Download:
pdf |
pdfNUREG-1555, Supplement 1
Revision 2
Standard Review Plans for
Environmental Reviews for
Nuclear Power Plants
Supplement 1: Operating
License Renewal
Final Report
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS
IN NRC PUBLICATIONS
NRC Reference Material
Non-NRC Reference Material
As of November 1999, you may electronically access
NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at the
NRC’s Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly
released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series
publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, licensee,
and vendor documents and correspondence; NRC
correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins and
information notices; inspection and investigative reports;
licensee event reports; and Commission papers and their
attachments.
Documents available from public and special technical
libraries include all open literature items, such as books,
journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices,
Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports.
Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports
and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings
may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.
NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations,
and Title 10, “Energy,” in the Code of Federal Regulations
may also be purchased from one of these two sources:
1. The Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Publishing Office
Washington, DC 20402-0001
Internet: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/
Telephone: (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2104
2. The National Technical Information Service
5301 Shawnee Road
Alexandria, VA 22312-0002
Internet: https://www.ntis.gov/
1-800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000
A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is
available free, to the extent of supply, upon written
request as follows:
Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Administration
Digital Communications and Administrative
Services Branch
Washington, DC 20555-0001
E-mail: [email protected]
Facsimile: (301) 415-2289
Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted at
the NRC’s Web site address www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs are updated periodically and may differ
from the last printed version. Although references to
material found on a Web site bear the date the material
was accessed, the material available on the date cited
may subsequently be removed from the site.
Copies of industry codes and standards used in a
substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are
maintained at—
The NRC Technical Library
Two White Flint North
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852-2738
These standards are available in the library for reference
use by the public. Codes and standards are usually
copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating
organization or, if they are American National Standards,
from—
American National Standards Institute
11 West 42nd Street
New York, NY 10036-8002
Internet: www.ansi.org
(212) 642-4900
Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in laws;
NRC regulations; licensee, including technical specifications;
or orders, not in NUREG-series publications. The views
expressed in contractor prepared publications in this series are
not necessarily those of the NRC.
The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and
administrative reports and books prepared by the staff
(NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors (NUREG/CR-XXXX),
(2) proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX),
(3) reports resulting from international agreements
(NUREG/IA-XXXX),(4) brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and
(5) compilations of legal decisions and orders of the
Commission and the Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and
of Directors’ decisions under Section 2.206 of the NRC’s
regulations (NUREG-0750), (6) Knowledge Management
prepared by NRC staff or agency contractors (NUREG/KMXXXX).
DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account of work
sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government. Neither the
U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any employee,
makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any
legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use, or the
results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or
process disclosed in this publication, or represents that its use
by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1
Revision 2
Standard Review Plans for
Environmental Reviews for
Nuclear Power Plants
Supplement 1: Operating
License Renewal
Final Report
Manuscript Completed: August 2024
Date Published: August 2024
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
ABSTRACT
This document provides guidance to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in implementing
the provisions in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51, “Environmental Protection
Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” when conducting
environmental reviews of applications for the initial and subsequent renewal of a nuclear power
plant operating license(s). This standard review plan guides the staff in preparing a nuclear
power plant-specific supplemental environmental impact statement to NUREG-1437,
Revision 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.
This document supplements NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews
for Nuclear Power Plants, which provides guidance for the environmental reviews of
construction permits, initial operating licenses, early site permits, and combined licenses for new
nuclear power plants.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT
This NUREG provides voluntary guidance for implementing the mandatory information
collections in 10 CFR Part 51 that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under control number 3150-0021. Send comments regarding
these information collections to the FOIA, Library, and Information Collections Branch
(T6-A10M), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or by email to
[email protected], and to the OMB reviewer at: OMB Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (3150-0021). Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20503; email: [email protected].
PUBLIC PROTECTION NOTIFICATION
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for
information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a
currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.
iii
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ xiii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. xv
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................... xxvii
1.0
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.0
Areas of Review ..................................................................................................1-1
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................................1-1
Review Procedures..............................................................................................1-1
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................................1-2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................ 2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Overview .............................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................2-1
2.1.2
Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................2-1
2.1.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................2-1
2.1.4
Evaluation Findings ...............................................................................2-1
General Plant Information ....................................................................................2-2
2.2.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................2-2
2.2.2
Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................2-3
2.2.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................2-4
2.2.4
Evaluation Findings ...............................................................................2-7
Refurbishment Activities ......................................................................................2-7
2.3.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................2-7
2.3.2
Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................2-8
2.3.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................2-8
2.3.4
Evaluation Findings ...............................................................................2-9
Employment.........................................................................................................2-9
2.4.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................2-9
2.4.2
Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................2-9
2.4.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................2-9
2.4.4
Evaluation of Findings .........................................................................2-10
Alternatives to the Proposed Action ...................................................................2-10
2.5.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................2-10
v
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
3.0
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................2-10
Review Procedures .............................................................................2-11
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................2-12
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
Overview .............................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................3-1
3.1.2
Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................3-1
3.1.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................3-2
3.1.4
Evaluation Findings ...............................................................................3-2
Land Use and Visual Resources ..........................................................................3-2
3.2.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................3-2
3.2.2
Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................3-3
3.2.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................3-4
3.2.4
Evaluation Findings ...............................................................................3-4
Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise .....................................................................3-4
3.3.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................3-4
3.3.2
Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................3-5
3.3.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................3-6
3.3.4
Evaluation Findings ...............................................................................3-6
Geologic Environment .........................................................................................3-7
3.4.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................3-7
3.4.2
Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................3-7
3.4.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................3-7
3.4.4
Evaluation Findings ...............................................................................3-8
Water Resources .................................................................................................3-8
3.5.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................3-8
3.5.2
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................3-10
3.5.3
Review Procedures .............................................................................3-11
3.5.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................3-13
Ecological Resources ........................................................................................3-14
3.6.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................3-14
3.6.2
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................3-16
3.6.3
Review Procedures .............................................................................3-18
3.6.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................3-21
Historic and Cultural Resources.........................................................................3-22
3.7.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................3-22
3.7.2
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................3-23
3.7.3
Review Procedures .............................................................................3-24
3.7.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................3-25
Socioeconomics ................................................................................................3-25
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
vi
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
4.0
3.8.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................3-25
3.8.2
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................3-27
3.8.3
Review Procedures .............................................................................3-27
3.8.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................3-27
Human Health....................................................................................................3-28
3.9.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................3-28
3.9.2
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................3-28
3.9.3
Review Procedures .............................................................................3-29
3.9.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................3-30
Environmental Justice........................................................................................3-30
3.10.1 Areas of Review ..................................................................................3-30
3.10.2 Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................3-31
3.10.3 Review Procedures .............................................................................3-31
3.10.4 Evaluation Findings .............................................................................3-32
Waste Management...........................................................................................3-33
3.11.1 Areas of Review ..................................................................................3-33
3.11.2 Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................3-34
3.11.3 Review Procedures .............................................................................3-35
3.11.4 Evaluation Findings .............................................................................3-37
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change .............................................3-37
3.12.1 Areas of Review ..................................................................................3-37
3.12.2 Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................3-38
3.12.3 Review Procedures .............................................................................3-38
3.12.4 Evaluation Findings .............................................................................3-39
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS .............. 4-1
4.1
4.2
4.3
Overview .............................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................4-1
4.1.2
Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................4-1
4.1.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................4-3
4.1.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-16
Land Use and Visual Resources ........................................................................4-16
4.2.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-16
4.2.2
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................4-16
4.2.3
Review Procedures .............................................................................4-16
4.2.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-17
Air Quality and Noise .........................................................................................4-17
4.3.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-17
4.3.2
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................4-17
4.3.3
Review Procedures .............................................................................4-18
4.3.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-18
vii
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
Geology and Soils..............................................................................................4-18
4.4.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-18
4.4.2
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................4-19
4.4.3
Review Procedures .............................................................................4-19
4.4.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-19
Water Resources ...............................................................................................4-19
4.5.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-19
4.5.2
Acceptance Criteria (General for Water Resources Issues) ................4-20
4.5.3
Review Procedures (General for Water Resources Issues) .................4-21
4.5.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-22
4.5.5
Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or
Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water From a River) ...........................4-22
4.5.6
Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw More Than 100
Gallons per Minute [gpm]) ...................................................................4-24
4.5.7
Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants with Closed-Cycle Cooling
Systems that Withdraw Makeup Water from a River) ..........................4-26
4.5.8
Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants with Cooling Ponds) ...........4-28
4.5.9
Radionuclides Released to Groundwater ............................................4-31
Ecological Resources ........................................................................................4-32
4.6.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-32
4.6.2
Acceptance Criteria (General for Ecological Resources Issues) ..........4-33
4.6.3
Review Procedures (General for Ecological Resources Issues) ..........4-34
4.6.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-36
4.6.5
Non-Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources ......................4-36
4.6.6
Water Use Conflicts with Terrestrial Resources (Plants with
Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a
River) ..................................................................................................4-38
4.6.7
Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms
(Plants with Once-through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds) ..........4-40
4.6.8
Effects of Thermal Effluents on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with
Once-through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds) .............................4-43
4.6.9
Water Use Conflicts with Aquatic Resources (Plants with Cooling
Ponds or Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water From a River) ............4-45
4.6.10 Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical
Habitats ...............................................................................................4-47
4.6.11 Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat ...................................4-49
4.6.12 National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary Resources......................4-51
Historic and Cultural Resources.........................................................................4-53
4.7.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-53
4.7.2
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................4-54
4.7.3
Review Procedures .............................................................................4-55
4.7.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-56
Socioeconomics ................................................................................................4-56
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
viii
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.8.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-56
4.8.2
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................4-57
4.8.3
Review Procedures .............................................................................4-57
4.8.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-58
Human Health....................................................................................................4-58
4.9.1
Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-58
4.9.2
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................4-58
4.9.3
Review Procedures .............................................................................4-59
4.9.4
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-59
4.9.5
Microbiological Hazards to the Public ..................................................4-60
4.9.6
Electric Shock Hazards .......................................................................4-63
Environmental Justice........................................................................................4-65
4.10.1 Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-65
4.10.2 Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................4-66
4.10.3 Review Procedures .............................................................................4-67
4.10.4 Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-68
Waste Management...........................................................................................4-68
4.11.1 Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-68
4.11.2 Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................4-68
4.11.3 Review Procedures .............................................................................4-68
4.11.4 Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-69
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change .............................................4-69
4.12.1 Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-69
4.12.2 Acceptance Criteria (General for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Climate Change Issues) ......................................................................4-70
4.12.3 Review Procedures (General for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Climate Change Issues) ......................................................................4-70
4.12.4 Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-71
4.12.5 Climate Change Impacts on Environmental Resources .......................4-72
Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................4-73
4.13.1 Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-73
4.13.2 Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................4-74
4.13.3 Review Procedures .............................................................................4-74
4.13.4 Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-75
Impacts Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................4-75
4.14.1 Uranium Fuel Cycle.............................................................................4-75
4.14.2 Replacement Power Alternative Fuel Cycles .......................................4-77
4.14.3 Termination of Nuclear Plant Operations and Decommissioning .........4-78
References ........................................................................................................4-80
4.15.1 Areas of Review ..................................................................................4-80
4.15.2 Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................4-80
ix
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4.15.3
4.15.4
5.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ....................... 5-1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
6.0
Overview .............................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................5-1
5.1.2
Acceptance Criteria (General for Postulated Accidents Issues) .............5-1
5.1.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................5-1
5.1.4
Evaluation Findings ...............................................................................5-2
Postulated Accidents ...........................................................................................5-2
5.2.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................5-2
5.2.2
Acceptance Criteria (General for Postulated Accidents) ........................5-3
5.2.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................5-3
5.2.4
Evaluation Findings ...............................................................................5-4
Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ...............................................................5-4
5.3.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................5-4
5.3.2
Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................5-5
5.3.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................5-7
5.3.4
Evaluation Findings ...............................................................................5-8
References ..........................................................................................................5-8
5.4.1
Areas of Review ....................................................................................5-8
5.4.2
Acceptance Criteria ...............................................................................5-8
5.4.3
Review Procedures ...............................................................................5-8
5.4.4
Evaluation Findings ...............................................................................5-8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 6-1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.0
Review Procedures .............................................................................4-80
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................4-80
Areas of Review ..................................................................................................6-1
Acceptance Criteria .............................................................................................6-1
Review Procedures..............................................................................................6-2
Evaluation Findings .............................................................................................6-3
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 7-1
APPENDIX A – INTERAGENCY CONSULTATIONS FOR ECOLOGICAL
RESOURCES .................................................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B – NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106
REVIEW AND CONSULTATION ...................................................... B-1
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure A-1
Figure A-2
Figure A-3
Figure B-1
Endangered Species Act Consultation Process Flowchart .................................. A-5
Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Process Flowchart .................................... A-17
National Marine Sanctuaries Act Consultation Process Flowchart .................... A-26
Coordinating National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews ............................................................... B-3
xi
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table A-1
Table A-2
Table A-3
Table A-4
Table A-5
Table A-6
Design Details of Heat-Dissipation-System Components .....................................2-5
Performance Characteristics of the Heat-Dissipation System ..............................2-5
Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues (Summary of Findings on
Environmental Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants) ......................................................................4-3
Category 2 Issues (Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues for Initial
and Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants).............................4-12
Possible Endangered Species Act Effect Determinations Made by the
Federal Action Agency ........................................................................................ A-7
Appropriate Type of Consultation by Endangered Species Act Effect
Determination ..................................................................................................... A-9
Possible Essential Fish Habitat Effect Determinations Made by the Federal
Action Agency................................................................................................... A-19
Appropriate Type of Consultation by Type of Proposed Action and Essential
Fish Habitat Effect Determination ..................................................................... A-21
Types of Sanctuary Resources ......................................................................... A-27
Possible National Marine Sanctuaries Act Effect Determinations Made by
the Federal Action Agency ................................................................................ A-28
xiii
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff use in conducting environmental reviews of applications for the initial
license renewal (LR) or subsequent license renewal (SLR) of a nuclear power plant operating
license(s) and preparing nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called plant-specific)
supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) to NUREG-1437, Revision 2, the
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS;
NRC 2024a). This ESRP amends NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Standard Review
Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants; Supplement 1: Operating License
Renewal, (NRC 2013) issued June 2013. Use of this ESRP helps ensure the completeness and
consistency of the environmental review and analyses conducted by the NRC staff.
