4
alkalinity: The capacity of water to neutralize acids; a property imparted by the water's content
of carbonate, bicarbonate, hydroxide, and on occasion borate, silicate, and phosphate.
5
6
alluvial: Refers to soil or unconsolidated sediment that has been deposited by running water,
as in a riverbed, floodplain, or delta.
7
alluvial aquifer: An aquifer composed of alluvial sediments, generally located in a river valley.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
alternatives to the proposed action considered in the license renewal generic
environmental impact statement (LR GEIS): (1) Not renewing the operating licenses of
commercial nuclear power plants (no action alternative). This is the only alternative to the
proposed action that is within the NRC’s decision-making authority; (2) replacing existing
nuclear generating capacity with other energy sources (including fossil energy generation, new
nuclear generation, and renewable energy); (3) compensating for lost nuclear generation
capacity by using demand-side management (conservation) or purchasing power.
15
ambient air: The surrounding atmosphere as it exists around people, plants, and structures.
16
17
ambient noise level: The level of acoustic noise at a given location, such as in a room or
outdoors, that is representative of typical conditions unaffected by human activities.
18
19
20
ambient water temperature: The water temperature in a water body that is representative of
typical conditions unaffected by human activities (e.g., the temperature of the surface water
body away from the thermal effluent).
21
22
anadromous: Pertaining to fish that spend a part of their life cycle in the sea and return to
freshwater streams to spawn; for example, salmon, steelhead, and shad.
23
annual dose: Dose received in one year.
24
25
26
anoxic: Absence of oxygen. Usually used in reference to an aquatic habitat when the water
becomes completely depleted of oxygen and results in the death of any organism that requires
oxygen for survival.
27
anthropogenic: Made or generated by a human or caused by human activity.
28
29
aquatic biota: Consisting of, relating to, or being in water; living or growing in, or near the
water. An organism that lives in, on, or near the water.
30
31
aquifer: An underground layer of permeable, unconsolidated sediments or porous or fractured
bedrock that yields usable quantities of water to a well or spring.
32
33
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979: Requires Federal permitting for
excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public or Native American lands.
34
35
36
area of potential effect (APE): The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may
directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such
properties exist. The APE for a license renewal action is the area at the power plant site and its
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-2
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
3
4
5
6
immediate environs and viewshed that may be impacted by post-license renewal land-disturbing
operations or possible refurbishment activities associated with the proposed action. The APE
may extend beyond the immediate environs in those instances where post-license renewal landdisturbing operations or projected refurbishment activities specifically related to license renewal
may potentially have an effect on known or proposed historic sites. This determination is made
irrespective of ownership or control of the lands of interest (see also 36 FR 800.16(d)).
7
8
9
10
11
12
Atomic Energy Act (AEA): The AEA of 1954 is a United States Federal law that is, according
to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “the fundamental U.S. law on both the civilian and the
military uses of nuclear materials.” It covers the laws for the “development and the regulation of
the uses of nuclear materials and facilities in the United States.” It was an amendment to the
AEA of 1946 and substantially refined certain aspects of the law, including increased support for
the possibility of a civilian nuclear industry.
13
14
15
16
17
18
attainment: An area is deemed in attainment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) when the air quality is monitored and the resultant concentrations are found to be
consistently below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Areas can be in
attainment for some pollutants, while designated as nonattainment for others. Some areas are
designated as “maintenance” areas. These are regions that were initially designated as
attainment or unclassifiable and have since attained compliance with the NAAQS.
19
20
attenuation: The reduction or lessening in amount, such as in the concentration or effects of a
pollutant.
21
22
23
24
25
auxiliary buildings: Auxiliary buildings house support systems, such as the ventilation system,
emergency core cooling system, laundry facilities, water treatment system, and waste treatment
system. An auxiliary building may also contain the emergency diesel generators and, in some
pressurized water reactors, the fuel storage facility. The facility’s control room is often located in
the auxiliary building.
26
avian: Of, relating to, or characteristic of birds.
27
28
29
30
31
32
background radiation: Radiation from cosmic sources; naturally occurring radioactive
material, including radon (except as a decay product of source or special nuclear material); and
global fallout as it exists in the environment from the testing of nuclear explosive devices or from
past nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and are not under the control of the licensee.
Background radiation does not include radiation from sources, by-products, or special nuclear
materials regulated by the Commission.
33
34
35
36
37
38
baseline: A quantitative expression of conditions, costs, schedule, or technical progress that
constitutes the standard against which to measure the performance of an effort. For National
Environmental Policy Act evaluations, baseline is defined as the existing environmental
conditions against which impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives can be compared.
The environmental baseline is the site environmental conditions as they exist or are estimated
to exist in the absence of the proposed action.
39
40
becquerel: The unit of radioactive decay equal to 1 disintegration per second. 37 billion
(3.7 1010) becquerels = 1 curie.
February 2023
8-3
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
BEIR reports: Series of reports issued by the National Research Council to advise the Federal
government on the relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and human health. BEIR
stands for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.
4
benthic: Of, relating to, or occurring at the bottom of a body of water.
5
6
7
Best Available Control Technology (BACT): A pollution control standard created by the EPA
that is used to determine what air pollution control technology will be used to control a specific
pollutant to a specified limit.
8
9
best management practice (BMP): A practice or combination of pollution control techniques
that aim to reduce pollution.
10
11
12
beta particle: An electron that is ejected from the nucleus of a radioactive atom. It is much
lighter than an alpha particle and can travel a longer distance in air compared to an alpha
particle, but can still be stopped by a thin sheet of aluminum foil.
13
14
15
16
17
bioamplification: Also known as biological magnification and bioconcentration, is the
progressive increase in the concentration of chemical contaminants (e.g., dichloro-diphenyltrichloroethane, polychlorinated biphenyls, methyl mercury) from the bottom of the food chain
(e.g., bacteria, phytoplankton, zooplankton) to the top of the food chain (e.g., fishing-eating birds
such as a bald eagle).
18
bioavailability: The degree to which chemicals can be taken up by organisms.
19
biocide: A chemical agent, such as a pesticide, that is used to kill and control living organisms.
20
21
22
23
biological assessment: Information prepared by or under the direction of the Federal agency
concerning listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may
be present in the action area and the evaluation of potential effects of the action on such
species and habitat.
24
25
biomass: Organic nonfossil material of biological origin constituting a renewable energy
source.
26
biota: The combined flora and fauna of a region.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
bituminous coal: A dense black or brown coal that has on average 45–86 percent carbon by
weight and a heating value as much as five times greater than lignite coal. U.S. deposits are
100–300 million years old and are found primarily in the states of West Virginia, Kentucky, and
Pennsylvania, with lesser amounts in the Midwest. Bituminous coal is the most abundant rank
of coal in the United States. It is used primarily to produce electricity, and in the industrial
sector, to produce heat and process steam and as a starting material for the production of coke,
an intensely hot-burning derivative fuel used in the steel industry.
34
blast furnace: A furnace in which solid fuel (coke) is burned with an air blast to smelt ore.
35
36
blowdown: Continual or periodic purging of a circulating working fluid to prevent buildup of
impurities in the fluid.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-4
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
3
4
boiler: A device for generating steam for power, processing, or heating purposes; or hot water
for heating purposes or hot water supply. Heat from an external combustion source is
transmitted to a fluid contained within the tubes found in the boiler shell. This fluid is delivered
to an end-use at a desired pressure, temperature, and quality.
5
6
7
boiling water reactor (BWR): A reactor in which water, used as both coolant and moderator,
boils in the core to produce steam, which drives a turbine connected to an electrical generator,
thereby producing electricity.
8
9
10
brownfield site: Abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities in which
expansion or redevelopment is sometimes complicated by real or perceived environmental
contaminations. (See also greenfield site).
11
12
Btu: British thermal unit. A measure of the energy required to raise the temperature of one
pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.
13
burnup spent fuel: See spent-fuel burnup.
14
15
16
17
cap and trade: An environmental policy instrument used by governments to limit the amount of
pollutants emitted to the environment. The total emissions are capped at a specified level but
polluters can trade the emission allowances among themselves as long as the total amount is
not exceeded.
18
capacity: See generator capacity.
19
20
21
capacity factor: The actual energy output of an electricity-generating device divided by the
energy output that would be produced if it operated at its rated power output for the entire year.
Generally expressed as percentage.
22
capacity rating: See rated power.
23
24
25
26
27
carbon: A naturally abundant nonmetallic element that occurs in many inorganic and in all
organic compounds, which exists freely as graphite and diamond and as a constituent of coal,
limestone, and petroleum. Carbon is capable of chemical self-bonding to form an enormous
number of chemically, biologically, and commercially important molecules. Carbon’s atomic
number is 6.
28
29
30
31
carbon capture and storage: Refers to the capture of carbon dioxide generated at fossilfueled power plants and the storing of carbon dioxide so it is not released into the air.
Underground storage media are being investigated for this feasibility (e.g., abandoned mines,
depleted oil or natural gas fields, and other types of geologic media).
32
33
34
35
36
carbon monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless gas formed when carbon in fuel is not burned
completely. Motor vehicle exhaust is a major contributor to nationwide CO emissions, followed
by other engines and vehicles. CO interferes with the blood’s ability to carry oxygen to the
body’s tissues and results in numerous adverse health effects. CO is listed as a criteria air
pollutant under Title I of the Clean Air Act.
37
carbonaceous: Consisting of, containing, relating to, or yielding carbon.
38
carbon sequestration: See carbon capture and storage.
February 2023
8-5
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
carcinogenesis: The process by which normal cells are transformed into cancer cells.
2
3
cask: A heavily shielded container used to store and/or ship radioactive materials. Lead and
steel are common materials used in the manufacture of casks.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Category 1 issue: Environmental impact issues that meet all of the following criteria: (1) the
environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all
nuclear plants or, for some issues, to nuclear plants that have a specific type of cooling system
or other specified plant or site characteristics; (2) a single significance level (i.e., small,
moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological
impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal); (3) mitigation of
adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been
determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently
beneficial to warrant implementation. For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no
additional plant-specific analysis is required in future supplemental environmental impact
statements unless new and significant information is identified.
15
16
Category 2 issue: Environmental impact issues that do not meet one or more of the criteria of
Category 1, and, therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.
