Regulatory Analysis for the Proposed Rule:10 CFR Part 51, Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review

Regulatory Analysis for the Proposed Rule:
10 CFR Part 51, Renewing Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses—Environmental Review
NRC-2018-0296; RIN 3150-AK32

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

February 2023

ABSTRACT
The NRC is proposing to amend Part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related
Regulatory Functions.” This regulatory analysis evaluates the costs and benefits of the rule and
implementing guidance relative to the baseline case, the “no action” alternative. The proposed
amendments include updates to Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA [National
Environmental Policy Act] Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” in Appendix B,
“Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” to
Subpart A, “National Environmental Policy Act—Regulations Implementing Section 102(2),” to
align with recent Commission decisions regarding the NEPA analysis of subsequent license
renewal (SLR) applications. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, “Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” (NRC, 2013a) (2013 LR GEIS), provides the
technical and regulatory bases for Table B-1. The proposed rule would update the 2013 LR
GEIS, Table B-1, and associated guidance to clearly address the environmental impacts of
nuclear power plant SLR; remove the word “initial” from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3); and make
conforming changes to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 51.95(c).

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend Part 51 of Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Under the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR Part 51,
the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license requires the preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS). NUREG-1437, Revision 1, “Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants” (NRC, 2013a) (2013 LR GEIS),
provides the technical and regulatory bases for the summary of findings on environmental
issues in Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] Issues
for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” in Appendix B, “Environmental Effect of
Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” to Subpart A, “National
Environmental Policy Act—Regulations Implementing Section 102(2).”
In Commission Order CLI-22-03 (NRC, 2022a) and recent decisions in Turkey Point, CLI-22-02
(NRC, 2022b), and Peach Bottom, CLI-22-04 (NRC, 2022c), the Commission determined that
the 2013 LR GEIS and Table B-1 did not address subsequent license renewal (SLR). The
Commission also found that 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) only applies to applicants for initial license
renewal (initial LR). The proposed rule would update the 2013 LR GEIS, Table B-1, and
associated guidance to clearly address the environmental impacts of SLR; remove the word
“initial” from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3); and make conforming changes to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and
10 CFR 51.95(c).
This regulatory analysis evaluates the costs and benefits of the proposed rule, including
implementing guidance (Alternative 2), relative to the baseline case, the “no action” alternative.
The NRC staff has made the following key findings:
•

Rule Analysis: The proposed rule recommended by the staff would result in an annual
average benefit of $12.3 million. The net costs and benefits incurred over 10 years are
shown in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not
found.. Error! Reference source not found. shows the total costs and benefits of the
proposed rule for each entity affected by the rule. Error! Reference source not found.
shows the total costs and benefits of the proposed rule to industry and the NRC for each
type of licensee group affected by the rule.Error! Reference source not found.
Table ES-1 Total Costs and Benefits for Alternative 2
Entity
Industry
NRC
Net Benefit (Cost)

Total (2022 dollars)a
Undiscounted
7% NPV
$91,369,000
$58,183,000
$31,723,000
$19,098,000
$123,092,000
$77,281,000
iii

3% NPV
$74,342,000
$25,225,000
$99,567,000

a

Values rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

Table ES-2 Total Costs and Benefits by Licensee Group for Alternative 2
Licensee Group
Initial LR
Future SLR
Near-term and Submitted
Applications, and Issued
Subsequently Renewed
Licenses
Net Benefit (Cost)

Undiscounted
($301,000)
$127,537,000

Total (2022 dollars)a, b
7% NPV
($182,000)
$80,943,000

3% NPV
($237,000)
$103,643,000

($4,143,000)

($3,480,000)

($3,838,000)

$123,093,000

$77,281,000

$99,568,000

a

Values rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.
b Implementation costs were allotted based on the projected number of affected license renewal applications
submitted by that group.

•

Nonquantified Benefits: Based upon the assessment of total costs and benefits, the NRC
concludes that the rule, if issued, would increase regulatory clarity and the intent of the
NRC’s environmental requirements. The revised rule would result in a more consistent
implementation of the NRC’s regulatory program and Federal environmental statutes
and regulations. Additionally, the rule would ensure that the NRC’s license renewal
program fully accounts for SLR.

•

Uncertainty Analysis: The regulatory analysis contains a Monte Carlo simulation analysis
that shows the mean net benefit for this proposed rule is $77 million, with 90 percent
confidence that the net benefit is between $61 million and $93 million using a 7 percent
discount rate. The amount of time for licensees to perform an environmental analysis for
new Category 2 issues is the factor responsible for the largest variation in averted costs,
followed by the amount of time for the NRC to review the environmental analyses for
new Category 2 issues.

•

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

•

Implementation. The NRC expects that the final rule would be effective in 2024. In
addition to the LR GEIS, the NRC would correspondingly update the applicable guidance
documents: Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, “Preparation of
Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications” (NRC,
2013b), and NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, “Standard Review Plans for
iv

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

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT

....................................................................................................................... i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................ ix
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xi
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................ xiii
1

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

2

IDENTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE
APPROACHES ........................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Alternative 1: No Action .................................................................................... 7
2.2 Alternative 2: Rulemaking to Amend 10 CFR Part 51....................................... 8

3

ESTIMATION AND EVALUATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS .............................. 9
3.1 Identification of Affected Attributes ................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Industry Implementation ...................................................................... 9

3.2

3.3
3.4

3.1.2

Industry Operation ............................................................................... 9

3.1.3

NRC Implementation ........................................................................... 9

3.1.4

NRC Operation .................................................................................. 10

3.1.5

Improvements in Knowledge ............................................................. 10

3.1.6

Regulatory Clarity .............................................................................. 10

3.1.7

Environmental Considerations ........................................................... 10

3.1.8

Attributes with No Effects................................................................... 10

Analytical Methodology ................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Regulatory Baseline........................................................................... 11
3.2.2

Affected Entities ................................................................................. 11

3.2.3

Base Year .......................................................................................... 13

3.2.4

Discount Rates .................................................................................. 13

3.2.5

Cost/Benefit Inflators ......................................................................... 13

3.2.6

Labor Rates ....................................................................................... 14

3.2.7

Sign Conventions............................................................................... 15

3.2.8

Analysis Horizon ................................................................................ 15

Industry Implementation.................................................................................. 15
Industry Operation .......................................................................................... 16
vii

3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4

NRC Implementation....................................................................................... 18
NRC Operation ............................................................................................... 19
Improvements in Knowledge........................................................................... 20
Regulatory Clarity ........................................................................................... 20
Environmental Considerations ........................................................................ 21

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS ................................................................................ 22
4.1 Summary......................................................................................................... 22
4.1.1 Quantified Net Benefits ...................................................................... 22
4.1.2
4.2

4.3

Nonquantified Benefits....................................................................... 22

Uncertainty Analysis ....................................................................................... 23
4.2.1 Uncertainty Analysis Assumptions..................................................... 23
4.2.2

Uncertainty Analysis Results ............................................................. 24

4.2.3

Summary of Uncertainty Analysis ...................................................... 27

Disaggregation ................................................................................................ 27

5

DECISION RATIONALE AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................................. 28

6

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 29

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

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Total Industry Net Benefits (Costs) (7 Percent NPV)—Alternative 2 ........................... 24
Total NRC Net Benefits (Costs) (7 Percent NPV)—Alternative 2 ................................ 25
Total Net Benefits (Cost) (7 Percent NPV)—Alternative 2 ........................................... 25
Tornado Diagram—Total Averted Costs—7 Percent NPV .......................................... 26

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7

Affected License Renewal Applicants ........................................................................... 12
CPI-U Inflator ................................................................................................................ 14
Position Titles and Occupations .................................................................................... 15
Industry Implementation ................................................................................................ 16
Industry Operation Costs .............................................................................................. 18
NRC Implementation ..................................................................................................... 19
NRC Operation Costs ................................................................................................... 20

xi

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AEA

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

BLS

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

CFR
CPI-U

Code of Federal Regulations
consumer price index for all urban consumers

EIS
EMF

environmental impact statement
electromagnetic field

FR

Federal Register

GPM

gallons per minute

LR
LR GEIS

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

NEPA
NPV
NRC

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

OMB

U.S. Office of Management and Budget

PERT

program evaluation and review technique

ROW

right-of-way

SEIS
SLR
SRM

supplemental environmental impact statement
subsequent license renewal
staff requirements memorandum