Questions regarding the content of any plan in this document may be directed to the NRC at the
following address:
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Additional copies of these plans may be obtained as indicated on the inside front cover of this
document.
NRC’s Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act
This ESRP demonstrates how the NRC staff meets the provisions in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” to conduct environmental reviews for the renewal
of operating licenses and prepare plant-specific SEISs to the LR GEIS. The NRC regulations in
10 CFR Part 51 implement Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA). The NRC published the license renewal provisions of 10 CFR Part 51 in the Federal
Register on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537), which became effective on January 17, 1997.
The NRC’s intention in developing the rule was to improve the efficiency of the environmental
review process for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. These provisions also
support the analyses conducted for and reported in the LR GEIS.
Tribal Policy Statement
On January 9, 2017, the NRC published its Tribal Policy Statement of principles to guide the
agency’s government-to-government interactions with Federally recognized Indian Tribes and
Alaska Native Tribes (82 FR 2402). The Tribal Policy Statement is intended to encourage and
facilitate Tribal involvement in activities under NRC jurisdiction, including the renewal of nuclear
power plant operating licenses. This Tribal Policy Statement is based on the United States
Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive orders, judicial decisions, and the unique relationship
between Indian Tribes and the Federal government. Other statutory provisions, such as the
National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 300101), can require Tribal consultation as part of
the NRC’s evaluation of agency activities during licensing actions, rulemaking, or policy
development. NRC staff guidance regarding National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
consultation is presented in Appendix B of this ESRP.
xv
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Environmental Review Process
After receiving the applicant’s environmental report (ER) for initial LR or SLR, the NRC staff
performs an acceptance review to determine whether the ER contains sufficient information for
the staff to undertake the environmental/NEPA review. After accepting the ER, the NRC staff
begins to conduct its environmental review and prepare the plant-specific SEIS. The ESRP
guides the NRC staff’s environmental review and preparation of the SEIS. In each SEIS, the
staff analyzes the nuclear plant site-specific environmental impacts of renewing the nuclear
power plant operating license (the proposed action) and those from reasonable alternatives to
renewing the license. The SEIS presents the staff’s recommendation regarding the
environmental acceptability of the license renewal action. The NRC’s record of decision
considers this recommendation, along with the findings from the safety review (10 CFR Part 54).
The NRC’s environmental (NEPA) review process consists of the following actions required by
10 CFR Part 51:
•
Publish a notice of intent to conduct an initial LR or SLR environmental review and to
prepare a plant-specific SEIS to the LR GEIS in the Federal Register (see 10 CFR 51.27,
“Notice of Intent”; 10 CFR 51.95(c), “Post Construction Environmental Impact Statements:
Operating License Renewal Stage”; and 10 CFR 51.116, “Notice of Intent”) and send copies
of the notice to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian Tribes;1 public
interest groups; and any other persons (e.g., representatives of environmental justice
communities2) that have expressed interest in the initial LR or SLR environmental review
(see 10 CFR 51.116, “Notice of Intent”). The notice describes the proposed action, explains
the NRC scoping process, provides information about public meeting locations and where
copies of the ER are available for public examination, and invites members of the public to
participate in the scoping process.
•
Conduct scoping (see 10 CFR 51.28, “Scoping—Participants,” 10 CFR 51.29, “Scoping—
Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement to Environmental Impact Statement”;
10 CFR 51.71, “Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Contents”; and 10 CFR 51.95(c)(1).
The scoping process includes identifying environmental issues and inviting State and local
agency officials, Indian Tribes, representatives of environmental justice communities,
environmental interest groups, and other members of the public to participate in the scoping
process. Scoping provides an opportunity for any member of the public to identify
environmental issues and concerns they believe are significant that may not have been
adequately addressed in the ER. Environmental issues may be introduced in oral
statements made at the scoping meeting or in written comments sent directly to the NRC or
submitted via Regulations.gov. During scoping, staff can visit the nuclear power plant and, if
requested, meet with officials from local, regional, and State agencies and Indian Tribes and
representatives of environmental justice communities and environmental interest groups.
Depending on the issues and concerns raised during scoping, the staff may request
additional information from the applicant.
•
Prepare a plant-specific draft SEIS to the LR GEIS (see 10 CFR 51.70, “Draft Environmental
Impact Statement—General”; 10 CFR 51.71, “Draft Environmental Impact Statement—
Contents”; and 10 CFR 51.95[c]), “Operating license renewal stage.” In developing the draft
The term “Indian Tribes” refers to Federally recognized Tribes as acknowledged by the Secretary of the
Interior pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. § 479a).
2
Environmental justice communities can also include State-recognized Tribes, those that self-identify as
Indian Tribes, and Tribal members. Tribal members can be part of an environmental justice community
that has different interests and concerns than a Tribal government.
1
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
xvi
SEIS, the NRC staff will evaluate (verify and validate) information provided by the applicant
and will seek and collect information from independent sources.
•
Distribute the draft SEIS for comment (see 10 CFR 51.73, “Request for Comments on Draft
Environmental Impact Statement,” and 10 CFR 51.74, “Distribution of Draft Environmental
Impact Statement and Supplement to Draft Environmental Impact Statement; News
Releases”). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the NRC will publish separate
notices of the availability in the Federal Register. Copies of the draft SEIS will be distributed
to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian Tribes; environmental justice
communities; environmental interest groups, organizations, and individuals who expressed
interest and participated in the environmental review; and any other individuals who request
a copy (see 10 CFR 51.74, “Distribution of Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Supplement to Draft Environmental Impact Statement; News Releases”). As described for
scoping above, any member of the public may provide comments on the draft SEIS in oral
statements made at a public meeting or in written comments sent directly to the NRC or
submitted via Regulations.gov.
•
Prepare a final SEIS to the LR GEIS (see 10 CFR 51.90, “Final Environmental Impact
Statement— General”; 10 CFR 51.91, “Final Environmental Impact Statement—Contents”;
and 10 CFR 51.95[c]), “Operating license renewal stage.” In developing the final SEIS,
the NRC staff will respond to all comments, prepare responses and revise the SEIS, if
necessary. This includes determining whether comments identify new and significant
information that was not considered in the LR GEIS. After addressing public comments, the
staff will determine 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 NRC then will submit the final SEIS to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and both agencies will publish notices of availability in the Federal
Register (see 10 CFR 51.93, “Distribution of Final Environmental Impact Statement and
Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Statement; News Releases,” and 10 CFR
51.118, “Final Environmental Impact Statement—Notice of Availability”). Copies of the
final SEIS will be distributed to Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian Tribes;
environmental justice communities; environmental interest groups, organizations, and
individuals who expressed interest and participated in the environmental review; and any
other organizations or individuals who request a copy.
•
The Commission may hold a hearing if it determines that it is in the public interest or if a
request for hearing and petition to intervene are granted. In accordance with 10 CFR
2.105(a)(10), “Notice of Proposed Action,” the NRC will issue a notice of opportunity for
hearing as soon as practicable. Any person whose interest may be affected by the initial LR
or SLR action may request a hearing. (See also 10 CFR 51.104, “NRC Proceeding Using
Public Hearings; Consideration of Environmental Impact Statement.”)
•
Prepare a record of decision (see 10 CFR 51.103, “Record of Decision—General”). Among
other things, the record of decision will summarize the impacts of initial LR or SLR and the
energy replacement alternatives considered in the SEIS, the measures taken to minimize
and/or reduce any adverse environmental effects, and any license conditions adopted in
connection with mitigation measures. In making a final decision on initial or subsequent
license renewal, the NRC will determine 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 NRC publishes the Commission’s
final decision on whether to renew the nuclear plant operating license in the
Federal Register.
xvii
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
The environmental project manager (EPM) is responsible for the NRC’s environmental review
and the preparation of the plant-specific SEIS for initial LRs or SLRs. The EPM coordinates the
work of the technical staff during the ER acceptance review and the SEIS environmental review.
As previously noted, the purpose for the acceptance review is to determine whether the
applicant’s ER contains sufficient information for the staff to undertake the environmental
review. If acceptable, the ER is docketed, and the environmental review begins.
The EPM also coordinates the environmental review with the applicant and NRC management.
In addition, the EPM coordinates the efforts of technical staff and contractor personnel to
develop a SEIS for each nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called plant-specific)
environmental review. With assistance from the technical staff, the EPM prepares the
recommendation for the licensing action to be taken by the Director of NRC’s Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
The environmental review is currently conducted by technical staff in the Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards’ Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support,
the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation’s Division of Risk Assessment, and by the EPM. The
responsibilities of the EPM and technical staff in carrying out the environmental review,
including ER acceptability criteria, are outlined in this ESRP.
During initial LR or SLR environmental reviews, it may be necessary for the NRC staff to
request additional information from the applicant. Transmitted by the EPM, these requests may
include requests for confirmation of information (i.e., RCIs) or requests for additional information
(i.e., RAIs). Requests for confirmation of information and requests for additional information
record the staff’s information needs to support the environmental reviews.
Standard review plans in this ESRP provide procedures for conducting the environmental
review and preparing the plant-specific SEIS. The EPM is responsible for ensuring that the
staff’s conclusions meet NRC regulatory and policy requirements. It is expected that each SEIS
prepared by the NRC staff will:
•
stand on its own as an analytical document that fully informs decisionmakers and the
public of the environmental effects of the proposed action and those of reasonable
alternatives
•
emphasize the issues that are significant and reduce emphasis on other issues and
background material
•
be written in plain language
The SEIS is submitted for review and comment to the NRC division director, the Office of the
General Counsel, and branch chiefs. Approval is obtained from the EPM’s division director
before publication of the SEIS.
The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
(LR GEIS; NUREG-1437)
The LR GEIS addresses the incremental environmental effects (impacts) of license renewal
(initial LR or SLR3) by identifying environmental issues common to all nuclear power plants
or a specific subset of plants and environmental issues requiring plant-specific analyses.
3
The technical bases for the environmental issues and findings in the LR GEIS fully account for the
impacts of initial LR and one term of SLR (see Section 1.6 of the LR GEIS).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
xviii
The NRC staff conducts environmental reviews and prepares SEISs to address issues
that could not be generically dispositioned in the LR GEIS.
The LR GEIS improves the efficiency of the NRC license renewal environmental review process
by (1) providing an evaluation of the types of environmental impacts that may occur by an
initial LR of commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses or SLR (specifically limited to
one term of SLR), (2) identifying and assessing impacts that are expected to be generic (the
same or similar) at all nuclear plants (or plants with specified plant or site characteristics), and
(3) defining the number and scope of environmental issues that need to be addressed in
plant-specific SEISs. The LR GEIS also provides information that aids in the preparation of
plant-specific SEISs.
The NRC committed to review and update the findings in Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on
Environmental Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear
Power Plants,” located in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. The Commission stated
that it intends to review the assessment of impacts in Table B-1 and the LR GEIS and update it
on a 10-year cycle, if necessary.
The NRC staff reviewed and evaluated the environmental issues and impact findings in the
2013 LR GEIS to determine if the findings presented in the 2013 LR GEIS support the scope of
license renewal, including initial LR and SLR terms and to update or revise those findings as
appropriate. The NRC considered changes in applicable laws and regulations, new data in its
possession from scientific literature and nuclear power plant operations, collective experience,
and lessons learned and knowledge gained from conducting environmental reviews for initial LR
and SLR since development of the 2013 LR GEIS. The NRC also considered comments
received on the draft LR GEIS, associated guidance, and proposed rule. In doing so, the NRC
considered the need to modify, add, group, subdivide, or delete any of the 78 issues in the
2013 LR GEIS.
The revised LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a) evaluates 80 environmental
issues, 59 of which have been evaluated in the LR GEIS and their impacts determined to be
applicable to license renewal for all nuclear power plants or a specific subset of plants. These
issues are Category 1 issues, and do not require additional analysis in a plant-specific
environmental review unless new and significant information is found. Of the remaining 21
environmental issues, 20 are Category 2 issues that require plant-specific analyses. One issue
(Electromagnetic fields [EMFs]) is not categorized because scientific consensus on their effects
on human health is lacking, and the NRC staff does not perform a plant-specific analysis of this
issue in SEISs. Once a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies
on the potential health effects, the NRC will revise its guidance and evaluation of this issue.
The NRC’s standard of significance for impacts as established in the LR GEIS for license
renewal environmental issues considered Council on Environmental Quality terminology
including revisions in Part 1501—NEPA and Agency Planning (40 CFR Part 1501) and Part
1508—Definitions (40 CFR 1508; 89 FR 35442). Council on Environmental Quality requires that
agencies examine both the context of an action and the intensity of the effects in making a
significance determination as to the adverse effect of the proposed action. Accordingly, the
NRC’s analysis considers these factors when determining whether the incremental
environmental effects (impacts) of the proposed action (license renewal – either initial LR or
SLR) are significant (see Section 1.5.2.3 of the LR GEIS). The NRC established three
levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE. The
xix
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
definitions of the three significance levels, presented in the footnotes to Table B–1 in
Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, are as follows:
•
SMALL – Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither
destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of
assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do
not exceed permissible levels in the Commission’s regulations are considered SMALL.
•
MODERATE – Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,
important attributes of the resource.
•
LARGE – Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize
important attributes of the resource.
These levels are used for describing the environmental impacts of the proposed action as well
as for the impacts from a range of reasonable alternatives4 to the proposed action.
Resource-specific effects or impact definitions from applicable environmental laws and
executive orders, other than SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE, are used, where appropriate.
For issues in which the probability of occurrence is a key consideration (i.e., postulated
accidents), the probability of occurrence has been factored into the impact determination.
Mitigation measures that could be used to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or
compensate for adverse impacts are discussed where appropriate.