17
18
19
cesium: A metal that may be stable (nonradioactive) or unstable (radioactive). The most
common radioactive form of cesium is cesium-137. Another fairly common radioisotope is
cesium-134.
20
21
22
23
24
25
chain reaction: A reaction that initiates its own repetition. In a fission chain reaction, a
fissionable nucleus absorbs a neutron and fissions spontaneously, releasing additional
neutrons. These, in turn, can be absorbed by other fissionable nuclei, releasing more neutrons.
A fission chain reaction is self-sustaining when the number of neutrons released in a given time
equals or exceeds the number of neutrons lost by absorption in nonfissionable material or by
escape from the system.
26
27
28
29
30
31
chlorinated hydrocarbons: Organic compounds made up of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, and
chlorine. All chlorinated hydrocarbons have a carbon-chlorine bond. Sometimes hydrogen is
not present at all, as in carbon tetrachloride. Examples of chlorinated hydrocarbons include
dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane and polychlorinated biphenyls. Chlorinated hydrocarbons tend
to be very long-lived and persistent in the environment; they tend to be toxic; and they tend to
accumulate in the food web and undergo bioamplification.
32
33
chronic effects: Effects resulting from exposure to low levels of a stressing factor
(e.g., contaminant, disease, electromagnetic field, noise, and radionuclides) over long periods.
34
35
chronic radiation exposure: Long-term, low-level overexposure to radiation or radioactive
materials.
36
37
38
cladding: The thin-walled metal tube that forms the outer jacket of a nuclear fuel rod. It
prevents corrosion of the fuel by the coolant and the release of fission products into the coolant.
Aluminum, stainless steel, and zirconium alloys are common cladding materials.
39
40
41
Class I areas (Clean Air Act): Class I areas are Federally owned properties for which air
quality-related values are highly prized and for which no diminution of air quality, including
visibility, can be tolerated. Class I areas fall under the stewardship of four Federal agencies: the
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-6
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
3
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the U.S. Forest Service. Air quality impacts in Class I areas are strictly limited, while restrictions
in Class II areas are less strict.
4
Class II areas (Clean Air Act): See Class I areas.
5
6
Class 2B carcinogenic: Agents (e.g., electromagnetic fields) or substances that are possibly
carcinogenic to humans.
7
8
9
10
11
Clean Air Act (CAA): Establishes NAAQS and requires facilities to comply with emission limits
or reduction limits stipulated in State Implementation Plans. Under this act, construction and
operating permits, as well as reviews of new stationary sources and major modifications to
existing sources, are required. The Act also prohibits the Federal government from approving
actions that do not conform to State Implementation Plans.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
clean coal technologies: Technologies that would allow the continued use of coal (or coalderived synthetic fuels) for electricity production, while at the same time, mitigating the potential
adverse impacts to air quality and guaranteeing compliance with regulatory requirements.
Clean coal initiatives include coal-cleaning processes to remove constituents that would
ultimately be converted to problematic pollutants during combustion, synthesis of clean
derivative fuels through coal gasification technologies, improved combustion technologies, and
improved devices, and ancillary support systems for capturing and sequestering pollutants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Clean Water Act (CWA): An Act, which amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
requiring National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharges of
effluents to surface waters, permits for stormwater discharges related to industrial activity,
permits for discharges to or dredging of wetlands, notification of oil discharges to navigable
waters of the United States, and water quality certification from the State in which the discharge
will occur.
25
climatology: The meteorological study of climates and their phenomena.
26
27
28
closed-cycle cooling: In this type of cooling water system, the cooling water is recirculated
through the condenser after the waste heat is removed by dissipation to the atmosphere,
usually by circulating the water through large cooling towers constructed for that purpose.
29
30
31
32
coal: A readily combustible black or brownish-black rock whose composition, including inherent
moisture, consists of more than 50 percent by weight and more than 70 percent by volume of
carbonaceous material. It is formed from plant remains that have been compacted, hardened,
chemically altered, and metamorphosed by heat and pressure over geologic time.
33
34
35
coal combustion wastes: Wastes produced from the combustion of coal, which contains
concentrated levels of numerous contaminants, particularly metals like arsenic, mercury, lead,
chromium, cadmium, and radioactive elements found naturally in coal.
36
37
38
39
coal gasification: The process of converting coal into gas. The basic process involves
crushing coal to a powder, which is then heated in the presence of steam and oxygen to
produce a gas. The gas is then refined to reduce sulfur and other impurities. The gas can be
used as a fuel or processed further and concentrated into chemical or liquid fuel.
February 2023
8-7
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
4
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The codification of the general and permanent rules
published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal
government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation.
Each volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar year and is issued on a quarterly basis.
5
6
co-firing: The process of burning natural gas in conjunction with another fuel to reduce air
pollutants.
7
8
cold shutdown: The term used to define a reactor coolant system at atmospheric pressure
and at a temperature below 200 degrees Fahrenheit following a reactor cooldown.
9
10
collective dose: The sum of the individual doses received in a given period by a specified
population from exposure to a specified source of radiation.
11
12
13
14
combined cycle: A technology through which electricity is produced from otherwise lost waste
heat exiting from one or more gas (combustion) turbines. The exiting heat is routed to a
conventional boiler or to a heat recovery steam generator for utilization by a steam turbine in the
production of electricity. This process increases the efficiency of the electric generating unit.
15
16
combustion: Chemical oxidation accompanied by the generation of energy, typically in the
form of light and heat.
17
18
19
committed dose equivalent: The dose equivalent to organs or tissues of reference that will be
received from an intake of radioactive material by an individual during the 50-year period
following the intake.
20
21
22
23
24
compact: A group of two or more States formed to dispose of low-level radioactive waste on a
regional basis. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 encouraged States to form
compacts to ensure continuing low-level waste disposal capacity. As of December 2000,
44 States have formed 10 compacts. No compact has successfully sited and constructed a
disposal facility.
25
26
27
28
29
30
condenser: A large heat exchanger designed to cool exhaust steam from a turbine below the
boiling point so that it can be returned to the heat source as water. In a pressurized water
reactor, the water is returned to the steam generator. In a boiling water reactor, it returns to the
reactor core. The heat removed from the steam by the condenser is transferred to a circulating
water system and is exhausted to the environment, either through a cooling tower or directly into
a body of water.
31
coniferous: Of or relating to or part of trees or shrubs bearing cones and evergreen leaves.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
containment or reactor building: The containment or reactor building in a pressurized water
reactor is a massive concrete or steel structure that houses the reactor vessel, reactor coolant
piping and pumps, steam generators, pressurizer, pumps, and associated piping. The reactor
building structure of a BWR generally includes a containment structure and a shield building.
The BWR containment reactor building is a massive concrete or steel structure that houses the
reactor vessel, the reactor coolant piping and pumps, and the suppression pool. It is located
inside a somewhat less substantive structure called the shield building. The shield building for a
BWR also generally contains the spent fuel pool and the new fuel pool. The reactor building for
both pressurized water reactor s and BWRs is designed to withstand natural disasters, such as
hurricanes and earthquakes. The containment’s ability to withstand such events and to contain
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-8
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
the effects of accidents initiated by system failures constitutes the principal protection against
releasing radioactive material to the environment.
3
4
cooling pond: A natural or man-made body of water that is used for dissipating waste heat
from power plants.
5
6
7
8
9
cooling tower: Structures designed to remove excess heat from the condenser without
dumping the heated cooling water directly into water bodies, such as lakes or rivers. There are
two principal types of cooling towers: mechanical draft towers and natural draft towers. Most
nuclear plants that have once-through cooling do not rely on cooling towers. However, five
facilities with once-through cooling also have cooling towers.
10
11
12
cooling tower drift: Water lost from a cooling tower in the form of liquid droplets entrained in
the exhaust air. Drift is independent of water lost through evaporation. Units may be in lb/hr or
a percentage of circulating water flow. Drift eliminators control this loss from the tower.
13
14
15
16
cooling water intake structure: The structure and any associated constructed waterways
used to withdraw cooling water from water bodies. The cooling water intake structure extends
from the point at which water is withdrawn from the surface water source to the first intake pump
or series of pumps.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
corona discharge: The electrical breakdown of air into charged particles that results in the
creation of ions or charged particles in air due to electric field discharge near transmission lines,
most noticeable during thunder or rainstorms. Corona is a phenomenon associated with all
energized transmission lines. It is the electrical breakdown of air into charged particles. The
phenomenon appears as a bluish-purple glow on the surface of and adjacent to a conductor
when the voltage gradient exceeds a certain critical value, thereby producing light, audible noise
(described as crackling or hissing), and ozone.
24
25
26
27
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): Established by the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508) describe
the process for implementing NEPA, including preparation of environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, and the timing and extent of public participation.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
criteria pollutants: A group of very common air pollutants whose presence in the environment
is regulated by the EPA on the basis of certain criteria (information on health and/or
environmental effects of pollution). Criteria air pollutants are widely distributed all over the
United States. There are six common air pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality
Standards have been established by the EPA under Title I of the Clean Air Act: sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and lead.
Standards were developed for these pollutants on the basis of scientific knowledge about their
health and environmental effects.
36
37
38
critical habitat: Specific geographic areas, whether occupied by a listed species or not, that
are essential for its conservation and that have been formally designated by rules published in
the Federal Register.
39
40
41
42
criticality: A term used in reactor physics to describe the state when the number of neutrons
released by fission is exactly balanced by the neutrons being absorbed (by the fuel and
poisons) and escaping the reactor core. A reactor is said to be “critical” when it achieves a
self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, as when the reactor is operating.
February 2023
8-9
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
crude oil: A mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural underground
reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing through surface separating
facilities. Depending upon the characteristics of the crude stream, it may also include: (1) small
amounts of hydrocarbons that exist in the gaseous phase in natural underground reservoirs but
are liquid at atmospheric pressure; (2) small amounts of nonhydrocarbons produced with the oil,
such as sulfur and various metals, and (3) drip gases and liquid hydrocarbons produced from tar
sands, oil sands, gilsonite, and oil shale.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
cultural resources: The remains of past human activities that have historic or cultural
meaning. They include archaeological sites (e.g., precontact campsites and villages), historicera resources (e.g., farmsteads, forts, and canals), and traditional cultural properties
(e.g., resource collection areas and sacred areas). Culture is understood to mean the traditions,
beliefs, practices, lifeways, arts, crafts, and social institutions of any community, be it an Indian
Tribe, a local ethnic group, or the people of the nation as a whole (see also National Park
Service Bulletin #38).