xiii

1

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND OBJECTIVE

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its environmental
protection regulations for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses, including
Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] Issues for
License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” in Appendix B, “Environmental Effect of Renewing
the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” to Subpart A, “National Environmental Policy
Act—Regulations Implementing Section 102(2),” of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related
Regulatory Functions,” and make conforming changes in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and
10 CFR 51.95(c).1 (Hereafter, this document will refer to this table simply as “Table B-1.”) Under
the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which implement the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA),2 the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license
requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).
To support the preparation of license renewal EISs, the NRC conducted a comprehensive
review to identify the common environmental effects of license renewal. The review determined
which environmental effects could result in the same (generic) impacts at all nuclear power
plants (or a subset of plants) and which effects could result in different levels of impact,
requiring nuclear-plant-specific analyses for an impact determination. The review culminated in
the issuance of NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Plants (NRC, 1996) (1996 LR GEIS), followed by the publication of the final rule that
codified the LR GEIS findings on June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467).
The introduction to Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 states that, on a 10-year cycle,
the Commission intends to review the material in Appendix B, including Table B-1, and update it
if necessary. The previous revision cycle was completed with the issuance of a final rule and
LR GEIS, Revision 1 (2013 LR GEIS), on June 20, 2013 (78 FR 37281). The 2013 LR GEIS
(NRC, 2013a) provides the technical and regulatory bases for the current Table B-1. The
revised LR GEIS provides the technical and regulatory bases for the proposed rule.
In Commission Order CLI-22-03 (NRC, 2022a) and recent decisions in Turkey Point, CLI-22-02
(NRC, 2022b), and Peach Bottom, CLI-22-04 (NRC, 2022c), the Commission determined that
the 2013 LR GEIS and Table B-1 did not address subsequent license renewal (SLR).
Additionally, the Commission found that 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) only applies to applicants for initial
license renewal (initial LR).
The proposed rule would redefine the number and scope of the environmental issues in
Table B-1 that must be addressed by the NRC and applicants during plant-specific license

1
2

This rule would also remove the word “initial” from 10 CFR 51.53(c).
NEPA requires Federal agencies to analyze the environmental effects of their proposed actions before
deciding whether to approve or disapprove the proposed action.

1

renewal environmental reviews based on changes in the LR GEIS. The proposed rule would
update the LR GEIS to also apply to SLR. It would also codify the lessons learned, knowledge
gained, and experience from license renewal environmental reviews performed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS and incorporate changes in environmental regulations,
impact methodology, and other new information.
This regulatory analysis evaluates the proposed rule and one alternative, the “no action”
alternative, for which the NRC would not conduct rulemaking but continue to regulate the
renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses using existing environmental protection
regulations. The no action alternative is the baseline against which the proposed action is
compared.

1.1

Description of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is to update the LR GEIS and the environmental issues in Table B-1 to
address the impacts of initial LR and SLR. The rule would also remove the word “initial” from
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) and make conforming changes in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and
10 CFR 51.95(c). Additionally, the rule would address recent changes to environmental laws,
executive orders, and regulations.
Specifically, the proposed action would redefine the number and scope of the environmental
issues that must be addressed by the Commission in conjunction with the review of license
renewal applications (initial LR or SLR). The associated draft LR GEIS identified 80
environmental issues, 20 of which require a plant-specific analysis. The following summarizes
the types of proposed changes to Table B-1 (as enumerated in Appendix A to this analysis):
•

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).”

•

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.”

•

One Category 2 issue, “Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with
once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds)” and the impingement component of a
Category 1 issue, “Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms
exposed to sublethal stresses” were consolidated into a single Category 2 issue,
“Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling ponds).”

2

•

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

•

One Category 2 issue, “Threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential
fish habitat,” was divided into three Category 2 issues: (1) “Endangered Species Act:
Federally listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction,”
(2) “Endangered Species Act: Federally listed species and critical habitats under
National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction,” and (3) “Magnuson-Stevens Act:
essential fish habitat.”

•

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

•

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

•

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

The NRC does not propose to eliminate any environmental issues identified in Table B-1 and
evaluated in the 2013 LR GEIS.
Under the proposed action, in addition to updating the LR GEIS, the NRC would revise the
guidance in Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, “Preparation of Environmental
Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications,” (NRC, 2013b), and
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews
for Nuclear Power Plants: Operating License Renewal,” (NRC, 2013c), with the final rule. The
staff uses these guidance documents to evaluate license renewal applications, to conduct
plant-specific environmental reviews, and to assist applicants in the preparation of
environmental reports as part of their license renewal applications.

1.2

Need for the Proposed Action

The regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 state that the Commission intends to review Table B-1, along
with technical supporting documentation (NUREG-1437), on a 10-year cycle and update it if
necessary. The LR GEIS and Table B-1 have generally been effective in focusing license
renewal environmental reviews on important plant-specific issues and concerns at each nuclear
power plant site, thus increasing the overall efficiency of the NRC’s environmental review and in
meeting its NEPA compliance responsibilities. The last rule that amended Table B-1 was
published in 2013, along with the 2013 LR GEIS.
The current rulemaking began when the NRC issued a notice of intent to review and potentially
update the 2013 LR GEIS. In July 2021, the staff submitted SECY-21-0066, “Rulemaking Plan
for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review
3

(RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)” (NRC, 2021a), to request Commission approval to initiate a
rulemaking to amend Table B-1 and update the 2013 LR GEIS and associated guidance. The
rulemaking plan also proposed to remove the word “initial” from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) and make
corresponding changes to the LR GEIS and associated guidance to include applicability to SLR.
In February 2022, the Commission issued Staff Requirements Memorandum
(SRM)-SECY-21-0066, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses – Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)” (NRC, 2022d),
disapproving the staff’s recommendation and directing the staff to develop a rulemaking plan
that aligned with Commission’s Order CLI-22-03 (NRC, 2022a) and recent decisions in
CLI-22-02 (NRC, 2022b) and CLI-22-04 (NRC, 2022c) regarding the NEPA analysis of SLR
applications. The SRM also directed the staff to (1) proceed with rulemaking to amend
Table B-1, (2) remove the word “initial” from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3), (3) update the LR GEIS,
(4) conduct a thorough analysis of the environmental impacts of SLR to expand the applicability
of the LR GEIS, and (5) consider changes to applicable laws and regulations, new data, and
experience in conducting similar environmental reviews.
In March 2022, the staff submitted SECY-22-0024, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear
Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296)”
(NRC, 2022e), to request Commission approval to initiate a rulemaking that would align with the
Commission’s Order CLI-22-03 (NRC, 2022a), and recent decisions in CLI-22-02 (NRC, 2022b),
and CLI-22-04 (NRC, 2022c).
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, 2022f), approving the staff’s recommendation to proceed with the
rulemaking.
Revisions to the 2013 LR GEIS would consider (1) lessons learned and experience gained
during previous license renewal reviews conducted since development of the 2013 LR GEIS,
and (2) new research, findings, and other information when evaluating the significance of
impacts associated with initial LR and one term of SLR. The purpose of this evaluation is to
review the findings presented in the 2013 LR GEIS and to ensure that the analysis and
assumptions apply to SLR. In doing so, the NRC considered the need to modify, add, or delete
any of the environmental issues in the 2013 LR GEIS and codified in Table B-1.

1.3

Existing Regulatory Framework

As mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), the NRC is responsible for
protecting public health and safety in the civilian use of nuclear power. The AEA allows the NRC
to issue licenses for commercial nuclear power reactors to operate for up to 40 years. The
NRC’s regulations allow for the renewal of these licenses, with the renewal term including the
number of years remaining on the operating license currently in effect plus an additional
20 years. The approval or disapproval of the license renewal application is based on an NRC
4

determination as to whether the nuclear facility can continue to operate safely during the
20-year period of extended operation and whether the adverse environmental impacts of license
renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning
decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The term of any renewed license may not exceed
40 years. No specific limitations exist in the AEA or in the NRC’s regulations on the number of
times a power reactor operating license may be renewed.
Under the NRC’s environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which implement
NEPA, renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license requires the preparation of an EIS. In
this regard, the NRC prepares a supplemental EIS (SEIS) to the LR GEIS for each license
renewal application. The primary purpose for the LR GEIS is to identify all environmental issues
for license renewal and evaluate those environmental impacts considered to be generic to all
nuclear power plants, or a subset of plants. The LR GEIS also identifies issues that need to be
addressed in plant-specific environmental reviews for nuclear power plant license renewals, as
documented in plant-specific SEISs.
The environmental issues evaluated in the LR GEIS and listed in Table B-1 are characterized as
either Category 1, Category 2, or uncategorized. Category 1 issues are considered generic, as
the impacts have been found to be essentially the same or similar at all, or a subset of, nuclear
plants. Category 1 issues are not reevaluated in nuclear power plant-specific environmental
reviews absent new and significant information. Category 2 issues are required to be addressed
in each nuclear power plant-specific environmental review. Table B-1 summarizes the findings
in the LR GEIS on environmental issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants.
Additionally, to support the staff’s environmental review, license renewal applicants must
prepare an environmental report under 10 CFR 51.53(c). That section directs applicants for
initial LR to analyze Category 2 issues and rely on Table B-1 and the LR GEIS for Category 1
issues. The staff uses the information in that environmental report to analyze Category 2 issues
in a plant-specific SEIS to the LR GEIS.