In addition to evaluating the impacts for each environmental issue, a determination was made
about whether the analysis in the LR GEIS could be applied to all nuclear power plants (or
plants with specified design or site characteristics). Issues were assigned a Category 1 or
Category 2 designation as follows:
Category 1 issues are those that meet all the following criteria:
•
Environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all
plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other
specified plant or site characteristics.
•
A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the
impacts (except for offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste
disposal and offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts from other than the disposal of
spent fuel and high-level waste).
•
Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis,
and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely
to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is
required in future SEISs unless new and significant information is identified.
4
Changes to the NEPA statute (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) from the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
(Public Law No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10) included adding a new Section 102(2)(E) directing agencies to
“…study, develop, and describe technically and economically feasible alternatives.” Accordingly, CEQ
defines “reasonable alternatives” as meaning a “reasonable range of alternatives that are technically and
economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need for the proposed action” (40 CFR 1508.1(hh)).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
xx
Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1
and therefore, require additional plant-specific review.
Scope of the Environmental Standard Review Plans
The individual ESRPs in Supplement 1, Revision 2, guide the review of environmental issues
associated with license renewal. The ESRPs address all of the environmental issues discussed
in the revised LR GEIS as well as any new environmental issues identified through the public
scoping process. They also provide the framework for conducting impact analyses and
preparing sections for the plant-specific SEIS. A review procedure is provided for each
Category 2 issue. The ESRPs also provide for systematic integration of new and significant
information on Category 1 issues.
Use of the ESRPs in the environmental review process for license renewal would ensure:
•
identification of environmental issues, data and other information, and analysis
•
consideration of specific environmental issues of concern to Federal, State, regional, and
local agencies and Indian Tribes, as appropriate
•
standardization of review procedures for the analysis of environmental issues
•
focused environmental review of potentially significant environmental impacts
Organization of this ESRP Document
The document is grouped into the following six chapters.
1. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
3. Affected Environment
4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions
5. Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents
6. Summary and Conclusions
Chapters 1 through 3 are descriptive in nature. They guide the review of the purpose and need
for the proposed action, the identification of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, and
the description of the nuclear power plant site and the affected environment. Chapters 4 and 5
address the analysis of environmental impacts. They guide the review of the potential
environmental impacts focusing on those associated with continued plant operations and
refurbishment during the license renewal term. Chapter 6 addresses comparison of the
proposed action with reasonable alternatives and the summarization of the conclusions
regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal. Note: The organization of chapters,
supporting appendices, and the order of subject matter areas presented in individual SEISs
prepared pursuant to the LR GEIS, NUREG-1437, Revision 2, may differ from the organization
of the sections of this ESRP document.
Chapters 4 and 5 identify Category 1 and 2 issues and new and significant information. Review
plans serve to guide in the:
•
evaluation of the applicant’s process for identifying and evaluating new information
xxi
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
•
evaluation of information submitted by members of the public during the scoping process,
and information identified during the environmental review to determine whether new
information is significant
•
identification of the information required to complete a plant-specific review of the issue
•
preparation of statements for the SEIS that describe the issue and present the conclusion
Content in the chapters of this ESRP document are presented in four sections:
1. Areas of Review. Describes the purpose and scope of the environmental review.
2. Acceptance Criteria. Provides guidance on determining the acceptability of the
environmental impact analysis in the SEIS.
3. Review Procedures. Describes the methods the staff uses in conducting the environmental
review. The level of detail in the methods of environmental review varies from review plan to
review plan.
4. Evaluation Findings. Provides guidance on how to summarize the conclusions of the
environmental review.
Chapter 7 contains the bibliographic reference information supporting the material cited in all
review plans, and Appendices A and B provide supplemental information.
Each ESRP provides a list of data and information needs under section “Areas of Review”. The
following sources of information should be considered, as applicable:
•
applicant’s ER
•
previous NRC environmental analyses (e.g., final environmental statements, SEISs and
other EISs, and environmental assessments)
•
applicant’s Safety Analysis Report or Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports
•
NRC Safety Evaluation Reports
•
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,
NUREG-1437, Revision 2 (NRC 2024a)
•
other Federal, State, and local agencies and Indian Tribes
•
other publicly available information
New and Significant Information
The NRC staff is required to address any new and significant information on the environmental
impacts of initial LR or SLR involving Category 1 issues in the plant-specific SEIS. For
Category 2 issues, the staff must consider any new information with respect to the applicable
discussion in the LR GEIS or related Category 1 issues. This section describes the identification
of new information, evaluation of the significance of new information, and the treatment of new
and significant information. When no new and significant information is found regarding
Category 1 issues, a statement should be included in the SEIS that briefly describes the search
and evaluation of new information and states that no new information was identified or the new
information was determined to be not significant.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
xxii
The process for identifying new and significant information should consider:
•
The applicant’s ER. Applicants for an initial LR or SLR are required by 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and significant information regarding the environmental
impacts of license renewal of which they are aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, the
NRC staff must consider the applicant’s process for discovering and evaluating the
significance of any new information. Is the process adequate to ensure a reasonable
likelihood that the applicant would be aware of new information, if it existed?
•
Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare
information presented by the public with information considered in the LR GEIS. Is the
information new in the sense that it postdates the analysis conducted for the LR GEIS?
•
Environmental quality standards and regulations. Have the applicable environmental
quality standards and regulations changed since the analysis conducted for the LR GEIS?
If so, do the changes affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal?
•
Technical and scientific literature. Does recent technical and scientific literature contain
information that would alter conclusions in the LR GEIS for Category 1 issues? Does the
information indicate that there may be environmental impacts that were not considered in
the LR GEIS?
Any new information should be considered in relation to existing Category 1 issues or, in rare
circumstances, may reveal the need to consider a new environmental issue. After the impacts
have been defined, the significance level of each issue should be determined using the
significance level definitions in the LR GEIS. Appropriate mitigation measures should be
identified and considered for each issue for which there is an adverse environmental impact.
The consideration of mitigation measures should be in proportion to the potential adverse
impact.
If the new information provides a seriously different picture of the environmental consequences
or the new information shows that an issue previously considered SMALL would have a
significance level of MODERATE or LARGE, the reviewer should prepare a plant-specific
assessment in the SEIS to the LR GEIS and seek Commission approval to waive the
Category 1 finding. If plant-specific information is identified and determined to be relevant to the
power plant and is also relevant to other power plants (i.e., generic information), then NRC staff
would seek Commission approval to either suspend the application of the rule on a generic
basis with respect to the analysis or delay granting the renewal application (and possibly other
renewal applications) until the analysis in the LR GEIS is updated and the rule amended. If the
rule is suspended for the analysis, each plant-specific SEIS would reflect the corrected analysis
until such time as the rule is amended. The assessment should include a concise description of
the new environmental impact information (including source) and how this information applies to
the nuclear power plant. The statement also should identify the significance level of the potential
adverse impacts and list any mitigation measures that would be considered appropriate. A
summary statement and a list of references cited in the impact assessment also should be
provided.
Following issuance of the plant-specific final SEIS, and prior to the license renewal action being
taken, the staff may need to conduct a similar assessment for Category 1 and Category 2
issues, if it discovers potentially new information.
xxiii
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
General Instructions
The following instructions are provided here to avoid repetition in each review plan:
•
Project Overview. The reviewer is expected to develop an understanding of the proposed
action (i.e., the initial LR or SLR). The purpose of this instruction is to ensure that reviewers
concentrate their efforts on significant environmental issues and associated impacts. This
project overview is to be conducted during the acceptance review and is to be completed
before developing potential requests for confirmation of information (i.e., RCIs) or requests
for additional information (i.e., RAIs).
•
Internal Review Coordination. The EPM is the central point of contact for all reviewers.
Although each ESRP represents a discrete segment of NRC’s environmental review, no
review can be completed without coordination with related reviews. For example, the
technical analyses presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of the ESRP rely on information from the
descriptive chapters (Chapters 1 through 3) for background information. All reviewers are
instructed to maintain close communication with other reviewers throughout the review. With
few exceptions, the reviews are conducted in parallel; thus, other environmental reviews
may not be available to reviewers before their own environmental review is completed.
•
External Review Coordination. The EPM initiates contact with outside agencies and must
be informed of all concurrent or subsequent contacts made by reviewers. Each reviewer is
expected to be aware of any related technical analyses and environmental assessments.
Particular attention should be given to analyses and environmental assessments prepared
under provisions of memoranda of understanding between the NRC and other Federal,
State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribes. Working through the EPM, the
reviewer is responsible for resolving any differences of opinion between analyses conducted
by the NRC staff and analyses conducted by other agencies. The reviewer must ensure that
all viewpoints are presented or that the specific provisions of the memoranda of
understanding are followed.
•
Consultation with Other Agencies. Environmental reviews may require consultation with
other Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribes. Agencies include, but
are not limited to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service concerning federally endangered and threatened species and critical habitats; the
National Marine Fisheries Service concerning essential fish habitat; the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries concerning national
marine sanctuaries; the State Historic Preservation Officer, Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer, and Indian Tribes concerning historic and cultural resources listed or eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places; the Environmental Protection Agency (or
authorized States or Indian Tribes) responsible for implementation of the Clean Water Act;
and State agencies responsible for Coastal Zone Management Act consistency
determinations and Clean Air Act State Implementation Plans. The reviewer should initiate
these consultations early in the environmental review process and should coordinate these
with the EPM.
•
Consultation with the Applicant. All consultations or discussions with the applicant are
made through the EPM.
•
Site Visit. Most reviewers benefit from an in-person visit to the nuclear plant site. This visit
provides the reviewer with firsthand knowledge of the site and the location and position of
facilities. It also allows the reviewer an opportunity to study the environment around the
nuclear plant site and meet with knowledgeable licensee staff with responsibility for
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
xxiv
environmental management and compliance at the plant site. The site visit and associated
meetings can be supplemented with virtual site tours and meetings.
•
Depth of Review. The reviewer must conduct an environmental impact analysis in sufficient
depth to permit verification and validation of the analysis and conclusions.
•
Data Age. If data are more than five years old, consider and explain, as appropriate,
whether the data, studies, operation experience, etc. are relevant in describing the affected
environment and assessing the impacts of license renewal. For example, show that both the
potentially affected resources and the effects of nuclear power plant continued operations
and refurbishment on those resources have remained, and can be expected to remain,
unchanged or similar over the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR).
•
Consideration of Mitigation. Mitigation measures should be considered in proportion to the
level of impact when adverse impacts are identified. Statements also should describe the
potential effectiveness of mitigation measures.
•
Best Management Practices. The reviewer must evaluate the applicant’s commitments to
use practices that minimize, reduce, or avoid adverse impacts. These practices, often
referred to as best management practices, are activities that can mitigate potential adverse
environmental impacts.
•
Quality Assurance. Reviewers should identify and evaluate the quality assurance
measures taken by the applicant in the collection and analysis of data. Quality assurance
measures are also evaluated when computer models have been used to predict
environmental impacts.
•
Findings. Findings should reflect “consensus” agreement among reviewers. This requires
input from the reviewer, the EPM, and any other NRC reviewers affected by the findings.
•
Documentation. Each reviewer should maintain documentation, logs, and other records of
communication and consultation with outside agencies and organizations.
•
Definitions. Use of the following terminology applies only to the environmental review
process. Terms such as plant and station, used in a SEIS, continue to reflect the choice of
terms used to identify the nuclear plant (e.g., Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Oconee
Nuclear Station).
–
station: Consists of all facilities (reactor containment, turbine, and control buildings,
intakes, discharges, etc.) located on the nuclear power plant site. Generally, the station
includes everything located on the applicant’s property that supports the existing
reactor(s). In some cases, intake and discharge structures may be located offsite, but
are considered part of the station. Transmission lines and their associated facilities are
generally not considered part of the station. Other facilities not associated with the
production of electricity (e.g., a visitor center or a fish hatchery), however, are
considered part of the station.
–
nuclear power plant (plant): The nuclear reactor, reactor power conversion systems,
intake and discharge structures, and all other facilities involved with the production of
electricity. A plant can be more than one reactor and power conversion system.
Transmission lines and other off-station facilities are not part of the plant.
–
main plant area: This term is used to describe the area that is occupied by the power
block (i.e., nuclear island), including the reactor units, turbine building(s), but also the
switchyard(s), and other buildings associated with nuclear power generation such as
radioactive waste management and diesel generator buildings.
xxv
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
unit: One reactor power conversion system. Generally, the term “unit” is used only when
the applicant is proposing to relicense more than one unit.
–
facility: Any individual identifiable part of the station or plant. Examples: The visitor
center is a facility. A substation is a facility. An intake system could be a facility (if
discussed separately from the remainder of the plant).
–
mitigation: Impact mitigation is the process of modifying an activity to prevent, eliminate,
and/or reduce the adverse environmental impact.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
xxvi
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACHP
ADAMS
APE
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
area of potential effects
BTA
best technology available
CEQ
CFR
CWA
Council on Environmental Quality
Code of Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
EA
EFH
EIS
EMF
EPA
EPM
ER
ESA
ESRP
environmental assessment
essential fish habitat
environmental impact statement
electromagnetic fields
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
environmental project manager
environmental report
Endangered Species Act
environmental standard review plan (NUREG-1555)
FES
FONSI
FWS
final environmental statement
Finding of No Significant Impact
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GEIS
GHG
GIS
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Power Plant (NUREG-1437)
greenhouse gas
geographic information systems
HAPCs
habitat areas of particular concern
IM&E
IPaC
ITS
impingement mortality and entrainment
Information Planning and Consultation
incidental take statement
LR
license renewal
MB
MOA
MSA
maximum benefit
Memorandum of Agreement
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
xxvii
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
NEPA
NESC
NHPA
NMFS
NMSA
NOAA
NPDES
NRC
NRHP
NRR
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
National Electrical Safety Code
National Historic Preservation Act
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
National Register of Historic Places
Nuclear Reactor Regulation
OMB
ONMS
Office of Management and Budget
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration)
PA
PRA
Programmatic Agreement
probabilistic risk assessment
RAI
ROI
ROW
request for additional information
region of influence
right-of-way
SAMA
SAMDA
SEIS
SHPO
SLR
SME
severe accident mitigation alternatives
severe accident mitigation design alternatives
supplemental environmental impact statement
State Historic Preservation Officer
subsequent license renewal
subject matter expert
THPO
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
xxviii
1.0
1.1
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
Areas of Review
This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of the
purpose and need for the proposed action. The discussion of purpose and need is found in
Section 1.3 of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants (LR GEIS; NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
1.2
Acceptance Criteria
The reviewer should ensure that the introduction is consistent with the following regulations:
•
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 51.70(b) (10 CFR 51.70(b)). “The draft
environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and written in plain
language with appropriate graphics….” The format provided in Section 1(a) of Appendix A of
this subpart should be used. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will
independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of all information used in the
draft environmental impact statement.”