15
16
cumulative dose: The total dose resulting from repeated or prolonged exposures to ionizing
radiation over time.
17
18
19
cumulative impacts: The impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impacts
of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,
regardless of what agency (Federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions.
20
21
22
cumulative risk: The risk of a common toxic effect associated with concurrent exposure by all
relevant pathways and routes of exposure to a group of chemicals that share a common
mechanism of toxicity.
23
24
25
26
27
curie (Ci): The basic unit used to describe the intensity of radioactivity in a sample of material.
The curie is equal to 37 billion (3.7 1010) disintegrations per second, which is approximately
the activity of 1 gram of radium. A curie is also a quantity of any radionuclide that decays at a
rate of 37 billion disintegrations per second. It is named for Marie and Pierre Curie, who
discovered radium in 1898.
28
29
30
31
32
decibel, A-weighted (dBA): A standard unit for the measure of the relative loudness or
intensity of sound. The relative intensity is the ratio of the intensity of a sound wave to a
reference intensity. In general, a sound doubles in loudness with every increase of 10 dB. By
convention, the intensity level of sound at the threshold of hearing for a young healthy individual
is 0 dB.
33
deciduous: Trees and shrubs that shed their leaves on an annual cycle.
34
35
36
decommissioning: The process of closing down a facility followed by reducing residual
radioactivity to a level that permits the release of the property for unrestricted use or restricted
use (see 10 CFR 20.1003).
37
38
39
40
DECON: A method of decommissioning in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a
facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed and safety buried in a
low-level radioactive waste landfill or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be
released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-10
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
decontamination: Removal of unwanted radioactive or hazardous contamination by a
chemical or mechanical process.
3
4
deep-dose equivalent: The dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 1 cm; applies to external
whole-body exposure.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
demand-side management: The planning, implementation, and monitoring of utility activities
designed to encourage consumers to modify patterns of electricity usage, including the timing
and level of electricity demand. It only refers to energy and load-shape modifying activities that
are undertaken in response to utility-administered programs. It does not refer to energy and
load-shaped changes arising from the normal operation of the marketplace or from governmentmandated energy-efficiency standards. Demand-side management covers the complete range
of load-shape objectives, including strategic conservation and load management, as well as
strategic load growth.
13
14
demographics: A term used to describe specific population characteristics such as age,
gender, education, and income level.
15
16
densitometer: An apparatus for measuring the optical density of a material, such as a
photographic negative.
17
18
depleted uranium: Uranium having a percentage of uranium-235 smaller than the 0.7 percent
found in natural uranium. It results from uranium isotope enrichment operations.
19
20
deposition: The laying down of matter by a natural process (e.g., the settling of particulate
matter out of air or water onto soil or sediment surfaces).
21
22
23
design-basis accident: A postulated accident that a nuclear facility must be designed and built
to withstand without loss to the systems, structures, and components necessary to ensure
public health and safety.
24
desquamation: To shed, peel, or come off in scales.
25
detritus: Dead, decaying plant material.
26
dewatering: To remove or drain water from an area.
27
dielectric: A nonconductor of electricity.
28
diesel generator: An electric generator that runs on diesel fuel.
29
30
diffusion: A process in which substances are transported from one area to another due to
differences in the concentration of that material or in temperature.
31
32
disposal: The act of placing unwanted materials in an area with the intent of not recovering in
the future.
33
34
dissolved gas: Gas dissolved in water or in other liquid without change in its chemical
structure.
February 2023
8-11
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
dissolved oxygen: Oxygen dissolved in water. Dissolved oxygen is necessary for the life of
fish and most other aquatic organisms, and is one of the most important indicators of the
condition of a water body.
4
5
6
7
dose: The absorbed dose, given in rads (or in SI units, grays), that represents the energy
absorbed from the radiation in a gram of any material. The biological dose or dose equivalent,
given in rem or sieverts, is a measure of the biological damage to living tissue from radiation
exposure.
8
9
10
dose equivalent: The product of the absorbed dose in tissue, quality factor, and all other
modifying factors at the location of interest. The units of dose equivalent are the rem and
sievert.
11
12
dose rates: The ionizing radiation dose delivered per unit of time (e.g., rem or sieverts per
hour).
13
14
15
dosimeter: A small, portable instrument (such as a film badge or thermoluminescent or pocket
dosimeter) for measuring and recording the total accumulated personal dose of ionizing
radiation.
16
17
dredging: Removing accumulated sediments from a water body to increase depth or remove
contaminants.
18
19
20
dry cask: Large, rugged container made of steel or steel-reinforced concrete, 18 or more
inches thick. A cask uses materials like steel, concrete and lead—instead of water—as a
radiation shield.
21
dry cask storage: A method for storing spent nuclear fuel (see dry cask).
22
23
dry steam: Geothermal plants that use the steam from the geothermal reservoir as it comes
from wells, and route it directly through turbine/generator units to produce electricity.
24
25
26
dual-fired unit: A generating unit that can produce electricity using two or more input fuels. In
some of these units, only the primary fuel can be used continuously; the alternate fuel(s) can be
used only as a start-up fuel or in emergencies.
27
28
earthquake: A sudden ground motion or vibration of the earth. It can be produced by a rapid
release of stored-up energy along an active fault in the earth’s crust.
29
30
ecoregion: A geographically distinct area of land that is characterized by a distinctive climate,
ecological features, and plant and animal communities.
31
32
ecosystem: A group of organisms and their physical environment interacting and functioning
as a unit.
33
34
35
effective dose equivalent: The sum of the products of the dose equivalent to the organ or
tissue and the weighting factors applicable to each of the body organs or tissues that are
irradiated.
36
37
effluent: Wastewater (treated or untreated) that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. This term generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-12
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
electric power: The rate at which electric energy is transferred. Electric power is measured by
capacity and is commonly expressed in megawatts (MW).
3
4
5
6
7
8
electric power grid: A system of synchronized power providers and consumers connected by
transmission and distribution lines and operated by one or more control centers. In the
continental United States, the electric power grid consists of three systems: the Eastern
Interconnect, the Western Interconnect, and the Texas Interconnect. In Alaska and Hawaii,
several systems encompass areas smaller than the State (e.g., the interconnect serving
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Kenai Peninsula).
9
10
electricity: A form of energy characterized by the presence and motion of elementary charged
particles generated by friction, induction, or chemical change.
11
12
13
electricity generation: The process of producing electric energy or the amount of electric
energy produced by transforming other forms of energy, commonly expressed in kilowatt
hours (kWh) or megawatt hours (MWh).
14
15
16
17
18
electromagnetic field (EMF): The field of energy resulting from the movement of alternating
electric current along the path of a conductor, composed of both electrical and magnetic
components and existing in the immediate vicinity of, and surrounding, the electric conductor.
Electromagnetic fields exist in both high-voltage electric transmission power lines and in
low-voltage electric conductors in homes and appliances.
19
20
21
22
electromagnetic radiation: A traveling wave motion resulting from changing electric or
magnetic fields. Familiar electromagnetic radiation ranges from x-rays (and gamma rays) of
short wavelength, through the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared regions, to radar and radio waves
of relatively long wavelength.
23
24
25
endangered species: Any species, plant or animal, that is in danger of extinction throughout
all or a significant part of its range. Requirements for declaring a species endangered are found
in the Endangered Species Act.
26
27
28
29
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA): Requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether endangered or
threatened species or their habitats will be affected by a proposed activity and what, if any,
mitigation measures are needed to address the impacts.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
energy: The capacity for doing work as measured by the capability of doing work (potential
energy) or the conversion of this capability to motion (kinetic energy). Energy has several
forms, some of which are easily convertible and can be changed to another form useful for
work. Most of the world’s convertible energy comes from fossil fuels that are burned to produce
heat that is then used as a transfer medium to mechanical or other means in order to
accomplish tasks. Electrical energy is usually measured in kilowatt hours, while heat energy is
usually measured in British thermal units (Btu).
37
38
energy demand: The energy needed by consumers at any point in time for household,
business, or industrial purposes.
39
40
41
Energy Information Administration: An independent agency within the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) that develops surveys, collects energy data, and analyzes and models energy
issues. The Energy Information Administration must meet (1) the requests of Congress, other
February 2023
8-13
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
elements within the DOE, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Executive Branch;
(2) its own independent needs; and (3) assist the general public or other interest groups, without
taking a policy position.
4
5
energy supply: Energy made available for use. Supply can be considered and measured from
the point of view of the energy provider or the receiver.
6
7
8
9
ENTOMB: A method of decommissioning nuclear facilities in which radioactive contaminants
are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete. The entombment structure
is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactivity
decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property.
10
11
entrainment: The incorporation of all life stages of fish and shellfish with intake water flow
entering and passing through a cooling water intake structure and into a cooling water system.
12
13
14
15
16
17
environmental assessment (EA): A concise public document that a Federal agency prepares
under the National Environmental Policy Act to provide sufficient evidence and analysis to
determine whether a proposed action requires preparation of an environmental impact
statement or whether a Finding of No Significant Impact can be issued. An EA must include
brief discussions on the need for the proposed action and the environmental impacts of the
proposed action and the no action alternative.
18
19
20
environmental impact statement (EIS): A document required of Federal agencies by the
National Environmental Policy Act for major proposals or legislation that will or could
significantly affect the environment.
21
22
23
environmental justice: The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and
educational levels with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
24
25
26
erosion: The process where wind, water, ice, and other mechanical and chemical forces wear
away materials such as rocks and soil, breaking up particles and moving them from one place to
another.
27
28
erythema: Superficial reddening of the skin due to the dilatation of blood vessels. Erythema is
often a sign of infection or inflammation.
29
30
31
essential fish habitat (EFH): Those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding or growth to maturity. EFH is protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976.
32
33
34
estuary: A transitional zone along the coastline where ocean saltwater mixes with freshwater
from the land, subject to tidal influences. Estuaries are often semi-enclosed by land, but their
currents always have access to the open ocean.