5

2

IDENTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

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

2.1

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

The no action alternative maintains the status quo. Under the no action alternative, the NRC
would not amend certain provisions of 10 CFR Part 51 relating to the renewal of nuclear power
plant licenses, including Table B-1. This alternative serves as the baseline for this analysis.
Initial LR
Under Alternative 1, the NRC would continue to rely upon the findings set forth in the current
Table B-1 when determining the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts of an initial
operating license renewal for a nuclear power plant. Licensees seeking an initial operating
license renewal would continue to comply with the existing provisions of 10 CFR Part 51. This
alternative would result in no new direct costs to the NRC or licensees seeking an initial LR.
Future SLR3
In accordance with the Commission’s Order CLI-22-03 (NRC, 2022a), Alternative 1 would not
address the environmental impacts of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant
for SLR. This alternative would result in additional costs to the NRC and licensees seeking a
future SLR for evaluating all environmental impacts as plant-specific issues.
Near-Term4 and Submitted Applications, and Issued5 Subsequently Renewed Licenses
In accordance with the Commission’s Orders CLI-22-02 (NRC, 2022b), and CLI-22-04
(NRC, 2022c), for licensees seeking a near-term SLR or licensees that have submitted an
application for an SLR or received an SLR, Alternative 1 would require the evaluation of all

3
4
5

Future SLR refers to SLR applications submitted after the rule becomes effective.
Near-term SLR refers to SLR applications submitted before the effective date of the rule.
At present, three operating nuclear power plants have received subsequently renewed licenses. In
accordance with the Commission’s Orders CLI-22-02 (NRC, 2022b) and CLI-22-04 (NRC, 2022c) two of the
three operating nuclear power plants with subsequently renewed licenses are reset to expire at the end of
the initial period of extended operation, which were affirmed by the Commission’s Orders CLI-22-06 (NRC,
2022g) and CLI-22-07 (NRC, 2022h). This direction will hold either (1) until the NRC issues the revised
LR GEIS and rule or (2) the staff completes a plant-specific environmental impact statement that considers
the impacts of nuclear power plant operations during the SLR period, which includes consideration of an
applicant’s revised environmental report that addresses environmental impacts during the SLR period. The
remaining operating nuclear power plant requires no additional action at present and is unaffected by the
proposed rule.

7

environmental issues as plant-specific. This alternative would result in additional costs to the
NRC and licensees.

2.2

Alternative 2: Rulemaking to Amend 10 CFR Part 51

Under Alternative 2, the NRC would issue a final rule that would establish new, and amend
existing, provisions of 10 CFR Part 51 relating to the renewal of nuclear power plant licenses,
including Table B-1. Changes include updating all issues in the current Table B-1 to fully
account for SLR and are based on the findings described in the revised LR GEIS. The rule
includes new, consolidated, and revised Category 1 and 2 issues based on lessons learned,
knowledge gained, and experience from license renewal environmental reviews performed
since development of the 2013 LR GEIS. The rule also incorporates changes in environmental
regulations, impact methodology, and other new information. The rule clarifies issue titles and
the scope and resources considered for issue findings.
The rule would apply to all nuclear power plant license renewal applicants and benefit future
SLR applicants. Error! Reference source not found. in Appendix A to this regulatory analysis
presents the proposed changes to the issues and findings in Table B-1 that would result in
quantifiable costs and benefits.

8

3

ESTIMATION AND EVALUATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS

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

3.1

Identification of Affected Attributes

This section identifies the components of the public and private sectors, commonly referred to
as attributes, that are expected to be affected by Alternative 2, the rulemaking alternative,
identified in Section 2. Alternative 2 would apply to all NRC applicants renewing their nuclear
power reactor(s) operating license. The staff developed an inventory of the impacted attributes
using the list in NUREG/BR-0058, draft Revision 5, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” issued January 2020 (NRC, 2020).
The rule would affect the attributes described below.
3.1.1

Industry Implementation

This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on the industry of implementing the
regulatory action for all affected licensees. Under this action, the industry would review the
regulations and update its processes and procedures, as necessary.
3.1.2

Industry Operation

This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on all affected licensees caused by
routine and recurring activities required by Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, licensees would
incur costs and benefits resulting from the environmental issues and findings proposed in
Table B-1.
3.1.3

NRC Implementation

This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on the NRC related to placing the
alternative into operation. The NRC’s implementation of Alternative 2 will include the agency’s
cost to develop and issue the final rule and associated guidance.

9

3.1.4

NRC Operation

This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on the NRC caused by routine and
recurring activities required by Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, the NRC would incur costs
and benefits resulting from the environmental issues and findings proposed in Table B-1.
3.1.5

Improvements in Knowledge

This attribute accounts for the potential value of new information resulting from the
implementation of Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would codify the
lessons learned, knowledge gained, and experience from license renewal environmental
reviews performed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS and incorporate changes in
environmental regulations, impact methodology, and other new information.
3.1.6

Regulatory Clarity

This attribute accounts for regulatory clarity resulting from the implementation of Alternative 2
compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 would update the applicability of the LR GEIS,
Table B-1, and the associated guidance to SLR.
3.1.7

Environmental Considerations

This attribute accounts for the consideration of environmental impacts of Federal actions that
affect the human environment. Many NRC regulatory actions are handled through an EIS that
considers the environmental impacts (both negative and beneficial) from the proposed licensing
action. This regulatory action would update Table B-1 and make other conforming changes in
10 CFR Part 51, which will improve the quality of the environmental information provided to the
NRC and facilitate license renewal environmental reviews performed for power reactor license
renewal. The impacts of these changes are analyzed in the attributes discussed in
Sections 3.1.1–3.1.3.
3.1.8

Attributes with No Effects

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

Public Health (Accident)
Public Health (Routine)
Occupational Health (Accident)
Occupational Health (Routine)
Offsite Property
Onsite Property
Other Government Entities
General Public
10

•
•

Safeguards and Security Considerations
Other Considerations

3.2

Analytical Methodology

This section describes the process used to evaluate costs and benefits associated with
Alternative 2. The benefits include any desirable changes in affected attributes (e.g., monetary
savings). The costs include any undesirable changes in affected attributes (e.g., monetary
costs).
Of the seven affected attributes, the analysis quantitively evaluates four attributes—industry
implementation, industry operation, NRC implementation, and NRC operation. Quantitative
analysis requires a baseline characterization of the affected society, including factors such as
the number of affected entities, the nature of the activities currently performed, and the types of
systems and procedures that applicants would consider or would no longer implement because
of the proposed alternatives. Where possible, the NRC calculated costs for these attributes
using distributions to quantify the uncertainty in these estimates. The individual sections for
each of the provisions include the detailed cost tables used in this regulatory analysis. The NRC
evaluated the remaining attributes qualitatively because the benefits relating to regulatory
efficiency are not easily quantifiable or because the data necessary to quantify and monetize
the impacts of these attributes are not available.
3.2.1

Regulatory Baseline

This regulatory analysis measures the incremental costs of the rule relative to a baseline that
reflects anticipated behavior if the NRC does not undertake any regulatory action. As part of the
regulatory baseline used in this analysis, the staff assumes full licensee compliance with
existing NRC regulations. Section 4 of this regulatory analysis presents the estimated
incremental costs and benefits of the alternatives compared to this baseline. This regulatory
baseline is the no action alternative (i.e., Alternative 1).
3.2.2

Affected Entities

The licensees for all 54 operating nuclear power plant sites can apply for license renewal. The
licensees for 49 operating nuclear power plants sites have already received an initial 20-year
operating license extension from the NRC. Three operating nuclear power plants sites have
received subsequently renewed licenses. Table A-3 includes the timing of the estimated initial
LR and SLR submittals for each operating plant.

11

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

The NRC is currently reviewing four SLR applications.

•

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

•

As a result of Orders CLI-22-02 (NRC, 2022b), CLI-22-04 (NRC, 2022c), CLI-22-06
(NRC, 2022g) and CLI-22-07 (NRC, 2022h), two of the three operating nuclear power
plants sites with subsequently renewed licensees have been reset to the end of the
initial period of extended operation. The remaining operating nuclear power plant site
with an SLR would require no additional action.

•

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

•

The NRC estimates that it will receive a total of 44 license renewal applications
(including initial LR and SLR applications) in the 10-year cycle following the effective
date of the rule, as shown in Error! Reference source not found.. Currently, sufficient
data does not exist to support estimates on license renewal applications beyond 2035.
Table 1 Affected License Renewal Applicants6

Calendar Year

2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
Total
Applications

Initial
LRa

Future
SLR

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

13
2
2
1
0
1
1
2
2
5
4

1

33

Near-Term and
Submitted
Applications, and
Issued Subsequently
Renewed Licenses
10

10

a Diablo

Total License
Renewal
Applicationsb, c
23
4
3
2
0
2
3
2
4
6
6
44

Canyon Units 1 and 2 are scheduled to cease operation in 2024 and 2025, respectively, and therefore are
not included in this analysis.