•
10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a
nuclear power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an
environmental impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437,
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.
•
10 CFR 51.103(a)(5). In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant to
Part 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse
environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license
renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
•
10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51, concerning format for presentation of
material in environmental impact statements.
•
10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A(4), concerning purpose of and need for action.
Technical Rationale
Renewal of an operating license by the NRC is just one of the conditions required for continued
safe operation of a nuclear power plant. Renewing the operating license would provide the
licensee, State regulators, and utility officials with the option of extending plant operations
beyond the term of the original license(s) should circumstances warrant it, whereas not
renewing the operating license eliminates this option. Therefore, the Commission has defined
the purpose and need for license renewal (renewal of an operating license including initial
license renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]) in terms of providing the licensee,
State regulators, and utility officials with the option of extending the operating period of the
nuclear plant. The introduction should present the Commission’s stated definition of purpose
and need.
1.3
Review Procedures
The material to be prepared is informational in nature; no specific analysis of the data is
required.
1-1
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
1.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should prepare one or more introductory paragraphs for the supplemental
environmental impact statement (SEIS) and should include the purpose and need for license
renewal as it appears in Section 1.3 of the LR GEIS.
The purpose and need for the proposed action (i.e., initial license renewal or subsequent
license renewal) of a commercial nuclear power plant operating license is to provide an option
that allows for baseload power generation capability beyond the term of the current nuclear
power plant operating license to meet future system generating needs. Such needs may be
determined by other energy-planning decisionmakers, such as State, utility, system, and,
where authorized, Federal agencies (other than NRC). Unless there are findings in the safety
review required by the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.) or National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) environmental review that
would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC does not have a role in
the energy-planning decisions about whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue
to operate.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
1-2
2.0
2.1
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
Overview
This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) section provides general guidance for the
preparation of the discussion of alternatives and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s
(NRC) proposed action. The proposed action for license renewal and alternatives to license
renewal are described in Chapter 2 and Appendix D of the Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS; NUREG-1437, Revision 2;
NRC 2024a).
2.1.1
Areas of Review
The purpose of this ESRP is to (1) provide a statement of the proposed action (initial license
renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]) for the supplemental environmental impact
statement (SEIS), (2) provide background information related to the regulatory basis for license
renewal, and (3) provide a brief description of the alternatives.
2.1.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 1.2, the reviewer should
ensure that the introduction prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the following
regulation:
•
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51), Appendix A(5),
concerning alternatives including the proposed action
Technical Rationale
Renewal of a plant operating license is defined in 10 CFR Part 51 as requiring the preparation
of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The introductory paragraphs prepared under this
ESRP should clearly define the action and provide the readers of the SEIS with background
information related to license renewal. This information is summarized in the LR GEIS.
2.1.3
Review Procedures
The material to be prepared is informational in nature; no specific analysis of the data is
required. Much of the required material may be taken directly from the LR GEIS. However, the
reviewer should reflect the applicant’s schedule for activities in preparation for license renewal,
including refurbishment.
2.1.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer for this ESRP should prepare several introductory paragraphs for the SEIS. The
first paragraph should clearly state the nature of the proposed action (license renewal) and
alternatives to license renewal. The remaining paragraphs should describe the regulatory bases
for license renewal and alternatives, outline the process of license renewal, and outline the
applicant’s process.
2-1
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
2.2
General Plant Information
2.2.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the description of the plant and plant operations during the
license renewal term. This section includes a description of the layout and appearance of the
nuclear plant facility and existing structures (onsite and offsite). It also includes descriptions of
the reactor and electric generating equipment, as well as the plant’s cooling system and
auxiliary water systems.
The scope includes (1) description of principal structures, site boundaries, exclusion areas,
restricted areas, and transportation routes to the site; (2) the type(s) and size(s) of reactors and
electrical generating equipment and their major performance parameters; (3) a general
description of the cooling system and modes of operation; (4) the intake and discharge locations
and structures; (5) the auxiliary system; and (6) performance characteristics for these systems.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed are specific for the nuclear power plant site and the
plant. The following data or information may be needed, as appropriate:
•
A map and description of the plant site location including State, local, and Indian Tribe
political jurisdictions (e.g., county, town, township, service districts, parish).
•
Maps with the following information:
•
–
the site showing site boundaries and properties; plant exclusion area; site structures and
facilities; major land uses (with land use classifications consistent with the U.S.
Geological Survey categories given in “USGS NLCD Land Cover Class Legend and
Description,” update issued in 2019; USGS 2019) and land cover; the construction zone
for refurbishment, if any; sites for any other planned buildings, facilities, and structures
(both temporary and permanent); areas under lease and public access; and
transportation routes entering and adjacent to the site
–
the site vicinity within a 6-mile (10-kilometer) radius of the site showing boundaries of
political jurisdictions, place names, topographic and physiographic features, residential
areas, airports, industrial and commercial facilities, roads and highways, railroads, Indian
reservation and trust lands, and military reservations
–
the region within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the site showing political jurisdictions,
place names, topographic and physiographic features, and transportation networks and
facilities.
Identification and description of known and reasonably foreseeable Federal and non-Federal
projects and other actions that may contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts of
license renewal and extended plant operation. Identify and map all Federal facilities,
including national parks, national forests, national wildlife areas, and military facilities; Indian
reservation and trust lands; and State parks, recreational areas, and conservation lands.
Include distances, as well as nonattainment and maintenance areas defined under the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.), as amended within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the
plant site.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
2-2
•
Number of units and description of each reactor, including type (e.g., boiling water reactor,
pressurized water reactor), power conversion system manufacturer, fuel assembly
description, and total quantities of uranium.
•
Summary of engineered safety features of the nuclear power plant.
•
Historic average irradiation level of spent fuel, in megawatt days per ton.
•
Rated and design core thermal power, the rated and design gross electrical output, and the
rated and design net electrical output in megawatts electric. (The rated power is defined as
the power level at which each reactor is operated, and the design power is defined as the
highest power level that would be permitted by plant design. The gross electrical output is
the power level measured at the output terminals of the generator and expressed in
megawatts electric. The net unit electrical output is equal to the gross electrical output minus
the nominal service and auxiliary loads.)
•
Simplified flow diagram for the reactor-power conversion system.
•
Description of the plant’s heat dissipation system, including the water supply source; intake
and discharge locations; intake velocity; flow path of water from the intake point to the
discharge point; any installed equipment or mitigation measures that reduce aquatic
organism entrainment or impingement; and average temperatures of water at the discharge
point. The description should include each operational mode and indicate the periods of time
that the system has historically operated in each mode.
•
For each operational mode, provide information about the following:
–
quantities of heat generated, dissipated to the atmosphere, and released in liquid
discharges
–
water sources and quantities of water withdrawn, consumed, and discharged
–
monthly variation and stratification for the body of water used for cooling intake and
discharge
–
any changes to the cooling system in preparation for license renewal or changes made
during the current license term.
2.2.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 1.2, the reviewer should
ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are
consistent with the following regulations:
•
10 CFR 51.52, concerning criteria related to nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called
plant-specific) analysis of the effects of transportation of fuel and waste to and from the
facility. Note: Generic determinations have been made that the impacts in Table S-4 are
bounding for fuel with uranium enrichment of up to 5 percent by weight irradiated to
62,000 megawatt days per ton, provided that fuel is shipped more than five years after
discharge from the reactor.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including
the applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as
described in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe
in detail the affected environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting
the environment or any plant effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities.
2-3
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of
alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A-D) describes analyses that must be performed with respect to the
environmental impacts of and related interactions with the environment of a plant's cooling
water and auxiliary systems and requiring the environmental report (ER) to provide a
description of such systems, including their water requirements and intakes and discharges,
to support the discussions of the affected environment.
Technical Rationale
The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant’s external appearance and setting
description is discussed in the following paragraph:
A description of the overall appearance of the nuclear power plant and its setting
is needed to clarify the physical parameters of the current power station and any
significant modifications to the facility. The description of the external
appearance of the plant and plant layout should be in sufficient detail to form an
adequate basis for staff analysis of various land use and socioeconomic impacts
of continued plant operations and refurbishment.
The technical rationale for evaluating the description of the applicant’s reactor system is
discussed in the following paragraph:
A description of the overall nuclear energy generating system is useful
background information for the evaluation of certain environmental impacts
resulting from continued plant operations and refurbishment activities. This
description should include information about reactor type, number of units,
thermal power level, and other factors about the facility.
The technical rationale for evaluating the description of the applicant’s cooling systems is
discussed in the following paragraph:
The cooling system has the greatest interface with and potential effect on the
environment. This section is descriptive in nature and presents information
necessary for the evaluation of environmental impacts associated with cooling
system modification related to license renewal and continued plant operations
during the license renewal term. The description of the external appearance of
the cooling system and its operational modes should be in sufficient detail to
form an adequate basis for staff analysis of the environmental impacts of
continued plant operations and refurbishment activities during the license
renewal term.
2.2.3
Review Procedures
The reviewer should ensure that the description of the layout and appearance of the nuclear
plant facility and existing structures (onsite and offsite) provides adequate information for the
reviews conducted under the ESRP sections in Chapters 3 and 4. The following review steps
are suggested:
1. Review plant and station layout and external appearance data.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
2-4
2. Determine the relationship of the plant design and layout to the surrounding environment,
including any aesthetic features of the site and vicinity.
3. Identify maps and drawings that show relevant features of the plant, the site, and the region.
The maps and drawings also should identify significant offsite features, if any, in the vicinity
(i.e., Federal facilities, including national parks, forests, wildlife areas, Indian reservation and
trust lands).
The material to be prepared on the reactor-power conversion system is informational in nature;
no specific analysis of the data is required. Identify the reactor power conversion and
engineered safety feature systems and the basic design performance data. As a rule, if the data
listed under “Data and Information Needs” above are provided, that objective would be met.
The material to be prepared on the cooling systems is informational in nature. No specific
analysis is required, but the use of tables such as Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 in this ESRP may
assist data organization.
Table 2-1
Design Details of Heat-Dissipation-System Components
Component
Design Details
Cooling towers (from the ER)
•
•
•
•
Cooling lakes and ponds (from the ER)
• Surface area
• Volume
• Bathymetry
Spray ponds or canals (from the ER)
• Arrangement and configuration of spray modules
• Pond or canal geometry
• Surface area and water volume
Condenser (from the ER)
• Heat transfer area and materials of construction
• Antifouling treatment
Type of configuration
Materials of construction
Number and arrangement
Rated heat-dissipation capacity
ER = environmental report.
Table 2-2
Performance Characteristics of the Heat-Dissipation System
Component
Design Details
Cooling towers (from the ER)
• Input and discharge flow rates and temperatures for
monthly average meteorological conditions
• Wet-bulb temperature, approach to wet-bulb, and range
Performance curves
• Air flow
• Power consumption noise levels
• Drift rate and drop size
Cooling lakes and ponds (from the ER)
•
•
•
•
Flow rates (through condenser)
Flow-through times
Flow pattern
Monthly average water temperatures (mean for entire lake
or pond, inlet [from condenser], outlet [to condenser])
• Surface elevation (mean, maximum, minimum)
2-5
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Component
Spray ponds or canals (from the ER)
Condenser (from the ER)
Design Details
•
•
•
•
Flow rates (through condenser)
Flow-through times
Flow pattern
Monthly average water temperatures (inlet [from
condenser], outlet [to condenser])
• Surface elevation (mean, maximum, minimum)
• Spray system operating parameters (e.g., power
consumption, drop size)
• Condenser flow rate
• Temperature differential across condenser
• Time-of-passage through system (including intake and
discharge system passage times)
ER = environmental report.
•
•
•
For the general cooling system description, the reviewer should gather the following
information largely from design and historical documentation for use in later sections:
–
type and configuration
–
water source and proximity to facility
–
modes of operation and percentage of time, water source and quantities of water
withdrawn, consumed, and discharged in each mode
–
specific details depending on system type (see Table 2-1 and Table 2-2)
–
monthly variation and stratification for the body of water used for cooling intake and
discharge
–
other major plant systems and flow rates.
For intake systems, include:
–
drawing of the intake structure showing the relationship of the structure to the water
surface, bottom geometry, and shoreline
–
location of the intake in relation to the outfall
–
description of the cooling-water pumping facility
–
description of the trash racks, traveling screens, trash baskets, and fish return devices.
–
performance characteristics (e.g., flow rates, intake velocities) for the operational modes
identified
–
performance characteristics for specific intake related functions, such as de-icing, trash
rack clearing, screen washing, trash basket removal, or fish return system operation
–
location and description of components for the addition of chemicals (e.g., corrosion
inhibitors, antifouling agents) to the intake system.
For discharge systems, include:
–
drawings of the outfall structure, showing its location in the receiving waterbody,
relationship to water surface, bottom geometry, and shoreline
–
a description of discharge canal or discharge lines
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
2-6
•
–
performance characteristics (e.g., discharge flow rates, discharge velocities, discharge
temperatures, and temperature differentials) for the operational modes identified
–
descriptions of specific discharge related components (e.g., diffusers, fish barriers).
For heat-dissipation systems, include:
–
location of heat-dissipation system components relative to other site features
–
design details of heat-dissipation system components affecting system performance
–
heat-dissipation system performance characteristics for the operational modes
–
nuclear power plant site-specific meteorological data
–
nuclear power plant site-specific water supply data.