35
36
37
38
eutrophication: A condition in an aquatic ecosystem where high nutrient concentrations
stimulate blooms of algae (e.g., phytoplankton). Algal decomposition may lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations. Although eutrophication is a natural process in the aging of lakes and
some estuaries, it can be accelerated by both point and nonpoint sources of nutrients.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-14
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
3
4
exceedance probability: The average frequency with which an event (e.g., flood, earthquake)
of a particular magnitude will be exceeded during a certain length of time. Expressed as the
probability that a level will be exceeded in any year (the annual exceedance probability) or as
the average recurrence interval (e.g., a 100-year flood).
5
exposure: Being exposed to ionizing radiation, radioactive material, or other contaminants.
6
7
external dose: That portion of the dose equivalent received from radiation sources outside the
body.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Farmland Protection Policy Act: An Act whose purpose is to reduce the conversion of
farmland to nonagricultural uses as a result of Federal projects and programs. The Act requires
that Federal agencies comply to the fullest extent possible with state and local government
policies to preserve farmland. It includes a recommendation that evaluations and analyses of
prospective farmland conversion impacts be made early in the planning process—before a site
or design is selected—and that, where possible, agencies make such evaluations and analyses
part of the National Environmental Policy Act process.
15
16
17
18
19
fault (geology): A fracture or a zone of fractures within a rock formation along which vertical,
horizontal, or transverse slippage has occurred. A normal fault occurs when the hanging wall
has been depressed in relation to the footwall. A reverse fault occurs when the hanging wall
has been raised in relation to the footwall. A strike-slip fault occurs where two geologic plates
are sliding past each other and stress builds up between them.
20
21
fecundity: Number of eggs an animal produces during each reproductive cycle; the potential
reproductive capacity of an organism or population.
22
23
24
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Independent Federal agency with jurisdiction over
interstate electricity sales, wholesale electric rates, hydroelectric licensing, natural gas pricing,
and oil pipeline rates.
25
26
Federal Register: The official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal
agencies and organizations, as well as Executive Orders and other presidential documents.
27
28
29
fission: The splitting of a nucleus into at least two other nuclei and the release of a relatively
large amount of energy. Two or three neutrons are usually released during this type of
transformation.
30
fission products: The radioactive isotopes formed by the fission of heavy elements.
31
32
33
34
floodplain: Lowlands and relatively flat areas adjoining the channel of a river, stream, or other
watercourse; or ocean, lake, or other body of water, which have been or may be inundated by
flood water, and those other areas subject to flooding. Floodplains include, at a minimum, that
area with at least a 1.0 percent chance of being inundated by a flood in any given year.
35
36
37
flue gas: The air coming out of a chimney after combustion in the burner it is venting. It can
include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides, particles, and many chemical
pollutants.
February 2023
8-15
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
flue gas desulfurization: Equipment (also referred to as scrubbers) used to remove sulfur
oxides from the combustion gases of a boiler plant before discharge to the atmosphere.
Chemicals such as lime are used as scrubbing media.
4
5
6
7
8
fluidized bed combustion: A method of burning particulate fuel, such as coal, in which the
amount of air required for combustion far exceeds that found in conventional burners. The fuel
particles are continually fed into a bed of mineral ash in the proportions of 1 part fuel to
200 parts ash, while a flow of air passes up through the bed, causing it to act like a turbulent
fluid.
9
10
fossil fuel: Fuel derived from ancient organic remains such as peat, coal, crude oil, and natural
gas.
11
fossil fuel plant: A plant using coal, petroleum, or gas as its source of energy.
12
13
fossil fuel electric (power) generation: Electric generation in which the prime mover is a
turbine rotated by high-pressure steam produced in a boiler by heat from burning fossil fuels.
14
15
16
fuel: Any material substance that can be consumed to supply heat or power. Includes
petroleum, coal, and natural gas (the fossil fuels), and other consumable materials, such as
uranium, biomass, and hydrogen.
17
18
fuel assembly: A cluster of fuel rods (or plates) that are also called fuel pins or fuel elements.
Many fuel assemblies make up a reactor core.
19
fuel cladding: See cladding.
20
21
22
fuel cycle: The entire set of sequential processes or stages involved in the utilization of fuel,
including extraction, transformation, transportation, and combustion. Emissions generally occur
at each stage of the fuel cycle.
23
24
fuel oil: A liquid petroleum product less volatile than gasoline, used as an energy source. Fuel
oil includes distillate fuel oil (No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4), and residual fuel oil (No. 5 and No. 6).
25
26
27
28
fuel pellets: As used in pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors, a pellet is a
small cylinder approximately 3/8-in. in diameter and 5/8-in. in length, consisting of uranium fuel
in a ceramic form—uranium dioxide (UO2). Typical fuel pellet enrichments in nuclear power
reactors range from 2.0 percent to 5 percent uranium-235.
29
30
31
fuel rod: A long, slender tube that holds fissionable material (fuel) for nuclear reactor use. Fuel
rods are assembled into bundles called fuel elements or fuel assemblies, which are loaded
individually into the reactor core.
32
33
34
35
36
37
fugitive dust: Particulate air pollution released to the ambient air from ground-disturbing
activities related to construction, manufacturing, or transportation (i.e., the discharges are not
released through a confined stream such as a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally
equivalent opening). Specific activities that generate fugitive dust include, but are not limited to,
land-clearing operations, travel of vehicles on disturbed land or unpaved access roads, or onsite
roads.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-16
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
3
fugitive emissions: Unintended leaks of gas from vessels, pipes, valves, or fittings used in the
processing, transmission, and/or transportation of liquids or gases. These emissions can
include the release of volatile vapors from a diesel fuel, natural gas, or solvent leak.
4
5
fujita scale: Classifies tornadoes based on wind damage. The scale ranges from F0 for the
weakest to F5 for the strongest tornadoes.
6
7
8
9
10
gamma rays: High-energy, short wavelength, electromagnetic radiation emitted from the
nucleus of an atom. Gamma radiation frequently accompanies alpha and beta emissions and
always accompanies fission. Gamma rays are very penetrating and are best stopped or
shielded by dense materials, such as lead or depleted uranium. Gamma rays are similar to
x-rays. See also x-rays and gamma rays.
11
12
13
14
15
gas bubble disease: A condition that occurs when aquatic organisms are exposed to water
with high partial pressures of certain gases (usually nitrogen) and then subsequently are
exposed to water with lower partial pressures of the same gases. Dissolved gas (especially
nitrogen) within the tissues comes out of solution and forms embolisms (bubbles) within the
affected tissues, most noticeably the eyes and fins.
16
17
gas supersaturation: Concentrations of dissolved gases in water that are above the normal
saturation limit.
18
19
20
21
gas turbine: A gas turbine consists typically of an axial-flow air compressor and one or more
combustion chambers where liquid or gaseous fuel is burned and the hot gases are passed to
the turbine, and where the hot gases expand, drive the generator, and are then used to run the
compressor.
22
23
24
gasification: A method for converting coal, petroleum, biomass, wastes, or other
carbon-containing materials into a gas that can be (1) burned to generate power or
(2) processed into chemicals and fuels.
25
26
generator capacity: The maximum output, commonly expressed in megawatts (MW), that
generating equipment can supply to system load, adjusted for ambient conditions.
27
28
generic environmental impact statement (GEIS): A GEIS assesses the scope and impact of
environmental effects that would be associated with an action at numerous sites.
29
30
geologic repository: A deep underground engineered facility used to permanently isolate
used nuclear fuel or high-level nuclear waste while its radioactivity decays safely.
31
32
geology: The science that deals with the study of the earth: its materials, processes,
environments, and its history, including rocks and their formations and structures.
33
34
35
geothermal energy: Hot water or steam extracted from geothermal reservoirs in the earth’s
crust. Water or steam extracted from geothermal reservoirs can be used for geothermal heat
pumps, water heating, or electricity generation.
36
37
geothermal plant: A plant in which the prime mover is a steam turbine driven either by steam
produced from hot water or by natural steam that derives its energy from heat found in rock.
February 2023
8-17
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
4
5
6
global climate change: Changes in the earth’s surface temperature thought to be caused by
the greenhouse effect and responsible for changes in global climate patterns. The greenhouse
effect is the trapping and buildup of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the earth’s
surface. Some of the heat flowing back toward space from the earth’s surface is absorbed by
water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, and certain other gases in the atmosphere and then
reradiated back toward the earth’s surface.
7
8
9
10
global warming: An increase in the near-surface temperature of the earth. Global warming
has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is today most
often used to refer to the warming many scientists predict will occur as a result of increased
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
global warming potential: An index used to compare the relative radiative forcing per unit
molecule or unit mass change for varied greenhouse gases of different gases without directly
calculating the changes in atmospheric concentrations. The global warming potential s of a
particular greenhouse gas are calculated as a time-integrated ratio of the radiative or climate
forcing that would result from the emission of one kilogram of that greenhouse gas to that
resulting from the emission of one kilogram of carbon dioxide over a fixed period of time, such
as 100 years.
18
gonads: Male and female sex organs (testes and ovaries).
19
20
21
22
graphite: Pure carbon in mineral form. Technically, graphite at 100 percent carbon is the
highest rank of coal. However, its relatively limited availability and physical characteristics and
chemical characteristics have limited its use as an energy source. Instead, it is used primarily in
lubricants.
23
24
gray: The international system (SI) unit of absorbed dose. One gray is equal to an absorbed
dose of 1 Joule/kilogram (one gray equals 100 rads) (see 10 CFR 20.1004).
25
26
27
greater-than-Class C (GTCC) waste: Greater-than-Class C waste means low-level radioactive
waste that exceeds the concentration limits of radionuclides established for Class C waste
in 10 CFR 61.55.
28
29
30
31
greenfield site: Vacant land that has never been developed or was formerly occupied by farms
or low-density development that left the land free of environmental contamination. Greenfield
sites are typically located in suburban or ex-urban areas and can be less costly to develop than
the brownfield sites that are often located in urban areas.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
greenhouse gases: Gases, such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, that are transparent to solar
(short-wave) radiation but opaque to long-wave (infrared) radiation, thus preventing long-wave
radiant energy from leaving the earth’s atmosphere. The net effect is a trapping of absorbed
radiation and a tendency to warm the planet’s surface. While also a product of industrial
activities, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone, and water vapor are naturally
occurring greenhouse gases.
39
grid: See electric power grid.
40
41
gross generation: The total amount of electric energy produced by generating units and
measured at the generating terminal in kilowatt hours (kWh) or megawatt hours (MWh).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-18
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
3
groundwater: The water found beneath the earth’s surface, usually in porous rock formations
(aquifers) or in a zone of saturation, which may supply wells and springs, as well as base flow to
major streams and rivers. Generally, it refers to all water contained in the ground.