6

Data in Table 1 is current as of August 15, 2022.

12

b This

analysis assumes licensees will submit a license renewal application, which may cover multiple units, as
shown in Table A-3.
c Advanced nuclear reactors are excluded from this analysis but are considered in the “Regulatory Analysis for the
10 CFR Part 51, Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Rule,” December
14, 2021 (ML21222A057) (NRC, 2021b).

3.2.3

Base Year

All monetized costs are expressed in 2022 dollars. The staff expects the NRC to incur
implementation costs to prepare and issue a final rule and guidance in 2024. Ongoing operation
costs related to Alternative 2 are assumed to begin no earlier than 30 days after publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register, unless otherwise stated, and are modeled on an annual
cost basis. Estimates are made for recurring annual operating expenses. The values for annual
operating expenses are modeled as a constant expense for each year of the 10-year analysis
horizon. The staff performed a discounted cash flow calculation to discount these annual
expenses to 2022 dollar values.
3.2.4

Discount Rates

In accordance with guidance from U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular
No. A-4, “Regulatory Analysis,” issued September 2003 (OMB, 2003), and NUREG/BR-0058,
net present value (NPV) calculations are used to determine how much society would need to
invest today to ensure that the designated dollar amount is available in a given year in the
future. Using NPV calculations, costs and benefits are valued to a reference year for
comparison, regardless of when the cost or benefit is incurred in time. Based on OMB Circular
No. A-4 and consistent with NRC practice and guidance, present-worth calculations in this
analysis use 3 percent and 7 percent real discount rates. A 3 percent discount rate
approximates the real rate of return on long-term government debt, which serves as a proxy for
the real rate of return on savings to reflect reliance on a social rate of time preference
discounting concept.7 A 7 percent discount rate approximates the marginal pretax real rate of
return on an average investment in the private sector, and it is the appropriate discount rate
whenever the main effect of a regulation is to displace or alter the use of capital in the private
sector. A 7 percent rate is consistent with an opportunity cost8 of capital concept to reflect the
time value of resources directed to meet regulatory requirements.
3.2.5

Cost/Benefit Inflators

The staff estimated the analysis inputs from sources as referenced in Appendix A, which are
provided in prior-year dollars. To evaluate the costs and benefits consistently, these inputs are
put into 2022 base-year dollars. The most common inflator is the consumer price index for all
7

8

The “social rate of time preference” discounting concept refers to the rate at which society is willing to
postpone a marginal unit of current consumption in exchange for more future consumption.
“Opportunity cost” represents what is foregone by undertaking a given action. If the licensee personnel were
not engaged in revising procedures, they would be performing other work activities. Throughout the analysis,
the NRC estimates the opportunity cost of performing these incremental tasks as the industry personnel’s
pay for the designated unit of time.

13

urban consumers (CPI-U) developed by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS). Using the CPI-U, the prior-year dollars are converted to 2022 base-year
dollars. For 2022, the currently reported CPI-U values have been averaged together; the
entirety of CPI-U for 2022 has not been determined by the BLS. The formula to determine the
amount in 2022 dollars is as follows:
−
−

=

Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the values of CPI-U used in this regulatory
analysis.
Table 2 CPI-U Inflator

a

3.2.6

Base Year

CPI-U Annual Averagea

2021
2022

270.970
286.755

BLS, 2022.

Labor Rates

For the purposes of this regulatory analysis, the NRC applied incremental cost principles to
develop labor rates that include only labor and material costs directly related to the
implementation, operation, and maintenance of the rule requirements. This approach is
consistent with the guidance in NUREG/CR-3568, “A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment,”
issued December 1983 (NRC, 1983), and general cost-benefit methodology. The NRC
incremental labor rate is $143 per hour for fiscal year 2022.9
The staff used data from the 2021 BLS Occupational Employment and Wages data
(BLS, 2021), which provides labor categories and the mean hourly wage rate by job type, and
used the inflator discussed above to inflate these labor rate data to 2022 dollars. The labor rates
used in the analysis reflect total hourly compensation, including wages and nonwage benefits,
using a burden factor of 2.4. The NRC used the BLS data tables to select appropriate hourly
labor rates for performing the anticipated tasks necessary during and following implementation
of the proposed alternative. In establishing this labor rate, wages paid to the individuals
performing the work, plus the associated fringe benefit component of labor cost (i.e., insurance
premiums, pension, and legally required benefits), are considered incremental expenses and

9

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

14

are included. Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the BLS labor categories that
were used to estimate industry labor costs to implement this rule.
Table 3 Position Titles and Occupations
Position Title (in this
Regulatory Analysis)
Managers
Technical Staff

Administrative Staff
Licensing Staff

Standard Occupational Classification (SOC Code)
General and Operations Managers (111021)
Biological Scientists (191020)
Environmental Scientists and Geoscientists (192040)
Life, Physical, and Social Scientists (190000)
Office and Administrative Support Occupations (430000)
First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative Support Workers
(431011)
Lawyers (231011)

The NRC used BLS labor rates at the 25th percentile, mean, and 75th percentile and adjusted
to 2022 dollars as input into the uncertainty analysis, which is described in Section 4. The
industry hourly labor rate used in this analysis is $167 per hour.
3.2.7

Sign Conventions

The sign conventions used in this analysis are that all favorable consequences for the
Alternative 2 are positive and all adverse consequences are negative. Negative values are
shown using parentheses (e.g., negative $500 is displayed as ($500)).
3.2.8

Analysis Horizon

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

3.3

Industry Implementation

Under Alternative 2, industry would need to review the rule and update its procedures, as
necessary. The staff assumed that these implementation activities would apply to the 18 parent
companies of the licensees expected to submit applications under this rule from 2025 through
2035, as well as those licensees that plan to submit near-term SLR applications or licenses that
have submitted an SLR application or have received a subsequently renewed license. The staff
estimated each parent company would incur $50,000 in costs to perform these activities,
allocated evenly between reviewing the regulatory changes and updating their procedures in
15

preparation for using the new requirements. These activities result in costs to industry of
approximately ($760,000) using a 7 percent NPV and ($836,000) using a 3 percent NPV, shown
in Error! Reference source not found..
Table 4 Industry Implementation
Year
2024

Activity

Total per
Parent
Company

Undiscounted

18

$25,000

Licensee Review
New Requirements

Licensee
Procedure(s)
18
$25,000
Update(s)
Industry Net Implementation Benefit (Cost)
a Values rounded to nearest thousand dollars.
2025

3.4

Total (2022 dollars)a

No. of Parent
Companies

7% NPV

3% NPV

($450,000)

($393,000)

($424,200)

($450,000)

($367,000)

($412,000)

($900,000)

($760,000)

($836,000)

Industry Operation

Alternative 2 provides 80 issues in Table B-1 (see Error! Reference source not found. in
Appendix A) that each licensee must assess and include as part of the environmental review of
its license renewal application to the NRC.
General assumptions: Assumptions are listed below and apply to all license renewal applicants:
•

Category 1 Issue—A Category 1 issue is assumed to require, on average, 95 hours of
licensee staff labor to research new and significant information and, as applicable,
include information in the environmental report.

•

Category 2 Issue—A Category 2 issue is assumed to require, on average, 381 hours of
licensee staff labor to complete a plant-specific analysis and to present the analysis in
the environmental report.

•

Uncategorized Issue—An uncategorized issue is assumed to require, on average,
95 hours of licensee staff labor to research new and significant information and, as
applicable, include information in the environmental report.

•

Category Change—The net savings per change from Category 2 to Category 1 and the
net cost per change from a Category 2 to Category 1 is 286 hours.

•

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

16

•

Issue Division—Dividing a category issue from the 2013 LR GEIS into individual issues
of the same category in the proposed Table B-1, on average, will result in an estimated
50 percent increase in cost and in labor time for each issue added by issue division. For
example, if a single Category 2 issue is divided into three Category 2 issues, then the
result is an increased incremental cost of 100 percent for a total of 381 hours to analyze
the three subdivided Category 2 issues.

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

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

•

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

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

Costs—No incremental costs would be incurred by addressing Category 2 issues
because these costs would be incurred with or without the rule.