•
For cooling towers, determine the average discharge temperatures for each month of the
year using cooling tower performance curves. The average discharge temperature would be
calculated by using the average wet-bulb temperature for the month.
•
For spray systems, analyze the applicant’s estimates of average monthly discharge
temperatures. The depth and extent of this analysis should depend on the seriousness of
the predicted impacts of the heated effluent on the receiving body of water and the level of
confidence in the applicant’s model.
•
In the cases where auxiliary systems are employed to further cool the blowdown discharged
from the main cooling system, determine the final discharge temperature.
2.2.4
Evaluation Findings
The SEIS should include a summary description of the reactor-power conversion and
engineered safety feature systems, a flow diagram, and a table of design and performance
parameters.
The level of detail of information included in the SEIS should include the following information:
•
narrative description of the cooling system and the intake and discharge structures and
characteristics
•
sketches of intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation components
•
description of operational modes and their important characteristics (e.g., frequency and
duration, discharge temperature, water consumption, and chemical concentration factor)
•
drawings of important subsystems (e.g., perforated-pipe assemblies)
The reviewer should verify that cooling system component descriptions are consistent, accurate,
and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers of intake, discharge, and
heat-dissipation system impacts.
2.3
2.3.1
Refurbishment Activities
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the description of any planned refurbishment activities
performed in support of license renewal (initial LR or SLR), exclusive of routine plant operation
and maintenance activities. This section includes a description of any major structures and
components that would be replaced or modified.
2-7
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
The scope includes (1) identification and description of major structures and components to
undergo refurbishment, (2) description of where construction materials would be stored, as well
as removal and disposal, and (3) description of related activities that have the potential to affect
the surrounding environment either directly or indirectly.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
description of the proposed refurbishment activity, including specific structures and
components that would be replaced or modified
•
description of the location used for material storage, removal, and disposal
•
description of any transportation or delivery activities in support of the refurbishment activity,
including the transport and delivery of equipment, structures, and components (e.g., steam
generators, vessel heads), as well as any dredging and bridge and road modifications
•
list of applicable Federal and State agency permits required for this activity
•
description of specific refurbishment-related activities that have the potential to either
directly or indirectly affect the environment
•
discussion of the schedule for the refurbishment activity, including normal maintenance
schedules and refueling outages
2.3.2
Acceptance Criteria
The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under
this ESRP are consistent with the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Sections 1.2
and 2.2.2.
Technical Rationale
This section is descriptive in nature and presents information necessary for the evaluation of
environmental impacts associated with refurbishment. The descriptions should be in sufficient
detail to form an adequate basis for staff analysis of environmental impacts of refurbishment
activities associated with license renewal.
2.3.3
Review Procedures
The material to be prepared on refurbishment activities is informational; no specific analysis is
required. The reviewer should ensure that description of the plant refurbishment activities
provides adequate information for the reviews conducted under the ESRPs in Chapters 3 and 4.
The following review steps are suggested:
1. Review the discussion of plant refurbishment in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2;
NRC 2024a).
2. Obtain a description of the proposed refurbishment activity, including descriptions of the
specific structures and components that would be replaced or modified.
3. Obtain descriptions of transport and storage of necessary equipment and materials,
including any proposed transportation plans.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
2-8
4. Obtain the proposed schedule for refurbishment work, including planned changes in staffing,
if any.
5. Prepare a section describing the refurbishment activities for the SEIS.
2.3.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare introductory paragraphs for
the SEIS. The paragraph(s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented.
2.4
Employment
2.4.1
Areas of Review
The ER should include current information on the annual average number of operations workers
at the nuclear power plant. The information should include both permanent full-time onsite and
refueling outage workers (i.e., the total annual average number of full-time workers including
contractors), as well as information on the average duration of refueling and maintenance
outages (number of weeks) and their frequency (number of months).
Data and Information Needs
The following data or information may be needed:
•
description of the nuclear power plant’s current employment, including information on
maintenance and refueling outages
•
annual average number of workers supporting nuclear power plant operations,
maintenance, and refueling outages
•
number of workers onsite during refurbishment activities
•
any changes in the number of workers onsite during and in support of license renewal
2.4.2
Acceptance Criteria
The reviewer should ensure that the information considered under this ESRP is consistent with
the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Sections 1.2 and 2.2.2.
Technical Rationale
The information is descriptive and is necessary for the evaluation of environmental impacts.
Employment information should be of sufficient detail to determine if the impacts of continued
reactor operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment at the nuclear power plant
are different from the conclusions in the LR GEIS.
2.4.3
Review Procedures
No specific analysis is required. The following review steps are suggested:
1. Review the employment discussion in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2;
NRC 2024a).
2-9
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
2. Review the plant employment information in the applicant’s ER, including the number of
workers needed during maintenance and refueling outages and annual average
employment.
3. Evaluate the number of workers required to support any refurbishment activity described in
Section 2.3 and determine the residential distribution of the refurbishment workforce.
4. Determine if the applicant plans to change the annual average number of onsite workers
during and in support of license renewal and refurbishment activities, if any.
2.4.4
Evaluation of Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would depend on nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The reviewer should verify that the plant employment description is
consistent, accurate, and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers for ESRP
sections in Chapters 3 and 4.
2.5
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
2.5.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for describing alternatives to the proposed action (initial LR or
SLR).
The scope includes (1) a brief description of the process used to identify and select reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action and (2) brief descriptions of all the alternatives considered
for replacing or offsetting the nuclear power plant’s existing electrical generating capacity, as
well as for reducing or avoiding potential adverse effects, if applicable. It includes descriptions of
a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) discussed in the
LR GEIS (NRC 2024a) and identification of alternatives eliminated from detailed study.
Data and Information Needs
The reviewer for this ESRP requires the following information:
•
the applicant’s discussion of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action
•
the applicant’s discussion of alternatives eliminated from detailed study
2.5.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Sections 1.2 and 2.2.2, the reviewer
should ensure that the paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are consistent with the following
regulations:
•
10 CFR 51.45(b)(3), concerning alternatives to the proposed action. The discussion of
alternatives shall be sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in developing and
exploring, pursuant to Section 102(2)(E)1 of National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
1
Changes to the NEPA statute (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) from the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
(Public Law No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10) included adding a new Section 102(2)(F) directing agencies to
“…study, develop, and describe technically and economically feasible alternatives.” Accordingly, CEQ
defines “reasonable alternatives” as meaning a “reasonable range of alternatives that are technically and
economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need for the proposed action” (40 CFR 1508.1(hh)).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
2-10
(NEPA), “appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which
involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” To the
extent practicable, the environmental impacts of license renewal and the replacement
power alternatives should be presented in comparative form.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii). The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing
adverse impacts, as required by Section 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal issues
in Appendix B to Subpart A of this part. No such consideration is required for Category 1
issues in Appendix B to Subpart A of this part.
•
10 CFR 51, Appendix A(5), concerning alternatives including the proposed action.
•
10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft EIS will include a preliminary analysis that considers
and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of
alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding
adverse environmental effects.
•
10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a
nuclear power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an
EIS, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, Revision 2, “Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.”
•
10 CFR 51.103(a)(2). Identify all alternatives considered by the Commission in reaching the
decision, state that these alternatives were included in the range of alternatives discussed in
the environmental impact statement and specify the alternative or alternatives which were
considered to be environmentally preferable.
•
10 CFR 51, Appendix A(4), “Purpose of and Need for Action.” The alternative of no-action
will be discussed.
•
10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives,
including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives
eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be
confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level
of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis
required for sound decisionmaking.
Technical Rationale
The LR GEIS does not contain any conclusions regarding the environmental impact or
acceptability of alternatives to license renewal (initial LR or SLR). Accordingly, the NRC must
conduct an analysis of reasonable alternatives to license renewal in plant-specific environmental
reviews. A reasonable alternative must be commercially viable on a utility scale and operational
prior to the expiration of the reactor’s operating license or expected to become commercially
viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s operating license.
This discussion should provide the reader with a clear understanding of the alternatives
considered and those alternatives considered for detailed analysis.
2.5.3
Review Procedures
Examine the applicant’s ER and consider the process used by the applicant to determine a
range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.
2-11
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Alternatives considered are (1) the no-action alternative; (2) alternative energy sources for
replacing existing nuclear generating capacity using other energy sources (including fossil fuel,
new nuclear, and renewable energy); (3) alternative energy sources for offsetting existing
nuclear generation capacity using conservation and energy efficiency (demand-side
management), delayed retirement, or purchased power; and (4) alternatives for reducing
adverse impacts. The reviewer should identify the criteria used in evaluating the
reasonableness of the alternatives and explain which alternatives would not be considered for
detailed analysis and why. A reasonable alternative must be commercially viable on a utility
scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s operating license or expected to
become commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the
reactor’s operating license. Analysis of alternative energy sources does not involve the
determination of whether any power is needed or should be generated. The decision to
generate power and the determination of how much power is needed are at the discretion of
State and utility officials.
The reviewer should identify the alternatives that would be carried forward for comparison with
renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant. The reviewer should discuss the extent
to which these alternatives have been considered by State authorities (e.g., public service
commissions and environmental, natural resource, or energy agencies). To the extent possible,
each alternative should be analyzed on a nuclear power plant site- or region-specific basis.
The reviewer should identify and characterize key impact parameters associated with each
alternative evaluated in detail based on Chapter 4 and Appendix D of the LR GEIS, the
applicant’s ER, and the integrated resource plans for the area(s) or region(s) currently or (if
different) likely to be served by the plant and should assume the incorporation of appropriate
mitigation measures (e.g., emission control technologies and best management practices) for
each alternative.
2.5.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare discussions for the SEIS
describing reasonable alternatives to the proposed action in sufficient detail and in similar
format to the proposed action to support the environmental analysis and comparison of the
effects of these alternatives with the effects of continued plant operations. The information
presented in the SEIS would depend on nuclear power plant site- and plant-specific factors.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
2-12
3.0
3.1
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Overview
This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides general guidance for preparing the
sections that describe the affected environment of a nuclear power plant site and vicinity based
on the reviews conducted under ESRP Sections 3.2 through 3.12. In preparing a supplemental
environmental impact statement (SEIS), it is permissible for the descriptions of the affected
environment for each resource area to be included in the same SEIS chapter as the evaluation
of the potential environmental consequences (impacts) of the proposed action and alternatives
to the proposed action (see Chapter 4.0 of this ESRP).
3.1.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance on the review and preparation of technical information used for
describing the affected environment at a nuclear power plant in the SEIS.
3.1.2
Acceptance Criteria
The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraphs for the affected environment
description prepared under this ESRP are consistent with the following requirements:
•
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 51.45(d) (10 CFR 51.45(d)), concerning status
of compliance. The environmental report (ER) shall list all Federal permits, licenses,
approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed
action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The
environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with
applicable environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to,
applicable zoning and land use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations
or requirements which have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies
having responsibility for environmental protection.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including
the applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as
described in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in
detail the affected environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the
environment or any plant effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the
applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other
matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45.
•
10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement (EIS) will be concise, clear, and
analytic, and written in plain language with appropriate graphics. The format provided in
Section 1(a) of Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) staff will independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of
all information used in the draft EIS.
•
10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a
nuclear power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an
EIS, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS; NUREG-1437,
Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
3-1
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
•
10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, paragraph 6, concerning affected environment.
The environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected
by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the
importance of the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply
referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will
be eliminated.
•
10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating
License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on Environmental
Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants.”
•
Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified
above are as follows:
–
LIC-203, Revision 4, Procedural Guidance for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental
Assessments, and Considering Environmental Issues (NRC 2020c).
Technical Rationale
The review conducted under this ESRP is used to prepare sections describing the affected
environment at a nuclear power plant for the SEIS. The information in these sections provides
background and baseline information for use in determining the environmental impacts of
continued reactor operations and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal (initial
license renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]).
3.1.3
Review Procedures
The information is descriptive; no analysis of data is required. The introduction should list the
information being presented and describe its relationship to the environmental consequences
presented in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. It should indicate that the objective of SEIS Sections 3.2
through 3.12 is to provide a general description of the affected environment as background
and/or baseline information. Some detailed descriptions may be needed to support the analyses
of environmental impacts in Chapter 4.
It is important to point out sections in this chapter that address environmental issues raised by
the public during scoping.
3.1.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should prepare a paragraph(s) introducing the information being presented by
ESRPs 3.2 through 3.12. The extent of environmental information presented should be
commensurate with the potential impacts of continued reactor operations during the license
renewal term and refurbishment activities in support of license renewal.
3.2
3.2.1
Land Use and Visual Resources
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the land use and visual resource review. The scope should
include the land use and visual resources that might be affected by continued reactor operations
during the license renewal term and refurbishment activities in support of license renewal
(initial LR or SLR).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-2
For nuclear power plants located in a coastal zone or coastal watershed, as defined by each
State participating in the National Coastal Zone Management Program, applicants must submit
to the affected State certification that the proposed license renewal action is consistent with the
State Coastal Zone Management Program. Applicants must receive a determination from the
State agency that manages the State Coastal Zone Management Program that the proposed
license renewal action would be consistent with the State program. A Federal agency cannot
issue a license or permit until the State concurs.