4
5
habitat: The place, including physical and biotic conditions, where a population or community
of organisms, both plants and animals, lives.
6
7
8
half-life: The time in which one-half of the atoms of a particular radioactive substance
disintegrate into another nuclear form. Measured half-lives vary from millionths of a second to
billions of years. Also called physical or radiological half-life.
9
10
11
12
hazardous air pollutants: Air pollutants that are not covered by ambient air quality standards
but which, as defined in the Clean Air Act, may present a threat of adverse human health effects
or adverse environmental effects. Such pollutants include asbestos, beryllium, mercury,
benzene, coke oven emissions, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride.
13
14
15
16
17
18
hazardous waste: A solid waste or combination of solid wastes that, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may (1) cause or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating
reversible illness or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed
(as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, Public Law 94-580).
19
20
heat sink: Anything that absorbs heat. It is usually part of the environment, such as the air, a
river, or a lake.
21
22
heavy metals: Metallic elements with higher atomic weights, many of which are toxic at higher
concentrations. Examples are mercury, chromium, cadmium, and lead.
23
24
25
26
high-level waste (HLW): The highly radioactive materials produced as a by-product of the
reactions that occur inside nuclear reactors. High-level wastes take one of two forms, (1) Spent
(used) reactor fuel when it is accepted for disposal, or (2) Waste materials remaining after spent
fuel is reprocessed.
27
28
29
30
31
historic property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included
in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the
Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to
and located within such properties. The term can also include properties of traditional religious
and cultural importance that meet the National Register criteria (see also 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1)).
32
33
horizontal axis wind turbine: The most common type of wind turbine, in which the axis of
rotation is oriented horizontally.
34
35
hydrocarbons: Any compound or mix of compounds, solids, liquids, or gases, composed of
carbon and hydrogen (e.g., coal, crude oil, and natural gas).
36
37
hydrochlorofluorocarbons: Chemicals composed of one or more carbon atoms and varying
numbers of hydrogen, chlorine, and fluorine atoms.
38
hydroelectric power: The use of flowing water to produce electrical energy.
February 2023
8-19
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
hydrofluorocarbons: A group of man-made chemicals composed of one or two carbon atoms
and varying numbers of hydrogen and fluorine atoms. Most hydrofluorocarbons have 100-year
Global Warming Potentials in the thousands.
4
5
hydrology: The study of water that considers its occurrence, properties distribution, circulation,
and transport and includes groundwater, surface water, and rainfall.
6
7
integrated gasification combined cycle: See integrated gasification combined cycle
technology.
8
impacting factors: The mechanisms by which an action affects a given resource or receptor.
9
10
impingement: The entrapment of all life stages of fish and shellfish on the outer part of an
intake structure or against a screening device during periods of intake water withdrawal.
11
12
impulse turbine: A turbine that is driven by high-velocity jets of water or steam from a nozzle
directed onto vanes or buckets attached to a wheel.
13
14
15
16
17
18
independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI): An ISFSI is designed and constructed
for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials associated with
spent fuel storage. ISFSIs may be located at the site of a nuclear power plant or at another
location. The most common design for an ISFSI, at this time, is a concrete pad with dry casks
containing spent fuel bundles. ISFSIs are used by operating plants that require increased spent
fuel storage capability because their spent fuel pools have reached capacity.
19
in situ: In its original place.
20
21
22
23
24
integrated gasification combined cycle technology: An energy generation technology in
which coal, water, and oxygen are fed to a gasifier, which produces syngas. This medium-Btu
gas is cleaned (particulates and sulfur compounds removed) and fed to a gas turbine. The hot
exhaust of the gas turbine and heat recovered from the gasification process is routed through a
heat recovery generator to produce steam, which drives a steam turbine to produce electricity.
25
26
internal dose: That portion of the dose equivalent received from radioactive material taken into
the body.
27
28
29
ionizing radiation: Any radiation capable of displacing electrons from atoms or molecules,
thereby producing ions. Some examples are alpha, beta, gamma, x-rays, neutrons, and
ultraviolet light. High doses of ionizing radiation may produce severe skin or tissue damage.
30
31
32
isotopic enrichment: A process by which the relative abundance of the isotopes of a given
element is altered, thus producing a form of the element that has been enriched in one
particular isotope and depleted in its other isotopic forms.
33
34
35
36
37
38
landfill gas: Gas that is generated by decomposition of organic material at landfill disposal
sites. The average composition of landfill gas is approximately 50 percent methane and
50 percent carbon dioxide and water vapor by volume. The methane percentage, however, can
vary from 40 to 60 percent, depending on several factors including waste composition
(e.g., carbohydrate and cellulose content). The methane in landfill gas may be vented, flared, or
combusted to generate electricity or heat, or injected into a pipeline for combustion elsewhere.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-20
February 2023
Glossary
1
leachate: The liquid that has percolated through the soil or other medium.
2
license renewal: Renewal of the operating license of a nuclear power plant.
3
4
5
6
license renewal term: That period of time, either an initial license renewal or the first
subsequent license renewal, past the current license term for which the renewed license is in
force. Although the length of license renewal terms can vary, they cannot exceed 20 years in
addition to the balance on the current license up to a maximum of 40 years.
7
8
licensee: The entity (usually an energy company) that holds the license to operate a nuclear
power plant.
9
10
11
light water reactors (LWRs): Reactors that use ordinary water as coolant, including boiling
water reactors (BWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs), the most common types used
in the United States.
12
lower limit of detection (LLD): The lowest limit that a detector can measure.
13
14
15
lowest observed effects level (LOEL): The lowest exposure level at which there are
statistically or biologically significant increases in frequency or severity of an effect between the
exposed population and its appropriate control group.
16
17
18
19
low-income populations: Persons whose average family income is below the poverty line.
The poverty line takes into account family size and age of individuals in the family. In 1999, the
poverty line for a family of five with three children below the age of 18 was $19,882. For any
family below the poverty line, all family members are considered to be below the poverty line.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
low-level radioactive waste (LLW): A general term for a wide range of wastes having low
levels of radioactivity. Nuclear fuel cycle facilities (e.g., nuclear power reactors and fuel
fabrication plants) that use radioactive materials generate low-level wastes as part of their
normal operations. These wastes are generated in many physical and chemical forms and
levels of contamination (see 10 CFR 61.2). Low-level radioactive wastes containing source,
special nuclear, or by-product material are acceptable for disposal in a land disposal facility.
For the purposes of this definition, low-level waste has the same meaning as in the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Act, that is, radioactive waste not classified as high-level radioactive
waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-product material as defined in
Section 11e.(2) of the AEA (uranium or thorium tailings and waste).
30
31
32
33
macroinvertebrates: Nonplanktonic, aquatic invertebrates, including insects, crustaceans,
mollusks, and worms, which typically inhabit the bottom sediments of rivers, ponds, lakes,
wetlands, or oceans. Their abundance and diversity are often used as an indicator of
ecosystem health.
34
35
36
37
38
maintenance areas: Regions that were initially designated as nonattainment or unclassifiable
and have since attained compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
Clean Air Act outlines several conditions that must be met before an area can be reclassified
from nonattainment to an attainment maintenance area, one of which is the development and
EPA approval of a maintenance plan.
39
man-rem: See person-rem.
February 2023
8-21
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
marine: Of or pertaining to ocean environments.
2
3
4
maximally exposed individual (MEI): A hypothetical individual who, because of proximity,
activities, or living habits, could potentially receive the maximum possible dose of radiation or of
a hazardous chemical from a given event or process.
5
6
7
8
9
maximum achievable control technology: The emission standard for sources of air pollution
requiring the maximum reduction of hazardous emissions, taking cost and feasibility into
account. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the maximum achievable control
technology must not be less than the average emission level achieved by controls on the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources, by category of industrial and utility sources.
10
11
12
13
mechanical draft tower: Cooling tower system that sprays heated cooling water downward,
while large fans pull air across the dropping water to remove the heat. As the water drops
downward onto the slats in the cooling tower, the drops break up into a finer spray, and, thus,
facilitate cooling.
14
15
megawatt: A unit of power equal to 1 million watts. Megawatt-thermal is commonly used to
define heat produced, while megawatt-electric defines electricity produced.
16
17
18
methane: A colorless, flammable, odorless hydrocarbon gas, which is the major component of
natural gas. Methane is an important source of hydrogen in various industrial processes.
Methane is a greenhouse gas.
19
20
methyl tertiary butyl ether: A gasoline additive, an oxygenate produced by reacting methanol
with isobutylene.
21
22
microorganism: An organism that can be seen only through a microscope. Microorganisms
include bacteria, protozoa, algae, and fungi.
23
24
25
minority populations: Include American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian; Native Hawaiian or
other Pacific Islander; Black races; or people of Hispanic ethnicity. “Other” races and multiracial
individuals may be considered as separate minorities.
26
27
mitigation: A method or process by which impacts from actions can be made less injurious to
the environment through appropriate protective measures.
28
mixed waste: Waste that contains both radioactive and hazardous constituents.
29
motile: Moving or having the power to move.
30
31
municipal solid waste: Residential solid waste and some nonhazardous commercial,
institutional, and industrial wastes.
32
33
34
35
36
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Air quality standards established by the
Clean Air Act, as amended. The primary NAAQS specify maximum outdoor air concentrations
of criteria pollutants that would protect the public health within an adequate margin of safety.
The secondary NAAQS specify maximum concentrations that would protect the public welfare
from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-22
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
3
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): Act requiring Federal agencies to
prepare a detailed statement on the environmental impacts of their proposed major actions that
may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
4
5
6
7
8
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966: Section 106 of the NHPA addresses the
impacts of Federal undertakings on historic properties. Undertakings are defined in the NHPA
as any project or activity that is funded or under the direct jurisdiction of a Federal agency, or
any project or activity that requires a Federal permit, license, or approval (see also
36 CFR 800.16(y)).
9
10
11
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A Federal or, where delegated,
State or Tribal permitting system controlling the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United
States and regulated through the Clean Water Act, as amended.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: This Act provides a process for
museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items—human
remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal
descendants and culturally affiliated Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. The Act
includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items,
intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and Tribal
lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. The Act also allows the
intentional removal from or excavation of Native American cultural items from Federal or Tribal
lands only with a permit or upon consultation with the appropriate Tribe.