•

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

Near-Term and Submitted Applications, and Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses: This
group of licensees is expected to submit SLR applications before 2025. Near-term SLR
applicants may choose from two options: evaluate all environmental impacts as plant-specific or
rely on the current Table B-1 findings when developing their environmental report. This analysis
assumes that, at their own risk, licensees seeking a near-term SLR would rely on the current
Table B-1 findings when determining the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts of their
subsequent license, pending completion of the final rule.10 This assumption results in cost
reductions of approximately 40 percent. Once the rule becomes effective, new Category 1 and 2
issues, and changes from Category 1 to Category 2, including consolidations, would apply to
this group of license renewal applicants. Therefore, this group of licensees will need to provide
the NRC with additional environmental information as a result of the changes introduced by the
rule. The NRC can acquire this information in multiple ways (e.g., the NRC can send requests

10

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

17

for additional information or requests for confirmatory information, or licensees can reevaluate
and resubmit their application). This analysis recognizes that the licensee would reevaluate its
application against the changes to Table B-1 and resubmit the application to the NRC.
•

Costs—The rule would result in additional costs associated with new Category 2 issues,
subdividing an existing Category 2 issue, as well as Category 1 issues that are changed
to Category 2 issues, including consolidations, because these issues would require
plant-specific evaluation. Additional costs associated with new Category 1 issues to
research new and significant information would be incurred. The licensee would have
1 year to comply, resulting in costs incurred in 2025.

•

Benefits—The rule would address the gap in applicability for SLR.

Error! Reference source not found. presents a summary of the costs and benefits to license
renewal applicants as a result of the proposed Table B-1.
Table 5 Industry Operation Costs
Year

2025–2035

Total (2022 dollars)a
Undiscounted
7% NPV
3% NPV

Applicant Group
Initial LR
Costs
Benefits
Initial LR Subtotal

2025–2035

2025

a

($132,000)
$0
($132,000)

($55,000)
$0
($55,000)

($90,000)
$0
($90,000)

Future SLR
Costs
Benefits

$0
$0
$0
$94,534,000
$60,739,000 $77,220,000
$94,534,000
$60,739,000 $77,220,000
Future SLR Subtotal
Near-Term and Submitted Applications, and Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses
($2,133,000)
($1,741,000) ($1,952,000)
Costs
$0
$0
$0
Benefits
Near-Term and Submitted Applications, and
Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses
Subtotal
($2,133,000)
($1,741,000) ($1,952,000)
Industry Net Operation Benefit (Cost)
$92,269,000
$58,943,000 $75,178,000

Values rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

3.5

NRC Implementation

NRC implementation costs within the scope of this analysis of Alternative 2 are the costs of
preparing a final rule, as well as efforts on guidance development associated with the rule.
Costs already incurred, including those activities performed by the NRC in making the
regulatory decision (e.g., development of the proposed rule and associated guidance for public
comment), are viewed as “sunk” costs and are excluded from this analysis. Error! Reference
source not found. summarizes the costs and benefits of NRC rule implementation.
18

Table 6 NRC Implementation

Year

Activity

No. of
Hours

NRC
Labor
Rate

Contractor
Support

Total (2022 dollars)a, b
Undiscounted

7% NPV

3% NPV

NRC prepares
and issues
11,550
$143
$0
($1,652,000)
($1,544,000) ($1,604,000)
final rule
NRC prepares
2023
and issues
1,000
$143
$900,000
($1,043,000)
($975,000)
($1,013,000)
final guidance
NRC prepares
2024
and issues
6,160
$143
$0
($881,000)
($769,000)
($830,000)
final rule
NRC prepares
2024
and issues
678
$143
$600,000
($697,000)
($609,000)
($657,000)
final guidance
NRC Net Implementation Benefit (Cost)
($4,273,000)
($3,897,000) ($4,104,000)
a Values rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.
b NRC activities performed to prepare and issue the proposed rule and associated supplemental guidance are sunk
costs and not included in this analysis.
2023

3.6

NRC Operation

Alternative 2 activities affect the NRC environmental review time per license renewal
application. The analysis specifies each Table B-1 issue that is evaluated quantitatively.
General assumptions: Assumptions about NRC operation are listed below:
•

Category 1 Issue—A Category 1 issue is assumed to require, on average, 43 hours of
NRC staff labor to research new and significant information and, as applicable, include
information in the supplement to the LR GEIS.

•

Category 2 Issue—A Category 2 issue is assumed to require, on average, 174 hours of
NRC staff labor to complete a plant-specific analysis and to present the information in
the supplement to the LR GEIS.

•

Uncategorized Issue—An uncategorized issue is assumed to require, on average,
43 hours of licensee staff labor to research new and significant information and, as
applicable, include information in the environmental report.

•

Category Change—The net savings per change from Category 2 to Category 1 and the
net cost per change from a Category 2 to Category 1 is 131 hours.

•

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

•

Issue Division—Dividing a category issue from the 2013 LR GEIS into individual issues
of the same category in the proposed Table B-1, on average, will result in an estimated
19

50 percent increase in cost, in labor time for each issue added by issue division. For
example, if a single Category 2 issue is divided into three Category 2 issues, then the
result is an increased incremental cost of 100 percent for a total of 174 hours to analyze
the three subdivided Category 2 issues.
Error! Reference source not found. summarizes the cost savings impact of the changes to
Table B-1 as a result of the rule to the NRC for license renewal applications.
Table 7 NRC Operation Costs
Year

2025–2035

Total (2022 dollars)a
Undiscounted
7% NPV
3% NPV

Applicant Group
Initial LR
Costs
Benefits
Initial LR Subtotal

2025–2035

2025

a
b

($52,000)
$0
($52,000)

($21,000)
$0
($21,000)

($35,000)
$0
($35,000)

Future SLR
Costs
Benefits

$0
$0
$0
$36,882,000
$23,697,000 $30,127,000
$36,882,000
$23,697,000
$30,127,000
Future SLR Subtotal
Near-Term and Submitted Applications, and Issued Subsequently Renewed Licenses
($834,000)
($681,000)
($763,000)
Costs
$0
$0
$0
Benefits
Near-Term and Submitted
Applications, and Issued Subsequently
Renewed Licenses Subtotal
($834,000)b
($681,000)b ($763,000)b
NRC Net Operation Benefit (Cost)
$35,996,000
$22,995,000 $29,329,000

Values rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.
The NRC would also incur incremental costs to withdraw or amend any Commission orders as a result of the rule.

3.7

Improvements in Knowledge

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

3.8

Regulatory Clarity

Alternative 2 would improve the clarity of the environmental issues identified in Table B-1 and
provide consistency with other similar environmental issues (e.g., ecological resource issues) by
more clearly describing the title of the issues, scope, and resources considered for issue
findings. For example, Table B-1 issues have been divided into separate issues for clarity and
consistency with the separate Federal statutes and interagency consultation requirements that
20

the NRC must consider with respect to Federally protected ecological resources. Also, the rule
would remove the word “initial” from 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3), update the LR GEIS and associated
guidance to apply to SLR, and make conforming changes in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) and
10 CFR 51.95(c).

3.9

Environmental Considerations

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

21

4
4.1

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS

Summary

This regulatory analysis identifies both quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs and benefits that
would result from Alternative 2 (rulemaking). Although quantifiable costs and benefits appear to
be more tangible, decisionmakers should not discount costs and benefits that cannot be
quantified. Such benefits or costs can be as important as or even more important than benefits
or costs that can be quantified and monetized.
4.1.1

Quantified Net Benefits

Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found. summarize the
estimated quantified costs and benefits for Alternative 2 compared to the regulatory baseline
(Alternative 1).
Table 8 Summary of Totals by Licensee Group
Licensee Group
Initial LR
Future SLR
Near-Term and Submitted
Applications, and Issued
Subsequently Renewed Licenses
Net Benefit (Cost)
a

Total (2022 dollars)a
Undiscounted
7% NPV
3% NPV
($301,000)
($182,000)
($237,000)
$127,537,000
$80,943,000
$103,643,000
($4,143,000)

($3,480,000)

($3,838,000)

$123,093,000

$77,281,000

$99,568,000

Values rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.

4.1.2

Nonquantified Benefits

In addition to the quantified costs, the NRC has analyzed numerous costs and benefits that
could not be monetized but would affect the general public, industry, and the NRC. Error!
Reference source not found. summarizes the quantified and qualitative costs and benefits for
Alternative 2. The quantitative analysis used mean values.
Table 9 Summary of Totals
Net Monetary Savings or (Costs)
Alternative 1: No Action
$0
Alternative 2:
Industry: (all provisions)
$58.2 million using a 7% discount rate
$74.3 million using a 3% discount rate

Nonquantified Benefits or (Costs)
None
Benefits:
• Improvements in Knowledge—Alternative 2
would improve the quality of the information
provided to the NRC and facilitate license
renewal environmental reviews.