Data and Information Needs
The following data or information may be needed:
•
land use data (onsite and offsite) and descriptions from prior environmental review
documents, including the applicant’s ER and final environmental statements prepared for
nuclear power plant construction and operation
•
map showing the nuclear power plant location in relationship to State and local political
jurisdictions (e.g., county, town, township, service districts, parish)
•
map of the site boundaries and properties showing plant exclusion area; site structures and
facilities; major land uses and land cover; the areas affected by refurbishment, if any; sites
for any planned new buildings, facilities, and structures (both temporary and permanent);
areas under lease or with public access; and transportation routes
•
map of the area within a 6-mile (10-kilometer) radius showing political jurisdictions, major
land uses and land cover, topographic and physiographic features, transportation networks
and facilities, place names, and Indian reservation and trust lands
•
map of the area within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the nuclear power plant showing
political jurisdictions, place names, topographic and physiographic features, and
transportation networks and facilities, all Federal facilities, including national parks, national
forests, national wildlife areas, and military facilities; Indian reservation and trust lands; and
State parks, recreational areas, and conservation lands
•
description of land uses and land cover within in-scope transmission line right-of-ways
(ROWs) and any recent changes to current and planned land use restrictions or covenants
on use
•
description of the plant’s visual setting, including the identities and heights of the tallest
structures, lights, and vapor plumes, as well as direction and distances from which these
structures, lights, and plumes are visible
3.2.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, for those nuclear
power plants located in a coastal zone, the land use review includes the following requirement:
•
15 CFR Part 930, the regulations governing implementation of the requirement for Federal
consistency with approved coastal management programs (as set forth in the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972)
3-3
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3.2.3
Review Procedures
The following review steps are suggested:
1. Review the applicant’s ER and scoping issues raised concerning land use and visual
resource information.
2. Confirm land use, land cover, and visual resource information, including in-scope
transmission lines and ROWs potentially affected by continued reactor operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal.
3. Describe place names, topographic and physiographic features, and transportation
networks.
4. Identify current local land use, zoning, and development plans – control and land use
changes.
5. Identify affected coastal zones or coastal watersheds, as defined by State National Coastal
Zone Management Programs.
3.2.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the land use and visual resource information provides a
sufficient basis for assessing the effects of continued reactor operations and refurbishment
activities associated with license renewal.
3.3
Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise
3.3.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the meteorology, air quality, and noise
environment of the site and surrounding area. This review should provide background
information for inclusion in the SEIS and input to reviewers for ESRPs for license renewal
(initial LR or SLR) dealing with evaluation of the impacts of continued plant operations during
the license renewal term and refurbishment activities in support of license renewal.
The scope includes descriptions of (1) regional climatology, (2) meteorological characteristics of
the site and vicinity using data from the onsite meteorological monitoring program, (3) local and
regional air quality, and (4) noise generated at, and in the vicinity of, the site.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude
of the potential impacts. The following data or information may be needed, if appropriate:
•
climatic descriptions from prior environmental documents, including the EISs prepared at the
construction-permit and operating-license stages
•
recent climatological data from nearby National Weather Service stations
•
extreme weather events, such as floods, hails, thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.,
from the National Climatic Data Center Storm Events database, and historical events and
damages to the site or nearby areas
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-4
•
summary of meteorological data from the onsite meteorological program for the most recent
5-year period
•
descriptions of meteorological phenomena, if any, associated with the plant’s cooling system
operation
•
description of regional air quality, including the locations of mandatory Federal Class I areas
and nonattainment and/or maintenance areas in the region
•
map of the region within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the nonattainment and
maintenance areas of the site
•
list of onsite emission sources and emission data for all criteria pollutants on an annual
basis
•
if refurbishment activities are planned, an estimate of additional workers, area of land
disturbed for waste storage or laydown areas, vehicle emissions, construction equipment
emissions, and fugitive dust emissions
•
any current or past noise studies and analyses conducted in the vicinity of the site
•
nearby sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, and nursing homes
•
list of primary offsite noise generating sources in the vicinity of the site
•
list of principal onsite noise-generating sources, with given distances to the nearest site
boundary and nearby sensitive receptors
3.3.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2 of this ESRP, the
acceptance criteria for the evaluation of site meteorology, air quality, and noise are based on
the following requirements:
•
40 CFR Part 50 concerning the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
•
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W, concerning requirements related to applicable implementation
plans
•
40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, concerning air quality models
•
40 CFR Part 52 concerning implementation plans
•
40 CFR Part 81, Subparts C and D, concerning attainment status designations approved by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and identification of mandatory Class I
Federal areas
•
40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B, concerning requirements for determining conformity of Federal
actions to State or Federal implementation plans
Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above
are as follows:
•
Regulatory Guide 1.23, Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants
(NRC 2007a)
•
ESRP 2.7 in NUREG-1555 (NRC 2000) provides guidance on onsite meteorological
measurements for use in licensing applications
3-5
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3.3.3
Review Procedures
The following review steps are suggested:
1. Review the air quality discussion in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS; NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a) to identify the
information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for
evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.
2. Obtain descriptions of the site meteorological, climatological, and dispersion characteristics,
and acoustic (noise) environment.
3. Obtain recent meteorological data for the site and climatological data for the region
surrounding the site.
4. Obtain the air-quality attainment status and available air-quality data for the region.
5. Obtain an inventory of onsite air emission sources, air emissions, and noise-generating
sources.
6. Determine if license renewal will result in an increase in air emissions (e.g., additional
worker vehicle emissions from refurbishment activities).
7. If site is located in a designated attainment area, continue the review at Step 9. If site is
located in a designated non-attainment or maintenance area and license renewal will result
in an increase in air emissions, proceed to Step 8 for a conformity determination.
8. Determine if air emissions will exceed de minimis threshold levels specified in 40 CFR
93.153(b), commonly referred to as an applicability analysis. If de minimis levels are not
exceeded, proceed to Step 9. If de minimis levels are exceeded, a conformity determination
must be completed. A conformity determination can be conducted via different methods,
including air quality modeling to demonstrate that air emissions will not cause or contribute
to a violation of the national ambient air quality standards. Models approved by the EPA for
air quality calculations are listed in Appendix W of 40 CFR Part 51.
9. Prepare a section for the SEIS that presents an updated summary of the meteorology,
climatology, air quality, and noise environment for the plant site and region. The summary
should address normal conditions and historic severe weather. If an applicability analysis or
conformity determination was conducted, this should be documented in the SEIS. The
section should describe and summarize the meteorological data used in atmospheric model
calculations for the conformity determination. The atmospheric models used should be
identified in the SEIS, but detailed model descriptions should be avoided.
3.3.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the meteorology, air quality, and noise information is adequate
as a basis for assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal. The reviewer should consult with appropriate Federal, State,
regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribes to assess the accuracy of the meteorology, air
quality, and noise information, if necessary.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-6
3.4
Geologic Environment
3.4.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the geology and soils of the site and surrounding
area. This review should provide background information for inclusion in the SEIS and to
support the evaluation of the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal (initial LR or SLR).
The scope includes (1) description of geologic setting, (2) overview of seismicity and seismic
history, (3) description of onsite soils and their relationship to site geology, and (4) description
of soil erosion potential at the site.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed, if appropriate:
•
descriptions of the geologic setting at the plant site, including occurring rock types, formation
names, and thicknesses
•
descriptions of seismic potential at the site and seismic history
•
identity of largest known local and historic regional earthquake
•
description of safe-shutdown earthquake for the plant
•
description of onsite soils (e.g., overburden and unconsolidated material) and their
relationship to site geology (whether the material was brought in from offsite or is naturally
occurring)
•
description of onsite erosion control and run-off best management practices
•
description of erosion potential at the site
•
identity of any important farmland soils (e.g., prime farmland) on or in the vicinity of the site
•
description of any rare or unique geologic resources, including rock, mineral, or energy
rights and assets at or adjoining the site, including resource extraction activities (e.g., oil or
gas wells, onsite or nearby borrow areas, quarries, or similar resource extraction sites)
3.4.2
Acceptance Criteria
The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of site
geology and soils.
3.4.3
Review Procedures
The following review steps are suggested:
1. Review the discussion of potential impacts of continued plant operation and refurbishment
activities on geology and soils in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a), to
identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the
basis for evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.
3-7
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
2. Obtain descriptions of regional and local geology, soils, geologic resources, and seismic
setting.
3. Obtain descriptions of the site geology, soils, geologic resources, and seismic setting from
prior environmental documents.
4. Obtain descriptions of seismic potential at the site and seismic history, including the largest
known local and historic regional earthquake and safe-shutdown earthquake for the plant.
5. Obtain descriptions of any onsite erosion control plans and run-off best management
practices.
6. Prepare a section for the SEIS that presents an updated summary of the geology and soils,
including significant geologic resources, and seismic setting for the plant site and
surrounding region.
3.4.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the geology and soils information is adequate as a basis for
assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal. The reviewer should consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local
agencies, as well as Indian Tribes, to assess the accuracy of the geology and soils information,
if necessary.
3.5
Water Resources
3.5.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of water use and quality that could be affected by
continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal (initial LR or
SLR).
The scope includes (1) consideration of such water uses as domestic, municipal, agricultural,
industrial, mining, recreation, navigation, and hydroelectric power; (2) identification of their
locations; (3) quantification of water diversions, consumption, and returns; (4) consideration of
site-specific and regional data on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
groundwater and surface water for the evaluation of water-quality impacts to waterbodies,
aquifers, and aquatic ecosystems due to water withdrawals and effluent discharges; (5) water
use related to continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal;
and (6) preparation of a section describing water use and water quality for the SEIS. The review
should be limited to existing and reasonably foreseeable future water uses and trends.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be based on nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
Maps (including digital databases such as a Geographic Information System) showing the
relationship of the site to the major hydrologic systems, surface waterbodies, floodplains,
and groundwater aquifer systems that could be affected by plant water withdrawals and/or
discharges.
•
Quantitative descriptions of present and known future surface water uses (withdrawals,
consumptions, and returns), groundwater withdrawals, and nonconsumptive water uses
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-8
(recreational, navigational, instream, etc.) that may be affected by continued plant
operations and refurbishment. This should include any bodies of water or aquifers at
distances close enough to affect or be adversely affected by plant operations. This should
also include a quantitative description of any water uses that provide potential liquid
pathways for both radiological and nonradiological effluents. The following should be
included:
–
locations of diversions and returns concerning the site and the waterbody
–
identification of the waterbody
–
average monthly withdrawal and return rate for each surface water diversion by use
category
–
locations and depths of wells in relation to the site
–
identification of aquifers, including any EPA-designated sole source aquifers
–
the average monthly groundwater withdrawal rates by use category
–
identification of waterbodies and locations within a 6-mile (10-kilometer) radius of the
plant site, including any delineated floodplains or zones of inundation for adjoining and
onsite surface water features (maps may be useful)
–
the type and location of activity on the identified waterbody (maps may be useful).
•
Summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific waterbody
restrictions on water use imposed by Federal or State regulations.
•
Water-use (water balance) diagram for the plant showing flow rates to and from the various
water systems (e.g., circulating water system, sanitary system, radwaste and chemical
waste systems, service water systems), points of consumption, and source and discharge
locations.
•
For the water-use diagram, the data and narrative description for maximum water
consumption, water consumption during periods of minimum water availability, and average
operation by month and by plant operating status.
•
A description of any other station water uses showing flow rates to and from the facility,
average water consumption, and maximum water consumption:
–
for surface waters: Water temperature, suspended solids, total dissolved solids,
hardness, turbidity, color, odor, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, biological oxygen
demand, chemical oxygen demand, phosphorus forms (total and orthophosphate),
nitrogen forms (ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, organic), alkalinity, chlorides, sulfate, sodium,
potassium, calcium, magnesium, heavy metals (e.g., mercury, lead), phytoplankton
(chlorophyll a), and indicator microorganisms (e.g., total coliform, fecal coliforms,
dinoflagellates, blue-green algae)
–
for groundwater: The above-surface-water data, minus phytoplankton and with silica,
iron, and bicarbonate added.
•
Other nuclear power plant site-specific water-quality characteristics.
•
Descriptions of preexisting aquatic environmental stresses and their effects on surface or
groundwater quality for waters that interact with the plant (e.g., waterbodies at or near the
site that do not meet established water-quality standards). These should include Clean
Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) State Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters
which classify the quality of each of the State’s waterbodies.
3-9
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
•
Descriptions of pollutant sources with discharges to water, including National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted discharges and associated monitoring
requirements, that may interact with the plant, including locations relative to the site and the
affected waterbodies, and the magnitude and nature of the pollutant discharges, including
spatial and temporal variations.
3.5.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of water resources are based on the following requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicant's plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and
withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action
on water availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related
impacts on stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be
provided. The applicant shall also provide an assessment of the impacts of the withdrawal of
water from the river on alluvial aquifers during low flow.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C). If the applicant’s plant pumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite)
of groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on
groundwater must be provided.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D). If the applicant's plant utilizes cooling ponds, an assessment of
the impact of the proposed action on groundwater quality must be provided.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P). An applicant shall assess the impact of any documented
inadvertent releases of radionuclides into groundwater. The applicant shall include in its
assessment a description of any groundwater protection program used for the surveillance
of piping and components containing radioactive liquids for which a pathway to groundwater
may exist. The assessment must also include a description of any past inadvertent releases
and the projected impact to the environment (e.g., aquifers, rivers, lakes, ponds, the ocean)
during the license renewal term.
•
33 CFR Part 330, Nationwide Permit Program, concerning general authorization for
discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.
•
40 CFR Part 121, State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit.
•
40 CFR Parts 122–133, Water Programs, concerning NPDES permit conditions for
discharges, including storm-water discharges and water quality standards.
•
40 CFR Part 147, concerning restrictions on waste disposal options.
•
40 CFR Part 149, concerning possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and
water use in or above a sole source aquifer.
•
40 CFR Part 165, concerning the disposal and storage of pesticides and pesticide
containers.
•
40 CFR Part 403, concerning waste effluents.
•
40 CFR Part 423, concerning effluent limitations for the steam electric power generating
point source category.
•
40 CFR Parts 700–716, concerning practices and procedures for managing toxic chemicals.
•
Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe water laws and water rights.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-10
Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of regulations identified above are
summarized as follows (footnote to 10 CFR 51.71(d)):
•
Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (i.e., commonly cited as CWA) is not a substitute for and does not
negate the requirement for NRC to weigh all environmental effects of the proposed action,
including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed
action that are available for reducing the adverse effects. If an environmental assessment of
aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, NRC will consider the assessment
in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts and in its determination
of 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 at the license renewal stage. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is
available from the permitting authority, NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting
authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) will establish its own impact
determination.