21
22
23
natural draft cooling towers: Natural draft cooling towers use the differential pressure
between the relatively cold outside air and the hot humid air on the inside of the tower as the
driving force to move and cool water without the use of fans.
24
natural gas: A gaseous mixture of hydrocarbon compounds, the primary one being methane.
25
26
27
natural gas combined-cycle technology: An advanced power generation technology that
improves the fuel efficiency of natural gas. Most new gas power plants in North America and
Europe use natural gas combined-cycle technology.
28
29
30
31
32
33
natural gas liquids: Those hydrocarbons in natural gas that are separated from the gas as
liquids through the process of absorption, condensation, adsorption, or other methods in gas
processing or cycling plants. Generally, such liquids consist of propane and heavier
hydrocarbons and are commonly referred to as lease condensate, natural gasoline, and
liquefied petroleum gases. Natural gas liquids include natural gas plant liquids (primarily
ethane, propane, butane, and isobutene).
34
naturally occurring radioactive materials: Radioactive materials that are found in nature.
35
36
neutron: An uncharged elementary particle, with a mass slightly greater than that of the proton,
found in the nucleus of every atom heavier than hydrogen.
37
natural gas combined-cycle: See natural gas combined cycle technology.
38
39
40
nitrogen oxides: Nitrogen oxides include various nitrogen compounds, primarily nitrogen
dioxide and nitric oxide. They form when fossil fuels are burned at high temperatures and react
with volatile organic compounds to form ozone, the main component of urban smog. They are
February 2023
8-23
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
also a precursor pollutant that contributes to the formation of acid rain. Nitrogen oxides are
among the six criteria air pollutants specified under Title I of the Clean Air Act.
3
4
5
6
7
no action alternative: For this LR GEIS, the no action alternative represents a decision by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to not allow for continued operation of nuclear power plants
beyond the current operating license terms. All plants eventually would be required to shut
down and undergo decommissioning. Under the no action alternative, these eventualities would
occur sooner rather than later.
8
9
noble gases: A gaseous chemical element that does not readily enter into chemical
combination with other elements. Examples are helium, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon.
10
11
noise: Unwanted sound; a subjective term reflective of societal values regarding what
constitutes unwanted or undesirable intrusions of sound.
12
13
14
nonattainment: Any area that does not meet the national primary or secondary ambient air
quality standard established by the EPA for designated pollutants, such as carbon monoxide
and ozone.
15
nonradioactive nonhazardous waste: Waste that is neither radioactive nor hazardous.
16
17
nonrenewable fuels: Fuels that cannot be easily made or “renewed,” such as oil, natural gas,
and coal.
18
19
nonrenewable waste fuels: Municipal solid wastes from nonbiogenic sources and tire-derived
fuels.
20
21
22
nonstochastic effect: Health effects, the severity of which varies with the dose and for which a
threshold is believed to exist. Radiation-induced cataract formation is an example of a
nonstochastic effect (also called a deterministic effect).
23
24
25
26
27
North American Electric Reliability Council: A council formed in 1968 by the electric utility
industry to promote the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply in the electric utility
systems of North America. North American Electric Reliability Council consists of regional
reliability councils and encompasses essentially all the power regions of the contiguous United
States, Canada, and Mexico.
28
29
30
31
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): A coding system developed jointly
by the United States, Canada, and Mexico to classify businesses and industries according to
the type of economic activity in which they are engaged. NAICS replaces the Standard
Industrial Classification codes.
32
33
nuclear fuel: Fuel that produces energy in a nuclear reactor through the process of nuclear
fission.
34
35
36
37
nuclear fuel cycle: The series of steps involved in supplying fuel for nuclear power reactors,
including mining, milling, isotopic enrichment, fabrication of fuel elements, use in reactors,
chemical reprocessing to recover the fissionable material remaining in the spent fuel,
re-enrichment of the fuel material refabrication into new fuel elements, and waste disposal.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-24
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
nuclear power (nuclear electric power): Electricity generated by the use of the thermal
energy released from the fission of nuclear fuel in a reactor.
3
nuclear power plant: A facility that uses a nuclear reactor to generate electricity.
4
5
6
7
8
9
nuclear reactor: A device in which nuclear fission may be sustained and controlled in a
self-supporting nuclear reaction. There are many types of reactors, but all incorporate certain
features, including fissionable material or fuel, a moderating material (unless the reactor is
operated on fast neutrons), a reflector to conserve escaping neutrons, provisions of removal of
heat, measuring and controlling instruments, and protective devices. The reactor is the heart of
a nuclear power plant.
10
11
12
13
14
15
occupational dose: The dose received by an individual in the course of employment in which
the individual’s assigned duties involve exposure to radiation or to radioactive material.
Occupational dose does not include dose received from background radiation, from any medical
administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive
materials and released in accordance with 10 CFR 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical
research programs, or as a member of the general public.
16
17
18
occupational exposure: An exposure that occurs during work with sources of ionizing
radiation. For example, exposures received from working on a nuclear reactor, in nuclear
reprocessing, or by a dental nurse taking x-rays would be classed as occupational.
19
20
21
22
Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Independent Federal agency whose
mission is to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths. Congress created
Occupational Safety and Health Administration under the Occupational Safety and Health Act
on December 29, 1970.
23
24
25
once-through cooling system: In this cooling system, circulating water for condenser cooling
is obtained from an adjacent body of water, such as a lake or river, passed through the
condenser tubes, and returned directly at a higher temperature to the adjacent body of water.
26
organ dose: Dose received as a result of radiation energy absorbed in a specific organ.
27
organism: An individual of any form of animal or plant life.
28
29
30
Outer Continental Shelf: The Outer Continental Shelf consists of the submerged lands,
subsoil, and seabed, lying between the seaward extent of the States’ jurisdiction and the
seaward extent of Federal jurisdiction.
31
32
overburden: Any material, consolidated or unconsolidated, that overlies a coal or other rock or
mineral deposit.
33
34
35
36
37
ozone: A strong-smelling, reactive toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms
chemically attached to each other. It is formed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions
involving nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds. The reactions are energized by
sunlight. Ozone is a criteria air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and is a major constituent of
smog.
February 2023
8-25
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
4
particulate matter: Fine solid or liquid particles, such as dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or smog,
found in air or emissions. The size of the particulates is measured in micrometers. One
micrometer is 1 millionth of a meter or 0.000039 inch. The EPA has set standards for PM2.5 and
PM10 particulates.
5
6
7
8
pathway (exposure): The way in which people are exposed to radiation or other contaminants.
The three basic pathways are inhalation (contaminants are taken into the lungs), ingestion
(contaminants are swallowed), and direct (external) exposure (contaminants cause damage
from outside the body).
9
peak load: The maximum load during a specified period of time.
10
11
perched aquifer/groundwater: A body of groundwater of small lateral dimensions separated
from an underlying body of groundwater by an unsaturated zone.
12
13
14
15
perfluorocarbons (PFCs): A group of man-made chemicals composed of one or two carbon
atoms and four to six fluorine atoms, containing no chlorine. PFCs have no commercial uses
and are emitted as a by-product of aluminum smelting and semiconductor manufacturing. PFCs
have very high 100-year Global Warming Potentials and are very long-lived in the atmosphere.
16
17
personal protective equipment: Clothing and equipment that are worn to reduce exposure to
potentially hazardous chemicals and other pollutants.
18
19
20
21
person-rem: The sum of the individual radiation dose equivalents received by members of a
certain group or population. It may be calculated by multiplying the average dose per person by
the number of persons exposed. For example, a thousand people, each exposed to
one millirem, would have a collective dose of one person-rem.
22
23
24
25
petroleum: A broadly defined class of liquid hydrocarbon mixtures. Includes crude oil, lease
condensate, unfinished oils, refined products obtained from the processing of crude oil, and
natural gas plant liquids. Volumes of finished petroleum products include nonhydrocarbon
compounds, such as additives and detergents, after they have been blended into products.
26
27
28
29
photosynthesis: The process in green plants and certain other organisms by which
carbohydrates are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water using sunlight as an energy
source. Most forms of photosynthesis release oxygen as a by-product. Chlorophyll typically
acts as the catalyst in this process.
30
31
32
photovoltaic and solar thermal energy: Energy radiated by the sun as electromagnetic
waves (electromagnetic radiation) that is converted at electric utilities into electricity by means of
solar (photovoltaic) cells or concentrating (focusing) collectors.
33
34
35
36
photovoltaic cell: An electronic device consisting of layers of semiconductor materials
37
photovoltaic system: A system that converts light into electric current.
38
phytoplankton: Small, often single-celled plants that live suspended in bodies of water.
fabricated to form a junction (adjacent layers of materials with different electronic
characteristics) and electrical contacts and being capable of converting incident light directly into
electricity (direct current).
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-26
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
3
plutonium: A heavy, man-made, radioactive metallic element. The most important isotope is
Pu-239, which has a half-life of more than 20,000 years; it can be used in reactor fuel and is the
primary isotope in weapons.
4
5
6
plume: A visible or measurable emission or discharge of a contaminant from a given point of
origin into any medium, such as that formed from a cooling water outfall into a receiving water
body or smokestack into the atmosphere.
7
8
PM10: Particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (0.0004 in.) or
less. Particles less than this diameter are small enough to be deposited in the lungs.
9
10
PM2.5: Particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers (0.0001 in.) or
less.
11
12
13
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Aromatic hydrocarbons containing more than one fused
benzene ring. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are commonly formed during the incomplete
burning of coal, oil, and gas, garbage, or other organic substances.
14
population dose: Dose received collectively by a population.
15
potable water: Water that is fit for humans to drink.
16
17
18
power: The rate of producing, transferring, or using energy, most commonly associated with
electricity. Power is measured in watts and often expressed in kilowatts (kW) or
megawatts (MW).
19
20
21
pressurized water reactor (PWR): A power reactor in which thermal energy is transferred
from the core to a heat exchanger by high-temperature water kept under high-pressure in the
primary system. Steam is generated in the heat exchanger in a secondary circuit.
22
23
24
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD): A Federal permit program for facilities defined
as major sources under the New Source Review program. The intent of the program is to
prevent the air quality in an attainment area from deteriorating.