22

Net Monetary Savings or (Costs)
NRC: (all provisions)
$19.1 million using a 7% discount rate
$25.2 million using a 3% discount rate
Net Benefit (Cost): (all provisions)
$77.3 million using a 7% discount rate
$99.6 million using a 3% discount rate

Nonquantified Benefits or (Costs)
• Regulatory Clarity—Alternative 2 would improve
the clarity and intent of the environmental
requirements, including applicability to SLR, and
provide consistency with other ecological
resource issues.
• Environmental Considerations—Alternative 2
would provide the necessary information for the
NRC to comply with Federal environmental
statutes and regulations.
Costs:
• None identified

4.2

Uncertainty Analysis

The NRC completed a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for this regulatory analysis using the
specialty software @Risk. The Monte Carlo approach answers the question, “What distribution
of net costs and benefits results from multiple draws of the probability distribution assigned to
key variables?”
4.2.1

Uncertainty Analysis Assumptions

The NRC provides the following analysis of the variables with the greatest uncertainty on
estimates of values. As noted above, the NRC performed this analysis with a Monte Carlo
simulation analysis using the @Risk software program. Monte Carlo simulations involve
introducing uncertainty into the analysis by replacing the point estimates of the variables used to
estimate base case costs and benefits with probability distributions. By defining input variables
as probability distributions instead of point estimates, the influence of uncertainty on the results
of the analysis (i.e., the net benefits) can be modeled effectively.
The probability distributions chosen to represent the different variables in the analysis were
bounded by the range-referenced input and the NRC staff’s professional judgment. When
defining the probability distributions for use in a Monte Carlo simulation, summary statistics are
needed to characterize the distributions. These summary statistics include (1) the minimum,
most likely, and maximum values of a program evaluation and review technique (PERT)
distribution11. The NRC used the PERT distribution to reflect the relative spread and skewness
of the distribution defined by the three estimates.
11

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

23

Appendix A identifies the data elements, the distribution and summary statistic, and the mean
value of the distribution used in the uncertainty analysis.
4.2.2

Uncertainty Analysis Results

The NRC performed the Monte Carlo simulation by repeatedly recalculating the results
10,000 times. For each iteration, the values identified in Appendix A were chosen randomly from
the probability distributions that define the input variables. The values of the output variables
were recorded for each iteration, and these values were used to define the resultant probability
distribution.
For the analysis shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3, the NRC ran 10,000 simulations in which it
changed the key variables to assess the resulting effect on costs and benefits. Figures 1, 2, and
3, display the histograms of the incremental costs and benefits from the regulatory baseline
(Alternative 1) for each affected entity and the total net benefit of the rule. The analysis shows
that both industry and the NRC have a greater than 99 percent likelihood of incurring benefits
that exceed the costs if the NRC issues this rule.
49.94
5.0%

66.57
90.0%

5.0%

Industry / 7% NPV
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std Dev
Values

40

45

50

55
60
Values in Millions ($)

65

70

$42,380,473
$73,663,102
$58,185,794
$5,009,103
10000

75

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

24

17.07

21.09

5.0%

90.0%

5.0%

NRC / 7% NPV
Minimum $15,629,552
Maximum $22,482,304
Mean
$19,097,981
Std Dev
$1,221,903
Values
10000

15

16

17

18

19
20
Values in Millions ($)

21

22

23

Figure 2 Total NRC Net Benefits (Costs) (7 Percent NPV)—Alternative 2
68.87
5.0%

85.93
90.0%

5.0%

Net Benefit (Cost) / 7% NPV
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std Dev
Values

60

65

70

75
80
Values in Millions ($)

85

90

95

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

25

$60,986,526
$93,311,703
$77,283,775
$5,159,078
10000

Error! Reference source not found. presents descriptive statistics on the uncertainty analysis.
Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for Uncertainty Results (7 Percent NPV)
Uncertainty Result
Net Industry Benefit (Cost)
Net NRC Benefit (Cost)
Total Net Benefit (Cost)

Incremental Cost-Benefit (2022 Million Dollars)
Min
Mean
Max
5%
95%
$42
$58
$74
$50
$67
$16
$19
$22
$17
$21
$61
$77
$93
$69
$86

This table displays the key statistical results, including the 90 percent confidence interval in
which the net benefits would fall between the 5 percent and 95 percent values.
Figure 4 shows a tornado diagram that identifies the cost drivers for this rule. This figure ranks
the variables based on their contribution to the uncertainty in cost. The largest cost driver is the
amount of time for licensees to perform an environmental analysis for new Category 2 issues,
followed by the amount of time for the NRC to review the environmental analyses for new
Category 2 issues. These two variables are the largest cost drivers and generate the largest
variations in the total net benefit due to uncertainty. The remaining cost drivers show
diminishing variation in the total net benefit.

Net Benefit (Cost) / 7% NPV
Inputs Ranked by Effect on Output Mean
Industry hours per Cat 2 issue

$72,207,333

NRC hours per Cat 2 issue

$82,427,668

$75,276,797

Industry hours per Cat 1 issue

$79,351,482

$76,127,307

NRC hours per Cat 1 issue

$76,766,379

$78,967,784
$77,967,165

NRC hours per unclasssified issue

$76,936,967

Industry cost to update procedures

$76,937,089

$77,590,359

NRC savings from consolidated issues

$76,896,927

$77,525,874

Licensee savings from consolidated issues

$76,955,833

$77,538,285

Industry hours per uncategorized issue

$76,991,794

$77,547,402

Input High

$77,696,409

Input Low

Baseline = $77,283,775

72

74

76
78
80
Values in Millions ($)

82

84

Figure 4 Tornado Diagram—Total Averted Costs—7 Percent NPV

26

4.2.3

Summary of Uncertainty Analysis

The simulation analysis shows that the estimated mean benefit (i.e., positive averted costs or
savings) for this rule is $77 million, with 90 percent confidence interval that the net benefit is
between $61 million and $93 million using a 7 percent discount rate. The NRC’s quantitative
estimates show that the rule alternative (Alternative 2) is cost-beneficial to industry and the
NRC.

4.3

Disaggregation

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

27

5

DECISION RATIONALE AND IMPLEMENTATION

The assessment of total costs and benefits discussed above leads the NRC to conclude that the
rule, if implemented, would maintain protection of the environment, increase regulatory clarity in
the license renewal process, increase regulatory consistency, and reduce the regulatory burden
for industry and the NRC. Based solely on quantified costs and benefits, the regulatory analysis
shows that the rulemaking is justified because the total quantified benefits of the regulatory
action will exceed the costs of the final action, for all discount rates up to 7 percent. Considering
nonquantified costs and benefits, the regulatory analysis shows that the rulemaking is justified
because the number and significance of the nonquantified benefits outweigh the nonquantified
costs. Therefore, considering both quantified and nonquantified costs and benefits indicates that
the benefits of the rule outweigh the identified quantitative and qualitative impacts attributable to
the rule.
The NRC assumed for this analysis that this final rule would be effective in 2024. In addition to
the revised LR GEIS (Revision 2), the agency will issue a revision to Regulatory Guide 4.2,
Supplement 1 (Revision 2), and NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 (Revision 2), with the final rule.

28

6

REFERENCES

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), “SOC Code: Standard Occupational Classification Code,”
U.S. Department of Labor, January 2021. Available at http://www.bls.gov/soc/home.htm; last
accessed on June 2, 2022.
BLS, “Archived Consumer Price Index Supplement Files: May 2022 Historical CPI-U, Historical
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items,”
U.S. Department of Labor, June 2022. Available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/; last
accessed on July 12, 2022.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” Part 51, Chapter I, Title 10, “Energy.”
CFR, “Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other Regulatory Services
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended,” Part 170, Chapter I, Title 10, “Energy.”
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), “Regulatory Analysis,” Circular No. A-4,
September 2003. Available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), “A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment,”
NUREG/CR-3568, December 1983 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
Accession No. ML062830096).
NRC, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,”
NUREG-1437, May 1996.
NRC, “Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses,” Federal
Register, 61 FR 28467, June 5, 1996.
NRC, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,”
NUREG-1437, Revision 1, June 2013a.
NRC, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal
Applications,” Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, June 2013b (ML13067A354).
NRC, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Operating
License Renewal,” NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, June 2013c (ML13106A246).
NRC, “Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses,” Federal Register, 78 FR 37281, June 20, 2013.
NRC, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,”
NUREG/BR-0058, draft Revision 5, January 2020 (ML19261A277).
29

NRC, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental
Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296),” SECY-21-0066, July 22, 2021a (ML20364A008).
NRC, “Regulatory Analysis for the 10 CFR Part 51, Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic
Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Rule,” December 14, 2021b (ML21222A057).
NRC, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-22-03, February 24, 2022a (ML22055A521,
ML22055A526, ML22055A527, ML22055A533, ML22055A554).
NRC, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-22-02, February 24, 2022b (ML22055A496).
NRC, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-22-04, February 24, 2022c (ML22055A557).
NRC, “Staff Requirements—SECY-21-0066—Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power
Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296),”
SRM-SECY-21-0066, February 2022d (ML22053A308).
NRC, “Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental
Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296),” SECY-22-0024, March 25, 2022e (ML22062B643).
NRC, “Staff Requirements—SECY-22-0024—Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power
Plant Operating Licenses—Environmental Review (RIN 3150-AK32; NRC-2018-0296),”
SRM-SECY-22-0024, April 5, 2022f (ML22096A035).
NRC, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-22-06, June 3, 2022g (ML22154A215).
NRC, Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-22-07, June 3, 2022h (ML22154A217).
NRC, “Staff Requirements—SECY-22-0036—Rulemaking Plan for Renewing Nuclear Power
Plant Operating Licenses—10-Year Environmental Regulatory Update (NRC-2022-0087),”
SRM-SECY-22-0036, June 17, 2022i (ML22168A130).
NRC, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” Draft
NUREG-1437, Revision 2, Vols. 1 and 2 (ML22173A108).
NRC, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal
Applications,” Draft Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 2 (Draft Regulatory Guide
DG-4027) (ML22165A072).
NRC, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Operating
License Renewal,” Draft NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2 (ML22165A070).