•
Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must
be considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In PUD No. 1 of Jefferson
County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994), the United States
Supreme Court interpreted the CWA as allowing States to impose conditions on
certifications, such as limitations on a given project, insofar as necessary to enforce a
designated use contained in the State's water quality standard. The Court held that these
limitations do not have to be specifically tied to a discharge requirement.
3.5.3
Review Procedures
The following review steps are suggested:
1. Identify consumptive water uses that could affect the water supply of the plant or that may
be adversely affected by the plant, including the following important characteristics:
–
water source
–
locations of diversions and returns
–
amount and time variation of use
–
water rights.
2. Identify recreational, navigational, and other nonconsumptive water uses. The important
characteristics to be specified are
–
location
–
activity
–
amount and time variation of use.
3. Identify the water uses that provide potential pathways for both radiological and
nonradiological effluents, including the following important characteristics:
–
water sources
–
location of diversions for consumptive uses
–
location of receptors for nonconsumptive uses
3-11
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
effluent discharges and pollutant characteristics
–
amount and time variation of each water use and discharge.
4. In addition to information obtained from the applicant’s ER and from responses to questions
to the applicant, use additional sources of data, such as:
–
local water-supply companies or agencies
–
river basin commissions
–
State agencies (e.g., water resources, fish and wildlife)
–
various agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological
Survey and Indian Tribal agencies when needed to complete the analysis.
Using the above information, compile and tabulate water uses by the categories and
characteristics described in this ESRP section but limit the analysis to consideration of current
and reasonably known or foreseeable future water uses.
Ensure that water-use data and information are adequate to serve as a basis for assessing the
impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal on
water use.
•
When evaluating the adequacy of this material, the reviewer should ensure that data are
sufficient to predict water-use impacts to the plant as well as water-use characteristics to be
impacted by refurbishment and operation during the renewal term.
•
Consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe agencies in making
this evaluation.
The reviewer’s analysis of water quality should ensure that the physical, chemical, and
biological water-quality parameters that could be affected by continued plant operations during
the license renewal term and refurbishment in support of license renewal have been described.
The reviewer should take the following steps:
1. Identify the location and spatial distribution of the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics, the monthly and annual ranges, and the historical extremes of those waterquality characteristics that could potentially be affected by continued plant operations and
refurbishment.
2. Determine the presence of existing water-quality-related environmental stresses. Consult
the quality criteria requirements of other water users, as indicated by the approved wateruse classification (such as CWA 303[d], lists) or water resource planning documents for the
waterbody in question.
3. When applicable, discuss the water-quality conditions, floodplains and waterway buffer
zones, water rights, and agreements as they affect water quality and water supply and
resource plans for the site and vicinity with Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe
water resource and pollution control and monitoring agencies.
4. Obtain the information primarily from the applicant’s ER, responses to questions to the
applicant, and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe agencies.
Use sources of data such as river basin planning organizations and State and Federal
agencies, such as the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological
Survey, if additional information or verification is deemed necessary.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-12
5. Ensure that the
–
data are sufficient to provide quantitative information on the physical, chemical, and
biological water-quality characteristics potentially affecting or affected by continued plant
operations and refurbishment
–
hydrologic and water-quality descriptions are sufficient, concerning relevancy,
completeness, reliability, and accuracy for input to the impact assessments of other
sections
–
Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe agencies appropriate to the objectives of
this review have been consulted
When evaluating the adequacy of this material:
•
Consult the applicable standards and guides for this environmental review and use the site
visit and/or consultations with permitting agencies to evaluate the completeness of the
water-quality descriptions.
•
Evaluate, when necessary, the collection of additional data, the verification of data, and the
substantiation of the methodology used to estimate water-quality parameters.
Include the appropriate depth and extent of the input to the SEIS as governed by the hydrologic
and water-quality characteristics that could be affected by continued plant operations and
refurbishment and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts. The following
information should be included as input to the SEIS:
•
Descriptions of site and vicinity surface-water and groundwater occurrence, flow, and quality
that could be affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment. The description may
consist of statistical summaries of the relevant characteristics, including mean, mean low
and high, and historical low and high values (as available) for the site and vicinity. The data
included should be commensurate with the anticipated impacts. Figures may be used to
show long-term and seasonal trends.
•
A description of the water-quality related environmental stresses in the site and vicinity.
3.5.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the water resources information is adequate as a basis for
assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal. The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the
water-use and quality characteristics of the site and vicinity and the potential water-use and
quality impacts of continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment
in support of license renewal. The information should be presented in a concise form.
Data should be given in tables where appropriate. The following information should be
considered and included as appropriate:
•
a summary of present and reasonably known future surface-water uses and effluent
discharges on or from the site and within the hydrological system in which the plant is
located and that may be adversely affected by the plant
3-13
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
•
a summary of present and reasonably known future groundwater withdrawals and effluent
discharges on the site and for distances great enough to cover potentially affected
groundwater aquifers
•
references to applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe water use and
quality standards
3.6
Ecological Resources
3.6.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance on how the NRC staff should consider the potential effects of
continued operation of a nuclear power plant during an initial LR or SLR term on ecological
resources. Ecological resources include terrestrial, aquatic, and federally protected resources.
To perform the ecological resource review, the reviewer should (1) identify the characteristics of
the ecological environment; (2) identify important ecological attributes and resources; (2) identify
the attributes and resources that license renewal could affect; (4) gather surveys, studies,
monitoring, and other information on these resources; (5) coordinate with relevant Federal and
State agencies and Indian Tribes (e.g., applicable treaty rights) with special expertise or
jurisdiction; and (6) prepare SEIS sections describing terrestrial resources, aquatic resources,
and federally protected ecological resources.
Data and Information Needs
The ecological resources review may require the following information about the ecological
environment. Data and information needed for a given review would be site-specific and would
depend on nuclear power plant site-specific and plant-specific factors.
Terrestrial Resources
•
Level I, II, and III terrestrial ecoregion
•
characteristics of the Level III ecoregion (see Table G.6-1 of the LR GEIS)
•
descriptions of terrestrial habitats (e.g., oak-hickory forest, tallgrass prairie, tidal salt marsh,
lacustrine wetland) on or near the site
•
information on characteristic plant and animal species associated with each habitat type
•
copies of terrestrial surveys, studies, and monitoring performed on or near the site
(e.g., baseline studies, habitat assessments, native plant surveys, wetland delineations,
endangered and threatened species monitoring)
•
information on important terrestrial species and habitats (e.g., keystone species, indicator
species, representative species, migratory birds, State-listed species, bird rookeries and
flyways, important bird areas, known bat hibernacula, locally significant habitats, natural
heritage areas, wildlife sanctuaries and preserves, federally or State-managed lands)
•
information on non-native, nuisance, and invasive species of local or regional concern
•
information concerning the length of in-scope transmission lines; locations where ROWs
cross wetlands, riparian areas, or other important or sensitive habitats; and line termination
points (e.g., substation or point at which in-scope portion of the lines ends)
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-14
Aquatic Resources
•
marine ecoregion (for nuclear power plants near oceanic, estuarine, or gulf waters)
•
waterbodies affected by nuclear power plant operations
•
characteristics of the affected waterbodies
–
descriptions of the aquatic habitats of the waterbodies (e.g., nearshore, benthic, open
water, etc.)
–
size, bathymetry, temperature regimes, streamflow and discharge, salinity, tidal flows,
typical seasonal fluctuations, sediment types, and general water quality
–
main channel, dams, and any flood controls
–
additional human uses of the waterbody other than for nuclear power plant cooling
(e.g., recreational, industrial, etc.)
•
relevant watershed(s), including source and receiving waterbodies
•
information on characteristic plant and animal species associated with each affected
waterbody, especially those species vulnerable to impingement and entrainment
•
descriptions of other aquatic habitats or features on the site
•
information on fish stocking programs
•
copies of aquatic surveys, studies, and monitoring performed on or near the site
(e.g., regional fishery studies; endangered and threatened species monitoring; baseline,
impingement, entrainment, thermal, and other studies performed in connection with CWA
Section 316(a) and (b) requirements)
•
information on important aquatic species and habitats (e.g., keystone species, indicator
species, representative species, State-listed species, recreational and commercially
important fisheries, spawning and rearing areas, waters within Federal or State parks and
preserves)
•
information on non-native, nuisance, and invasive species of local or regional concern
•
information concerning the length of in-scope transmission lines; locations where ROWs
cross waterbodies, aquatic features, or other important or sensitive habitats; and line
termination points (e.g., substation or point at which in-scope portion of the lines ends)
Federally Protected Ecological Resources
•
sufficient information on the proposed action to define the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
action area (e.g., all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not
merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02)
•
information on endangered and threatened species (collectively, “listed species”) and critical
habitats protected under the ESA that are potentially present in the action area under both
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
jurisdiction (collectively, “the Services”)
3-15
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
•
information on designated essential fish habitat (EFH), including habitats of particular
concern, designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA) that are present in the area
•
information on national marine sanctuaries protected under the National Marine Sanctuaries
Act (NMSA) that are present in the area
Additionally, the following information may be relevant to the ecological resources review:
•
the ecological environment prior to nuclear power plant construction and major changes that
have happened since (e.g., habitat loss, degradation, or fragmentation; changes in presence
or abundances of plant and animal populations; urbanization and development;
impoundments and associated pond and reservoir creation; river channelization)
•
changes to the ecological environment anticipated during the license renewal term
•
relevant regional, State, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls to reduce or mitigate
impacts on the ecological environment (e.g., NPDES permit conditions and requirements
related to impingement mortality, entrainment, and thermal effluents)
•
site or fleet-wide environmental procedures, wildlife management plans, best management
practices, and conservation initiatives undertaken or proposed by the applicant
•
transmission line ROW maintenance procedures, including physical (e.g., mowing and
cutting) and chemical (e.g., herbicides or pesticides) controls and maintenance periodicity
•
management of nuisance or invasive species undertaken or proposed by the applicant
3.6.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2 and 3.5.2, acceptance
criteria for the ecological resources review are based on the following requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicant's plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and
withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action
on water availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related
impacts on stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be
provided.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling
pond water intake and discharge systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current
Clean Water Act 316(b) Best Technology Available determinations and, if applicable, a
316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR Part 125 or equivalent State permits and
supporting documentation. If the applicant cannot provide these documents, it shall assess
the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from impingement
mortality and entrainment and thermal discharges.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of
refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction
activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the
impact of the proposed action on federally protected ecological resources in accordance
with Federal laws protecting such resources, including but not limited to the Endangered
Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-16
•
40 CFR Part 122 and 40 CFR Part 125, concerning impingement mortality and entrainment
at existing facilities subject to CWA Section 316(b).
•
40 CFR Part 423, concerning effluent discharges subject to CWA Section 316(a) and 402.
•
50 CFR Part 402, concerning interagency consultation for federally listed species and critical
habitats protected under the ESA.
•
50 CFR Part 600, concerning interagency consultation for EFH protected under the MSA.
The following Federal statutes also apply to the ecological resources review:
•
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 668–668d)
makes it unlawful to take, pursue, molest, or disturb bald and golden eagles, their nests, or
their eggs anywhere in the United States. The FWS may issue take permits to individuals,
government agencies, or other organizations to authorize limited, non-purposeful
disturbance of eagles, in the course of conducting lawful activities such as operating utilities
or conducting scientific research.
•
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) was enacted to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s water. Section 316(a) of the CWA
addresses thermal effects and requires that facilities operate under effluents limitations that
assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife in and on the receiving body of water. Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that
cooling water intake structures of regulated facilities must reflect the best technology
available for minimizing impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms. These
sections of the CWA are implemented and enforced through the NPDES program.
•
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.) addresses
the increasing pressures of over-development upon the nation’s coastal resources. The Act
encourages states to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance
valuable natural coastal resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches,
dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats.
Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the Act requires that applicants for Federal licenses who conduct
activities in a coastal zone provide certification that the proposed activity complies with the
enforceable policies of the State's coastal zone program.
•
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), was enacted to
prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened species and to restore those
species and their critical habitats. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to
consult with the FWS or NMFS (collectively, “the Services”) for Federal actions that may
affect listed species or designated critical habitats.
•
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.) governs marine fisheries
management in U.S. Federal waters. The MSA created eight regional fishery management
councils and includes measures to rebuild overfished fisheries, protect EFH, and reduce
bycatch. Under Section 305(b) of the MSA, Federal agencies are required to consult with
NMFS for any Federal actions that may adversely affect EFH.
•
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.) was enacted to protect
and manage marine mammals and their products (e.g., the use of hides and meat). The
primary authority for implementing the Act belongs to the FWS and NMFS. The FWS
manages walruses, polar bears, sea otters, dugongs, marine otters, and the West Indian,
Amazonian, and West African manatees. NMFS manages whales, porpoises, seals, and
3-17
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
sea lions. The two agencies may issue permits under Section 104 of the Act to persons,
including Federal agencies, that authorize the taking or importing of marine mammals.
•
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.) is intended to
protect birds that have common migration patterns between the United States and Canada,
Mexico, Japan, and Russia. The Act stipulates that, except as permitted by regulations, it is
unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill
any migratory bird.
•
National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.)
establishes provisions for the designation and protection of marine areas that have special
national significance. The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate
national marine sanctuaries and establish the National Marine Sanctuary System. Pursuant
to Section 304(d) of the NMSA, Federal agencies must consult with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries when their
proposed actions are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource.
•
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, Section 10 (33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.) protects
navigable waters in the development of harbors and other construction and excavation.
Section 10 of the Act requires entities or persons to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to construct any structure in or over any navigable water of the United
States, or to accomplish any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or physical
capacity of such waters. Activities requiring Section 10 permits include structures (e.g.,
piers, wharfs, breakwaters, bulkheads, jetties, weirs, and transmission lines) and work such
as dredging or disposal of dredged material, or excavation, filling, or other modifications to
the navigable waters of the United States.