25
26
primary system: A term that refers to the circulating water system in a pressurized water
reactor, which removes the energy from the reactor and delivers it to the heat exchanger.
27
28
29
proposed action: An action proposed by a Federal agency and evaluated in an environmental
impact statement or environmental assessment. In this LR GEIS, the proposed action is to
renew commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses.
30
31
proton: A small particle, typically found within an atom’s nucleus, that possesses a positive
electrical charge. The number of protons is unique for each chemical element.
32
33
proximity: Used sparingly to evaluate the remoteness of areas in which nuclear plants are
located. A measure of the distance to larger cities.
34
35
36
37
public dose: The dose received by members of the public from exposure to radiation or to
radioactive material released by a licensee, or to any other source of radiation under the control
of a licensee. Public dose does not include occupational dose or doses received from
background radiation, from any medical administration the individual has received, from
February 2023
8-27
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
exposure to individuals administered radioactive materials and released in accordance with
10 CFR 35.75, or from voluntary participation in medical research programs.
3
4
pulverized coal: Coal that has been crushed to a fine dust in a grinding mill. It is blown into
the combustion zone of a furnace and burns very rapidly and efficiently.
5
6
7
8
9
pumped-storage hydroelectric plant: A hydropower plant that usually generates electric
energy during peak load periods by using water previously pumped into an elevated storage
reservoir during off-peak periods when excess generating capacity is available to do so. When
additional generating capacity is needed, the water can be released from the reservoir through a
conduit to turbine generators located in a power plant at a lower level.
10
quality factor: The modifying factor that is used to derive dose equivalent from absorbed dose.
11
12
13
14
rad: The special unit for radiation absorbed dose, which is the amount of energy from any type
of ionizing radiation (e.g., alpha, beta, gamma, neutrons) deposited in any medium (e.g., water,
tissue, air). A dose of one rad means the absorption of 100 ergs (a small but measurable
amount of energy) per gram of absorbing tissue (100 rad = 1 gray).
15
16
17
18
19
radiation (ionizing radiation): Alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays, neutrons,
high-speed electrons, high-speed protons, and other particles capable of producing ions.
Radiation, as used in http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/,10 CFR Part
20, does not include nonionizing radiation, such as radiowaves or microwaves, or visible,
infrared, or ultraviolet light (see also 10 CFR 20.1003).
20
21
22
radioactive decay: The decrease in the amount of any radioactive material with the passage
of time due to the spontaneous emission from the atomic nuclei of either alpha or beta particles,
often accompanied by gamma radiation.
23
24
radioactive waste: Radioactive materials at the end of a useful life cycle or in a product that is
no longer useful and should be properly disposed of.
25
26
27
28
radioactivity: The spontaneous emission of radiation, generally alpha or beta particles, often
accompanied by gamma rays, from the nucleus of an unstable isotope. Also, the rate at which
radioactive material emits radiation. Measured in units of becquerels or disintegrations per
second.
29
30
radioisotope: An unstable isotope of an element that decays or disintegrates spontaneously,
emitting radiation. Approximately 5,000 natural and artificial radioisotopes have been identified.
31
radionuclide: A radioisotope of an element.
32
raptor: A bird of prey such as a falcon, hawk, or eagle.
33
34
rated power: The design power level of an electrical generating device, which is the maximum
power the device is allowed to generate.
35
36
37
reactor vessel: A device in which nuclear fission may be sustained and controlled in a
self-supporting nuclear reaction. It houses the core (made up of fuel rods, control rods, and
instruments contained within a reactor vessel) of most types of power reactors.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-28
February 2023
Glossary
1
receptor: The individual or resource being affected by the impact.
2
3
4
reference reactor year: Refers to one year of operation of a 1,000-MW electric capacity
nuclear power plant operating at an 80 percent availability factor to produce about 80 MW-yr
(0.8 GW-yr) of electricity.
5
6
refurbishment: Repair or replacement of reactor systems, structures, and components, such
as turbines, steam generators, pressurizers, and recirculation piping systems.
7
8
region of Influence: Area occupied by affected resources and the distances at which impacts
associated with license renewal may occur.
9
10
11
12
rem (roentgen equivalent man): The acronym for roentgen equivalent man is a standard unit
that measures the effects of ionizing radiation on humans. The dose equivalent in rem is equal
to the absorbed dose in rads multiplied by the quality factor of the type of radiation
(see 10 CFR 20.1004).
13
14
15
16
renewable energy resources: Energy resources that are naturally replenishing but
flow-limited. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration, but limited in the amount of energy that
is available per unit of time. Renewable energy resources include biomass, hydro, geothermal,
solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action, and tidal action.
17
18
19
renewable portfolio standards: State policies that require electricity providers to generate a
certain percentage, or, in some cases a certain specified amount, of electrical power through
the use of renewable energy sources by a certain date.
20
21
22
residual fuel oil: A general classification for the heavier oils, known as No. 5 and No. 6 fuel
oils, that remain after the distillate fuel oils and lighter hydrocarbons are distilled away in refinery
operations.
23
24
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): Act that regulates the storage,
treatment, and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes.
25
26
27
right-of-way: The land and legal right to use and service the land along which a transmission
line is located. Transmission line right-of-ways are usually acquired in widths that vary with the
kilovolt (kV) size of the line.
28
riparian: Relating to, living in, or located on the bank of a river, lake, or tidewater.
29
30
risk: The combined answers to the following questions: (1) What can go wrong? (2) How
likely is it? (3) What are the consequences?
31
risk coefficient: A coefficient used to convert dose to risk.
32
roentgen equivalent man (rem): See rem.
33
34
runoff: The portion of rainfall, melted snow, or irrigation water that flows across the ground and
that may eventually enter surface waters.
35
36
run-of-river hydroelectric plant: A hydropower plant that uses the flow of a stream as it
occurs and has little or no reservoir capacity for storage.
February 2023
8-29
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
SAFSTOR: A method of decommissioning in which the nuclear facility is placed and
maintained in such condition that the nuclear facility can be safely stored and subsequently
decontaminated to levels that permit release for restricted or unrestricted use.
4
savanna: Grassland with scattered individual trees.
5
scouring: The rapid erosion of sediment caused by the movement of water.
6
7
scrubbers: Air pollution control devices that are used to remove particulates and/or gases from
industrial or power exhaust streams.
8
9
sediment: Particles of geologic origin that sink to the bottom of a body of water, or materials
that are deposited by wind, water, or glaciers.
10
seismic: Of, subject to, or caused by an earthquake or earth vibration.
11
seismicity: The frequency and distribution of earthquakes.
12
13
service water: Water used to cool heat exchangers or coolers in the powerhouse other than
the condenser. Service water may or may not be treated for use.
14
15
sievert (Sv): The international system (SI) unit for dose equivalent equal to 1 Joule/kilogram.
1 sievert = 100 rem. Named for physicist Rolf Sievert.
16
17
18
19
sludge: A dense, slushy, liquid-to-semifluid product that accumulates as an end result of an
industrial or technological process. Industrial sludges are produced from the processing of
energy-related raw materials, chemical products, water, mined ores, sewage, and other natural
and man-made products.
20
21
socioeconomics: Social and economic characteristics of a human population. Includes both
the social impacts of economic activity and the economic impacts of social activity.
22
23
24
soils: All unconsolidated materials above bedrock. Natural earthy materials on the earth’s
surface, in places modified or even made by human activity, containing living matter, and
supporting or capable of supporting plants.
25
26
solar energy: The radiant energy of the sun, which can be converted into other forms of
energy, such as heat or electricity.
27
28
29
30
solar power tower: A solar energy conversion system that uses a large field of independently
adjustable mirrors (heliostats) to focus solar rays on a near single point atop a fixed tower
(receiver). The concentrated energy may be used to directly heat the working fluid of a Rankin
cycle engine or to heat an intermediary thermal storage medium (such as a molten salt).
31
32
33
34
solar radiation: A general term for the visible and near-visible (ultraviolet and near-infrared)
electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by the sun. It has a spectral, or wavelength,
distribution that corresponds to different energy levels; short wavelength radiation has a higher
energy than long wavelength radiation.
35
solar thermal systems or concentrating solar power: See solar power tower.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-30
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
sound intensity: The measure of the amount of energy that is transported over a given area
per unit of time. Sound intensity is expressed in units of W/m2.
3
4
sparseness: Used (with proximity) to evaluate the remoteness of areas in which nuclear plants
are located. A measure of population density.
5
6
spawning: Release or deposition of spermatozoa or ova, of which some will fertilize or be
fertilized to produce offspring.
7
8
spent fuel burnup: A measure of how much energy is extracted from the nuclear fuel before it
is removed from the core. Its units are MW-day per metric tonne of uranium in fresh fuel.
9
10
spent nuclear fuel: Nuclear reactor fuel that has been removed from a nuclear reactor
because it can no longer sustain power production for economic or other reasons.
11
12
spent fuel pool: An underwater storage and cooling facility for spent fuel elements that have
been removed from a reactor.
13
14
15
State Historic Preservation Office(r) (SHPO): The State agency (or officer) charged with the
identification and protection of prehistoric and historic resources in accordance with the National
Historic Preservation Act in the State (see also 36 CFR 800.2(c)(1)).
16
17
18
19
state implementation plan: State-specific air quality plan for controlling air pollution emissions
at levels that would attain and maintain compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards or State-specific air quality standards. Each State must develop its own regulations
to monitor, permit, and control air emissions within its boundaries.
20
21
22
steam turbine: A device that converts high-pressure steam, produced in a boiler, into
mechanical energy that can then be used to produce electricity by forcing blades in a cylinder to
rotate and turn a generator shaft.
23
24
25
stochastic effect: Health effects that occur randomly and for which the probability of the effect
occurring, rather than its severity, is assumed to be a linear function of dose without threshold.
Hereditary effects and cancer incidence are examples of stochastic effect.
26
27
store and release dam: Hydropower facilities that store water in a reservoir behind a dam and
release the water through turbines as needed to generate electricity.
28
stormwater: Stormwater runoff, snowmelt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.
29
30
stratification: The formation, accumulation, or deposition of materials in layers, such as layers
of freshwater overlying higher salinity water (saltwater) in estuaries.
31
32
strip mine: An open cut in which the overburden is removed from a coal bed or other mineral
deposit prior to the removal of the desired underlying material.