30

APPENDIX A SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Table A-1 Proposed Changes to Table B-1
Issue
Table B-1 Issues
No.
Land Use
1
Onsite land use
2

Offsite land use
Offsite land use in
3
transmission line
right-of-ways (ROWs)
Visual Resources
4
Aesthetic impacts
Air Quality

Category
1

No change

1

No change

1

No change

1

No change

5

Air quality impacts

1

6

Air quality effects of
transmission lines

1

Noise
7
Noise impacts
Geologic Environment
8

Geology and soils

Surface Water Resources
Surface water use and
9
quality (non-cooling system
impacts)
Altered current patterns at
10
intake and discharge
structures
11
Altered salinity gradients
Altered thermal stratification
12
of lakes
Scouring caused by
13
discharged cooling water
Discharge of metals in
14
cooling system effluent
Discharge of biocides,
15
sanitary wastes, and minor
chemical spills

Proposed Changes to Table B-1

Revised issue title from Air quality
impacts (all plants) and the order of
the topics discussed in the finding
(operations aspects followed by
refurbishment)
Revised issue finding by adding the
phrase “from transmission lines”

1

No change

1

Revised issue finding (i.e., that the
environmental review does not
consider the impacts of geological
hazards on nuclear power plants)

1

No change

1

No change

1

No change

1

No change

1

No change

1

No change

1

No change

A-1

Issue
No.
16

17
18
19

Table B-1 Issues
Surface water use conflicts
(plants with once-through
cooling systems)
Surface water use conflicts
(plants with cooling ponds or
cooling towers using makeup
water from a river)
Effects of dredging on
surface water quality
Temperature effects on
sediment transport capacity

Groundwater Resources
Groundwater contamination
20
and use (non-cooling system
impacts)
Groundwater use conflicts
(plants that withdraw less
21
than 100 gallons per minute
[gpm])
Groundwater use conflicts
(plants that withdraw more
22
than 100 gallons per minute
[gpm])
Groundwater use conflicts
(plants with closed-cycle
23
cooling systems that
withdraw makeup water from
a river)
Groundwater quality
24
degradation resulting from
water withdrawals

Category

Proposed Changes to Table B-1

1

No change

2

No change

1

No change

1

Revised issue finding by adding the
phrase “during the license renewal
term” for clarity

1

Revised issue finding by adding
“U.S.” and adding the acronym
“EPA” for clarity

1

No change

2

No change

2

No change

1

No change

25

Groundwater quality
degradation (plants with
cooling ponds)

2

Consolidated Category 1 issue,
Groundwater quality degradation
(cooling ponds in salt marshes),
with Category 2 issue, Groundwater
quality degradation (plants with
cooling ponds at inland sites) and
includes saltwater intrusion and
encroachment on adjacent surface
water and groundwater quality as
site-specific factors for cooling
ponds

26

Radionuclides released to
groundwater

2

No change

A-2

Issue
Table B-1 Issues
No.
Terrestrial Resources
27

28
29

30

31

32

33

34

Non-cooling system impacts
on terrestrial resources
Exposure of terrestrial
organisms to radionuclides
Cooling system impacts on
terrestrial resources (plants
with once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds)
Cooling tower impacts on
terrestrial plants
Bird collisions with plant
structures and transmission
lines
Water use conflicts with
terrestrial resources (plants
with cooling ponds or cooling
towers using makeup water
from a river)
Transmission line right-ofway (ROW) management
impacts on terrestrial
resources
Electromagnetic field effects
on terrestrial plants and
animals

Category

2

1

Proposed Changes to Table B-1
Revised issue title from Effects on
terrestrial resources (non-cooling
system impacts) and scope of
issues and resources considered in
the finding
Minor revisions to issue finding for
clarity

1

Revised scope of issues and
resources considered in the finding

1

Revised issue title from Cooling
tower impacts on vegetation (plants
with cooling towers) and scope of
issues and resources considered in
the finding

1

Minor revisions to issue finding for
clarity

2

Revised scope of issues and
resources considered in the finding

1

Revised scope of issues and
resources considered in the finding

1

Revised issue title from
Electromagnetic fields on flora and
fauna (plants, agricultural crops,
honeybees, wildlife, livestock) and
scope of issues and resources
considered in the finding

A-3

Issue
Table B-1 Issues
No.
Aquatic Resources

Category

35

Impingement mortality and
entrainment of aquatic
organisms (plants with
once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds)

2

36

Impingement mortality and
entrainment of aquatic
organisms (plants with
cooling towers)

1

37

Entrainment of
phytoplankton and
zooplankton

1

38

Effects of thermal effluents
on aquatic organisms (plants
with once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds)

2

39

Effects of thermal effluents
on aquatic organisms (plants
with cooling towers)

1

A-4

Proposed Changes to Table B-1
Revised issue title from
Impingement and entrainment of
aquatic organisms (plants with
once-through cooling systems or
cooling ponds) and issue findings to
reflect revised Clean Water Act
Section 316(b) requirements and to
consolidate the impingement
component of the Category 1 issue,
Losses from predation, parasitism,
and disease among organisms
exposed to sublethal stresses
Revised issue title from
Impingement and entrainment of
aquatic organisms (plants with
cooling towers) and issue findings to
reflect revised Clean Water Act
Section 316(b) requirements and to
consolidate the impingement
component of the Category 1 issue,
Losses from predation, parasitism,
and disease among organisms
exposed to sublethal stresses
Revised issue title from Entrainment
of phytoplankton and zooplankton
(all plants) and scope of issues and
resources considered in the finding
Revised issue title from Thermal
impacts on aquatic organisms
(plants with once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds) and
scope of issues and resources
considered in the finding
Revised issue title from Thermal
impacts on aquatic organisms
(plants with cooling towers) and
scope of issues and resources
considered in the finding

Issue
No.

40

41
42

Table B-1 Issues

Infrequently reported effects
of thermal effluents

Effects of nonradiological
contaminants on aquatic
organisms
Exposure of aquatic
organisms to radionuclides

Category

Proposed Changes to Table B-1

1

Revised issue title from Infrequently
reported thermal impacts (all plants)
and consolidated Category 1 issue
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

1

Revised scope of issues and
resources considered in the finding

1

Revised scope of issues and
resources considered in the finding
Revised issue title from Effects of
dredging on aquatic organisms and
scope of issues and resources
considered in the finding

43

Effects of dredging on
aquatic resources

1

44

Water use conflicts with
aquatic resources (plants
with cooling ponds or cooling
towers using makeup water
from a river)

2

Revised scope of issues and
resources considered in the finding

1

Revised issue title from Effects on
aquatic resources (non-cooling
system impacts) and scope of
issues and resources considered in
the finding

45

Non-cooling system impacts
on aquatic resources

Impacts of transmission line
right-of-way (ROW)
46
1
management on aquatic
resources
Federally Protected Ecological Resourcesa

Revised scope of issues and
resources considered in the finding

47

Endangered Species Act:
Federally listed species and
critical habitats under
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service jurisdiction

2

Revised issue title from Threatened,
endangered, and protected species
and essential fish habitat and
divided issue into three issues for
each Federal statute and
interagency consultation
requirement

48

Endangered Species Act:
Federally listed species and
critical habitats under
National Marine Fisheries
Service jurisdiction

2

Subdivided Category 2 issue

A-5

Issue
No.

Table B-1 Issues

Category

Proposed Changes to Table B-1

49

Magnuson-Stevens Act:
essential fish habitat

2

Subdivided Category 2 issue

50

National Marine Sanctuaries
Act: sanctuary resources

2

New Category 2 issue

2

Revised scope of issues and
resources considered in the finding

1

No change

1

Revised issue title from Tax
revenues

1

No change

1
1

No change
No change

1

No change

1

No change

Historic and Cultural Resources
Historic and cultural
51
resources
Socioeconomics
Employment and income,
52
recreation and tourism
53
54
55
56

Tax revenue
Community services and
education
Population and housing
Transportation

Human Health
Radiation exposures to plant
57
workers
Radiation exposures to the
58
public
59

Chemical hazards

1

Revised issue title from Human
health impact from chemicals

60

Microbiological hazards to
plant workers

1

No change

61

Microbiological hazards to
the public

62

Electromagnetic fields
(EMFs)

63
64

Physical occupational
hazards
Electric shock hazards

Revised issue title from
Microbiological hazards to the public
(plants with cooling ponds or canals
or cooling towers that discharge to a
river) and issue findings to reflect
2
the fact that microbiological
organisms are a concern wherever
receiving waters that received
thermal effluents are accessible to
the public
Revised issue title from Chronic
Uncategorized effects of electromagnetic fields
(EMFs)
1

No change

2

No change

1

No change

Postulated Accidents
65

Design-basis accidents

A-6

Issue
No.