33
34
35
36
sulfur: A yellowish nonmetallic element. It is present at various concentrations in many fossil
fuels whose combustion releases sulfur compounds that are considered harmful to the
environment. Some of the most commonly used fossil fuels are categorized according to their
sulfur content, with lower sulfur fuels usually selling at a higher price.
February 2023
8-31
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
sulfur dioxide: A gas formed from burning fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide is one of the six criteria
air pollutants specified under Title I of the Clean Air Act and contributes to the formation of acid
rain.
4
5
sulfur oxides: Pungent, colorless gases that are formed primarily by fossil fuel combustion.
Sulfur oxides may damage the respiratory tract, as well as plants and trees.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
supercritical and subcritical: Supercritical and subcritical define the thermodynamic state of
the water in the steam cycle. In supercritical steam generating units, the pressure at which the
steam cycle is maintained is above water’s critical point so there is no distinction between
water’s liquid and gaseous phases and the steam behaves as a homogenous supercritical fluid.
The supercritical point for water is 22.1 MPa (approximately 3,207 pounds per square inch).
Supercritical steam generators offer numerous advantages over their subcritical counterparts,
including higher thermal efficiencies, greater flexibility in changing loads, and greater
combustion efficiencies, resulting in lesser amounts of pollutants per units of power generated.
No ultra-supercritical units are operating in the United States.
15
16
17
supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS): A SEIS updates or supplements an
existing environmental impact statement (such as the LR GEIS). The NRC directs the staff to
issue site-specific supplements to the LR GEIS for each license renewal application.
18
19
20
21
22
surface mine (surface mining): A coal-producing mine that is usually within a few hundred
feet of the surface. Earth above or around the coal (overburden) is removed to expose the
coalbed, which is then mined with surface excavation equipment, such as draglines, power
shovels, bulldozers, loaders, and augers. It may also be known as an area, contour, open-pit,
strip, or auger mine.
23
24
surface water: Water on the earth’s surface that is directly exposed to the atmosphere, as
distinguished from water in the ground (groundwater).
25
26
27
switchyard: A facility used at power plants to increase the electric voltage and feed into the
regional power distribution system. Electricity generated at the plant is carried off the site by
transmission lines.
28
29
tallgrass: Any of various grasses that are tall and that flourish with abundant moisture, typically
associated with the prairies of the Midwestern United States.
30
terrestrial: Belonging to or living on land.
31
32
thermal: Having to do with heat. Also, a term used to identify a type of electric generating
station, capacity, capability, or output in which the source of energy for the prime mover is heat.
33
34
thermal efficiency: A measure of the efficiency of converting the thermal energy generated by
the burning of the fossil fuels or the fission of nuclear fuel to electrical energy.
35
thermal effluents: Heated discharge from a cooling water system.
36
37
38
thermal plume: The hot water discharged from a power-generating facility or other industrial
plant. When the water at elevated temperature enters a receiving stream or body of water, it is
not immediately dispersed and mixed with the cooler waters. The warmer water moves as a
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-32
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
single mass (plume) from the discharge point until it cools and gradually mixes with that of the
receiving water.
3
thermal stratification: The formation of layers of different temperatures in a lake or reservoir.
4
5
thermophilic: Organisms such as bacteria that require a relatively high-temperature
environment for normal development.
6
7
8
threatened species: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Requirements for declaring
a species threatened are contained in the Endangered Species Act.
9
10
11
12
total body dose/whole-body dose: Sum of the dose received from external exposure to the
total body, gonads, active blood-forming organs, head and trunk, or lens of the eye and the
dose due to the intake of radionuclides by inhalation and ingestion where a radioisotope is
uniformly distributed throughout the body tissues rather than being concentrated in certain parts.
13
14
total effective dose equivalent: The sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for external exposure)
and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposure).
15
transformer: An electrical device for changing the voltage of alternating current.
16
17
18
19
transmission: The movement or transfer of electric energy over an interconnected group of
lines and associated equipment between points of supply and points at which it is transformed
for delivery to consumers or is delivered to other electric systems. Transmission is considered
to end when the energy is transformed for distribution to the consumer.
20
21
22
transmission line: A set of conductors, insulators, supporting structures, and associated
equipment used to move large quantities of power at high-voltage, usually over long distances
between a generating or receiving point and major substations or delivery points.
23
24
transuranic elements: The chemical elements with atomic numbers greater than 92, the
atomic number of uranium.
25
26
transuranic waste: Material contaminated with transuranic elements that is produced primarily
from reprocessing spent fuel and from use of plutonium in fabrication of nuclear weapons.
27
28
tritium: A radioactive isotope of hydrogen with one proton and two neutrons. It decays by beta
emission. It has a radioactive half-life of about 12.5 years.
29
30
31
32
turbine: A device in which a stream of water or gas turns a bladed wheel, converting the kinetic
energy of the flow into mechanical energy available from the turbine shaft. Turbines are
considered the most economical means of turning large electrical generators. They are typically
driven by steam, fuel vapor, water, or wind.
33
34
35
36
37
38
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): A Federal agency, created for the purpose of
promoting human health by protecting the nation’s air, water, and soil from harmful pollution by
enforcing environmental regulations based on laws passed by Congress. The agency conducts
environmental assessment, research, and education. It has the responsibility of maintaining
and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws (e.g., Clean Air Act), in
consultation with State, Tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting,
February 2023
8-33
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Glossary
1
2
3
4
monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to States and Native American Tribes. EPA
enforcement powers include fines, sanctions, and other measures. The agency also works with
industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention
programs and energy conservation efforts.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): An independent regulatory agency that is
responsible for overseeing the civilian use of nuclear materials in the United States. The NRC
was established on October 11, 1974, by President Gerald Ford as one of two successor
organizations to the Atomic Energy Commission, which became defunct on that same day. The
NRC took over the Atomic Energy Commission’s responsibility for seeing that civilian nuclear
materials and facilities are used safely and affect neither the public health nor the quality of the
environment. The Commission’s activities focus on the nuclear reactors in the United States
that are used to generate electricity on a commercial basis. It licenses the construction of new
nuclear reactors and regulates their operation on a continuing basis. It oversees the use,
processing, handling, and disposal of nuclear materials and wastes; inspects nuclear power
plants and monitors both their safety procedures and their security measures; enforces
compliance with established safety standards; and investigates nuclear accidents. The NRC’s
Commissioners are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the
Senate for five-year terms.
19
20
21
22
uranium: A radioactive element with the atomic number 92 and, as found in natural ores, an
atomic weight of approximately 238. The two principal natural isotopes are uranium-235
(0.7 percent of natural uranium) and uranium-238 (99.3 percent of natural uranium). Natural
uranium also includes a minute amount of uranium-234.
23
24
universal waste: A special class of hazardous waste consisting of commonly used and yet
hazardous materials: batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and lamps.
25
26
vertebrate: Any species having a backbone or spinal column including fish, amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals.
27
28
visual impact: The creation of an intrusion or perceptible contrast that affects the scenic
quality of a landscape.
29
30
visual resources: Refers to all objects (man-made and natural, moving and stationary) and
features such as landforms and water bodies that are visible on a landscape.
31
32
33
34
35
volatile organic compounds (VOCs): A broad range of organic compounds that readily
evaporate at normal temperatures and pressures. Sources include certain solvents, degreasers
(e.g., benzene), and fuels. Volatile organic compounds react with other substances (primarily
nitrogen oxides) to form ozone. They contribute significantly to photochemical smog production
and certain health problems.
36
37
38
39
40
41
waste coal: Usable material that is a by-product of previous coal processing operations.
Waste coal may be relatively clean material composed primarily of coal fines, material in which
extraneous noncombustible constituents have been partially removed, or mixed coal, soil, and
rock (mine waste) burned as is in unconventional boilers, such as fluidized bed units. Examples
include fine coal, coal obtained from a refuse bank or slurry dam, anthracite culm, bituminous
gob, and lignite waste.
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
8-34
February 2023
Glossary
1
2
3
4
5
wastewater: The used water and solids that flow to a treatment plant and/or are discharged to
a receiving water body. Stormwater, surface water, and groundwater infiltration also may be
included in the wastewater that enters a wastewater treatment plant. Domestic or sanitary
wastewater is water originating from human sanitary water use and industrial wastewater is that
derived from a variety of industrial processes.
6
7
water table: The boundary between the unsaturated zone and the deeper, saturated zone.
The upper surface of an unconfined aquifer.
8
water quality: The condition of water with respect to the amount of impurities in it.
9
10
weir: A structure in a waterway or stormwater control device, over which water flows that
serves to raise the water level or to direct or regulate flow.
11
12
13
14
wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater and that
typically support vegetation adapted for life in saturated soils. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (e.g., sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river
overflow areas, mudflats, natural ponds).
15
16
wind energy: Kinetic energy present in wind motion that can be converted to mechanical
energy for driving pumps, mills, and electric power generators.
17
18
wind farm: One or more wind turbines operating within a contiguous area for the purpose of
generating electricity. See also wind power plant.
19
20
21
22
wind power plant: Wind turbines interconnected to a common utility system through a system
of transformers, distribution lines, and (usually) one substation. Operation, control, and
maintenance functions are often centralized through a network of computerized monitoring
systems, supplemented by visual inspection.
23
24
wind turbine: Wind energy conversion device that produces electricity; typically three blades
rotating about a horizontal axis and positioned upwind of the supporting tower.
25
26
X-rays and gamma rays: Waves of pure energy that travel with the speed of light that are very
penetrating and require thick concrete or lead shielding to stop them.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Yucca Mountain: The Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site of the DOE’s proposed location for a
repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The EPA established the
public health and environmental radiation protection standards for the facility. However, in
March 2010, DOE filed a request with the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to
withdraw its application for authorization to construct a high-level waste geological repository at
Yucca Mountain. The decisions and recommendations concerning the ultimate disposition of
spent nuclear fuel are ongoing.
34
35
zooplankton: Small animals that float passively in the water column. Includes eggs and larvae
of many fish and invertebrate species.
February 2023
8-35
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
NUREG-1437, Volume 1
Revision 2, Draft
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
February 2023
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437) Volume 1, Revision 2 |
| Subject | NUREG-1437, License Renewal GEIS, LR GEIS, environmental review, nuclear power plants, continued operations, license renewal, in |
| Author | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material S |
| File Modified | 2023-02-23 |
| File Created | 2023-02-15 |