66

Table B-1 Issues

Severe accidents

Category

Proposed Changes to Table B-1

1

Revised from a Category 2 issue to
a Category 1 issue and issue finding
revised to reflect the fact that the
probability-weighted consequences
of severe accidents are small and to
reflect knowledge gained that
severe accident mitigation
alternatives do not warrant further
plant-specific analysis

2

Renamed issue title from Minority
and low-income populations and
issue finding revised to consider
Indian Tribes and subsistence
consumption

Environmental Justice

67

Impacts on minority
populations, low-income
populations, and Indian
Tribes

Waste Management
Low-level waste storage and
68
1
disposal
Onsite storage of spent
1
69
nuclear fuel
Offsite radiological impacts
70
of spent nuclear fuel and
1
high-level waste disposal
Mixed-waste storage and
71
1
disposal
Nonradioactive waste
72
1
storage and disposal
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
73
Greenhouse gas impacts on
1
climate change
74
Climate change impacts on
2
environmental resources
Cumulative Effects

75

Cumulative effects

Uranium Fuel Cycle
Offsite radiological impacts—
individual impacts from other
76
than the disposal of spent
fuel and high-level waste

No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
New Category 1 issue
New Category 2 issue

2

Revised issue title from Cumulative
impacts and issue finding revised to
reflect changes to Council on
Environmental Quality definition at
40 CFR 1508.1(g)(3)

1

No change

A-7

Issue
No.
77
78
79

Table B-1 Issues
Offsite radiological impacts—
collective impacts from other
than the disposal of spent
fuel and high-level waste
Nonradiological impacts of
the uranium fuel cycle
Transportation

Category

Proposed Changes to Table B-1

1

No change

1

No change

1

No change

Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning
Termination of plant
80
operations and
1
No change
decommissioning
a

Three of the four Federally protected ecological resources issues are not new issues. Issues 47–49 were
subdivided from an existing issue in accordance with applicable Federal statute and interagency consultation
requirements. Issue 50 specifically addresses a newly identified Federal statute and interagency consultation
requirement.

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

Table A-2 Major Assumptions and Input Data
Description
General Input
Analysis base year
Year NRC rule is
effective
Compliance
Effective Date
Timeframe of
analysis (years)
Alternative discount
factor
Principal discount
factor
NRC staff hourly
labor rate

Licensee average
labor rate

No. of parent
companies
No. of licensees yet
to request an initial
license renewal

Mean
Estimate

Distribution

Low
Estimate

Most Likely
Estimate

High
Estimate

Source or Basis of
Estimate

2022

NRC assumption

2024

NRC assumption
Calculated value.
(NRC rule year + 1
year)
Timeframe is
consistent with next
LR GEIS update
NUREG/BR-0058,
OMB guidance
NUREG/BR-0058,
OMB guidance

2025
10
3%
7%
$143

NRC calculation

$167

BLS.gov table hourly
rate was inflated to
2022 dollars using
CPI-U values and a
2.4 multiplier was
applied to account for
fringe and indirect
management costs

PERT

$131.88

$169.57

$191.31

18

NRC estimate

1

NRC estimate

A-8

Description
No. of licensees with
near-term and
submitted
applications, and
issued subsequently
renewed licenses
No. of licensees with
future subsequently
renewed licenses

Mean
Estimate

Distribution

Low
Estimate

Most Likely
Estimate

High
Estimate

Source or Basis of
Estimate

10

NRC estimate

44

NRC estimate

Alternative 1 Input Data for Alternative 2 Averted Costs
NRC Inputs
Hours per Cat 1
issue
Hours per Cat 2
issue
Hours per
uncategorized issue
Savings from
consolidated issues
Increased
percentage cost
from subdividing
issues
Industry Inputs
Hours per Cat 1
issue
Hours per Cat 2
issue
Hours per
uncategorized issue
Savings from
consolidated issues
Increased
percentage cost
from subdividing
issues

43

PERT

39

43

48

NRC estimate

174

PERT

156

174

191

NRC estimate

43

PERT

39

43

48

NRC estimate

70%

PERT

60%

70%

80%

NRC estimate

50%

PERT

40%

50%

60%

NRC estimate based
on historical data and
expert opinion

95

PERT

86

95

105

NRC estimate

381

PERT

343

381

420

NRC estimate

95

PERT

86

95

105

NRC estimate

70%

PERT

60%

70%

80%

NRC estimate

50%

PERT

40%

50%

60%

NRC estimate based
on historical data and
expert opinion

Alternative 2 Input Data
NRC Inputs
Hours to prepare
and issue final rule
Hours to prepare
and issue final
guidance
NRC contractor
support to prepare
and issue final
guidance
Category 2 to
Category 1 (hours
saved)
Category 1 to
Category 2 (hours
added)
Cat 1 consolidation
(hours saved)

17,710

PERT

15,939

17,710

19,481

NRC estimate

1,678

PERT

1,510

1,678

1,846

NRC estimate

$1,500,000

PERT

$1,350,000

$1,500,000

$1,650,000

NRC estimate

131

NRC calculation

131

NRC calculation

30

NRC calculation
based on consolidated
issues savings

A-9

Description
Cat 2 consolidation
(hours saved)
Industry Inputs
Parent company to
review regulations
and update
procedures
Category 2 to
Category 1 (hours
saved)
Category 1 to
Category 2 (hours
added)

Mean
Estimate

Distribution

Low
Estimate

Most Likely
Estimate

High
Estimate

Source or Basis of
Estimate
NRC calculation
based on consolidated
issues savings

PERT

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

NRC estimate

122

$50,000

286

NRC calculation

286

NRC calculation

Cat 1 consolidation
(hours saved)

67

Cat 2 consolidation
(hours saved)

267

NRC calculation
based on consolidated
issues savings
NRC calculation
based on consolidated
issues savings

Table A-3 Operating Nuclear Power Plants by Licensee Group12
Calendar
Year

2025

2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032

12

Initial LR

Future SLRa
Arkansas Nuclear Unit 1b
Brunswick Unit 1 and 2
Calvert Cliffs Unit 1 and 2
Cooper Unit 1
D.C. Cook Unit 1 and 2
Dresden Units 2 and 3
Edwin I. Hatch Unit 1 and 2
James A. FitzPatrick
Millstone Unit 2 and 3
Nine Mile Point Unit 1 and 2
Prairie Island Units 1 and 2
Quad Cities Units 1 and 2
R.E. Ginna
Beaver Valley Unit 1 and 2
Salem Unit 1 and 2
Davis-Besse
Joseph M. Farley Unit 1 and 2
Arkansas Nuclear Unit 2
Sequoyah Unit 1 and 2
McGuire Unit 1 and 2
LaSalle County Unit 1 and 2
Susquehanna Unit 1 and 2

Data in Table A-3 is current as of August 15, 2022.

A-10

Near-Term and Submitted
Applications, and Issued
Subsequently Renewed Licenses
Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3
H.B. Robinson Unit 2
Monticello
Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3
North Anna Units 1 and 2
Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3
Point Beach Units 1 and 2
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4
V.C. Summer Unit 1

Calendar
Year

Initial LR

2033

2034

2035
a.Future

Watts Bar Unit 1

Future SLRa

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

Catawba Units 1 and 2
Columbia
Byron Unit 1 and 2
Callaway Unit 1
Grand Gulf Unit 1
Limerick Unit 1 and 2
Waterford Unit 3
Fermi Unit 2
Palo Verde Unit 1, 2, and 3
River Bend Unit 1
Wolf Creek Unit 1

SLRs are estimated based on the current license expiration date.
Nuclear One Power Plant intends to submit separate applications for Unit 1 and 2.

b.Arkansas

A-11

SUBJECT: REGULATORY ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULE: 10 CFR PART 51,
RENEWING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES –
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, DATED: xxxxx

ADAMS Accession Nos.: PKG: ML22165A003; Regulatory Analysis: ML22165A008
OFFICE
NAME
DATE

NMSS/REFS/RASB
PNoto
8/3/2022

NMSS/REFS/RASB/TL
FSchofer
8/11/2022

QTE
JDaughtery
8/25/2022

NMSS/REFS/RASB/BC
CBladey
9/21/2022

OFFICE
NAME
DATE

NMSS/D
JLubinski

OGC

NRR/DD

EDO
DDorman

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

NMSS/SLED/D
THolahan