The following additional NRC guidance may be relevant to the ecological resources review:
•
Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. 2, Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power
Stations (NRC 2012b) contains technical guidance for designing terrestrial environmental
studies and performing analyses for applicants and reactor licensees subject to 10 CFR
Part 50, 10 CFR Part 52, and 10 CFR Part 54 who must meet the environmental
requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. The guidance addresses designing adequate baseline
studies; identifying important species and habitats; and performing terrestrial impact
analyses, including the effects of habitat loss, noise, wildlife displacement, bird and bat
collisions with plant structures, avian electrocution, cooling tower drift, and hydrological
impacts to terrestrial habitats.
•
Regulatory Guide 4.24, Rev. 0, Aquatic Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations
(NRC 2017a), contains technical guidance for designing aquatic environmental studies and
performing analyses for applicants and reactor licensees subject to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR
Part 52, and 10 CFR Part 54 who must meet the environmental requirements of 10 CFR
Part 51. The guidance addresses designing adequate baseline studies; identifying important
species and habitats; and performing terrestrial impact analyses, including the effects of
habitat modification, noise and pressure, impingement and entrainment, effluent discharge,
cooling tower drift, and transmission line water crossings.
3.6.3
Review Procedures
The reviewer should ensure that the information and data gathered are adequate to serve as a
basis for assessing the potential impacts of nuclear power plant license renewal on ecological
resources. The following are suggested review steps for preparing input to the SEIS.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-18
Terrestrial Resources
1. Identify the terrestrial ecoregion (Levels I, II, and III) and describe typical characteristics of
the Level III ecoregion.
2. Identify and describe the terrestrial habitats on and near the site and within ROWs of
in-scope transmission lines. Give special attention to important habitats (e.g., important bird
areas, known bat hibernacula, locally significant habitats, natural heritage areas, wildlife
sanctuaries and preserves, federally or State-managed lands, etc.).
3. Describe major changes to the terrestrial environment during or after nuclear power plant
construction. These may be related to plant construction or operation or the result of other
factors.
4. Note characteristic plant and animal species associated with each habitat type. Give special
attention to important species (e.g., keystone species, indicator species, representative
species, migratory birds, State-listed species, etc.).
5. Note any non-native, nuisance, and invasive species of local or regional concern, especially
those known to be present on the site. Summarize management of such species undertaken
at the site, if applicable.
6. Describe terrestrial surveys, studies, and monitoring performed on or near the site, including
biological entities or ecological attributes chosen for investigation, methodology, results, and
conclusions.
7. Describe any site or fleet-wide environmental procedures, wildlife management plans, best
management practices, and conservation initiatives undertaken at the site and relevant to
terrestrial resources.
8. Describe relevant regional, State, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls that are in
place to reduce or mitigate impacts on the terrestrial environment.
9. Summarize the input of relevant Federal, State, and Tribal agencies with special expertise
or jurisdiction over terrestrial resources, as applicable.
10. Summarize the input of affected Indian Tribes, as applicable.
Aquatic Resources
1. Identify the marine ecoregion (if applicable) and describe typical characteristics of that
ecoregion (e.g., predominant oceanographic or topographic features, species composition,
and dominant biogeographic forcing agents, such as isolation, upwelling, nutrient inputs,
freshwater influx, temperature regimes, ice regimes, exposure, sediments, currents, and
bathymetric or coastal complexity).
2. Identify the waterbody(ies) affected by nuclear power plant operations, including those
within ROWs of in-scope transmission lines, and describe the characteristics of the affected
waterbodies, including:
–
the aquatic habitats of the waterbodies
–
size, bathymetry, temperature regimes, streamflow and discharge, salinity, tidal flows,
typical seasonal fluctuations, sediment types, and general water quality
–
main channel, dams, and any flood controls
–
additional human uses of the waterbody other than for nuclear power plant cooling
(e.g., recreational, industrial, etc.).
3-19
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3. Give special attention to important habitats (e.g., spawning and rearing areas, waters within
Federal or State parks and preserves, etc.).
4. Identify the relevant watershed(s), including source and receiving waterbodies.
5. Describe major changes to the aquatic environment during or after nuclear power plant
construction. These may be related to plant construction or operation or the result of other
factors.
6. Describe the trophic structure and identify important trophic links and potential for trophic
cascade.
7. Note characteristic plant and animal species associated with each affected waterbody. Give
special attention to important species (e.g., keystone species, indicator species,
representative species, State-listed species, recreational and commercially important
fisheries, marine mammals, etc.) and those species vulnerable to impingement and
entrainment.
8. Note any non-native, nuisance, and invasive species of local or regional concern, especially
those known to be present on the site. Summarize management of such species undertaken
at the site, if applicable.
9. Describe aquatic surveys, studies, and monitoring performed on or near the site, including
biological entities or ecological attributes chosen for investigation, methodology, results, and
conclusions.
10. Describe any site or fleet-wide environmental procedures, wildlife management plans, best
management practices, and conservation initiatives undertaken at the site and relevant to
aquatic resources.
11. Describe relevant regional, State, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls that are in
place to reduce or mitigate impacts on the aquatic environment.
12. Summarize relevant Federal, State, or Tribal management initiatives, such as fish stocking
programs.
13. Summarize the input of Federal, State, or Tribal agencies with special expertise or
jurisdiction over aquatic resources, as applicable.
14. Summarize the input of affected Indian Tribes, as applicable.
Federally Protected Ecological Resources
•
Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat
–
Define the ESA action area (see Appendix A.1.3, Review Procedure Step 1).
–
For each federally listed species potentially present in the action area, describe the
taxonomy, physical description, distribution and relative abundance, habitat, biology,
factors affecting the species, and occurrence of the species within the action area.
–
For each designated critical habitat present in the action area, describe the
characteristics of the physical and biological features of the habitat, designation
boundaries, and location in relation to the nuclear power plant site and action area.
Include maps, when available.
–
Include candidate and proposed species and proposed critical habitats, as appropriate.
–
If Section 7 consultation is anticipated, refer to the ESA regulations at 50 CFR Part 402,
“Interagency Cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended”; the
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-20
Services’ guidance for conducting Section 7 consultation in Endangered Species
Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference
Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (FWS and NMFS 1998); and
Appendix A of this ESRP for additional information that may be required.
•
•
Essential Fish Habitat
–
Define the affected area (see Appendix A.2.3, Review Procedure Step 1).
–
Identify the EFH present in the affected area and the federally managed species and life
stages to which the EFH applies.
–
Describe the distribution, habitat preferences, and diet of each federally managed
species and life stage.
–
Describe the physical and biological characteristics of the EFH by species and life stage.
Give special attention to habitats of particular concern, when applicable.
–
If EFH consultation is anticipated, refer to the EFH regulations at Section 305 at 50 CFR
Part 600, “Magnuson–Stevens Act Provisions”; NMFS’s guidance for conducting EFH
consultation in Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance (NMFS 2004a) and
Preparing Essential Fish Habitat Assessments: A Guide for Federal Action Agencies
(NMFS 2004b); and Appendix A of this ESRP for additional information that may be
required.
Sanctuary Resources
–
Define the affected area (see Appendix A.3.3, Review Procedure Step 1).
–
Identify the national marine sanctuary in the affected area and describe the location in
relation to the nuclear power plant site. Include maps, when available.
–
Describe the marine resources of the sanctuary, including living and nonliving resources.
–
If NMSA consultation is anticipated, refer to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Office of National Marine Sanctuaries’ (ONMS) guidance for
conducting NMSA consultation in Overview of Conducting Consultation Pursuant to
Section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NOAA 2009) and Appendix A of
this ESRP for additional information that may be required.
3.6.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the ecological information is adequate to serve as a basis for
assessing the potential impacts of license renewal and alternatives. The reviewer should consult
with relevant Federal and State agencies, as appropriate, to obtain information on ecological
resources, especially federally protected ecological resources for which license renewal may
necessitate interagency consultation. Coordination with affected Indian Tribes may also be
appropriate concerning culturally significant ecological resources. The depth and extent of
written input to the SEIS should be governed by the ecological resources present at the site and
the potential for license renewal to affect those resources. Data should be presented in tables,
maps, or figures, where appropriate.
3-21
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3.7
Historic and Cultural Resources
3.7.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance on how the NRC staff should identify and assess the potential
effects of continued operation and refurbishment activities during an initial LR or SLR term on
historic and cultural resources and historic properties. Historic and cultural resources include
precontact (i.e., prehistoric) and historic era archaeological sites, districts, buildings, structures,
and objects. Historic and cultural resources also include elements of the cultural environment
such as landscapes, sacred sites, and other resources that are of religious and cultural
importance to Indian Tribes, such as traditional cultural properties important to a living
community of people for maintaining its culture.
A historic or cultural resource is deemed to be historically significant, and thus, a “historic
property” within the scope of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) if it has been
determined to be eligible for listing or is listed on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). The NRHP is maintained by the U.S. National Park Service in accordance with its
regulations in 36 CFR Part 60. The NRHP criteria to evaluate the eligibility of a property are set
forth in 36 CFR 60.4. Section 106 of the NHPA (NHPA; 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) requires
Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings (e.g., initial LR or SLR)
on historic properties and consult with the appropriate parties as defined in 36 CFR 800.2. For
license renewal reviews, the NRC fulfills its Section 106 requirements through the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process in accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c). For
NEPA compliance, impacts on cultural resources that are not eligible for or listed in the NRHP
would also need to be considered (CEQ and ACHP 2013). Appendix B of this ESRP provides
guidance to the NRC staff in conducting NHPA Section 106 consultation.
Data and Information Needs
The type of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors, the amount of previous survey work conducted in the area of potential
effects (APE), and consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)/Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer (THPO), Indian Tribes,1 and other consulting parties. The following data or
information should be included in this section:
•
Description of the APE. For license renewal (initial LR or SLR), the APE includes lands
within the nuclear power plant site boundary and the transmission lines up to the first
substation that may be directly (e.g., physically) affected by land-disturbing or other
operational activities associated with continued plant operations and maintenance and/or
refurbishment activities.
•
Cultural background for the APE and surrounding region from the beginning of human
settlement to the present.
•
Historic use of the land and the activities that have occurred within the APE and the
surrounding area documenting past levels of ground disturbance.
•
Copy of the site map that identifies the direct APE (e.g., including in-scope transmission
lines) and indirect APE (e.g., in the vicinity).
1
Per 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii), the agency official will consult with any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian
organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by
an undertaking.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-22
•
All past and current (i.e., for license renewal) historic and cultural resource investigations
conducted within and surrounding the APE.
•
Historic properties within the APE, NRHP eligibility status, and if available, SHPO/THPO,
Indian Tribes, and other consulting parties’ comments in support of NRC’s NHPA
Section 106 review.
•
Historic and cultural resources (e.g., sacred sites) within the APE that are not eligible for or
listed in the NRHP but should be considered within the context of NEPA.
•
Description of the applicant’s efforts to engage SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes, or members of
the public to assess historic and cultural resources within the APE.
•
Description of any procedures or management plans to protect or minimize impacts to
historic and cultural resources (e.g., avoidance and inadvertent discovery procedures) within
the APE during the renewal term.
3.7.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of historic and cultural resources are based on the following requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K). All applicants shall identify any potentially affected historic and
cultural resources and historic properties and assess whether continued operations and any
planned refurbishment activities would affect these resources in accordance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and in the context of the National
Environmental Policy Act.
•
36 CFR Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties” − The implementing regulations require
Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP in consultation with consulting parties as
defined under 36 CFR 800.8(c)(1)(i). Under this regulation, the NRC is required to identify
and evaluate all historic properties in the APE and take measures to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate adverse effects. As indicated in 36 CFR 800.8(c), Section 106 can be integrated
with NEPA reviews. The NRC must complete the NHPA Section 106 review process prior to
issuance of an initial or subsequent renewed license.
•
36 CFR Part 60, “National Register of Historic Places” – The regulations contain the
National Park Service's NRHP—the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of
preservation.
•
36 CFR Part 63, “Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places” – contains guidance for evaluating historic properties and determining whether a
property is eligible for listing in the NRHP.
The following Federal statutes also apply to the historic and cultural resources review. A
summary of these statutes is provided in Appendix F of the LR GEIS. Note that some statutes
listed below apply only to nuclear power plant sites located on public (i.e., Federal) and Tribal
lands.
•
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.)
•
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. § 1996)
•
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 312501
et seq.)
3-23
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
•
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. § 470aa et seq.)
•
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.)
Executive Orders
Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR
67249) − This Order seeks “to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration
with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications, to
strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes, and to
reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribes.” The NRC voluntarily complies
with this Executive Order and has issued a Tribal Policy Statement (82 FR 2402).
NRC Policy and Guidance
NRC Tribal Policy Statement (82 FR 2402) – On January 9, 2017, the NRC published its Tribal
Policy Statement of principles to guide the agency's government-to-government interactions
with federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Tribes. The agency developed this
document in response to direction from the Commission following an increase in the number
and complexity of consultations between the NRC and Federally recognized Tribal
governments. The policy statement is intended to encourage and facilitate Tribal involvement in
activities under NRC jurisdiction. It provides guidance to ensure consistency across the agency
in government-to-government relations with Federally recognized Tribes. The policy statement
also underscores the NRC's commitments to conducting outreach to Tribes, engaging in timely
consultation and coordinating with other Federal agencies.2
NUREG-2173 (NRC 2018c), Tribal Protocol Manual – This manual is intended to facilitate
effective consultations and interactions between the NRC and Indian Tribes concerning
activities within the scope of the NRC's jurisdiction.
Staff Guidance for Withholding Sensitive Information About Historic Resources in Accordance
with the National Historic Preservation Act (NRC 2011).
3.7.3
Review Procedures
The reviewer should ensure that the information and data gathered are adequate to serve as a
basis for assessing the potential impacts of nuclear power plant license renewal on historic and
cultural resources and historic properties. The following review steps are suggested when
preparing input to the SEIS:
1. Review the historic and cultural resources discussion in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437,
Revision 2; NRC 2024a), to identify the information considered for characterizing the
affected environment.
2. Identify and describe the APE (both direct and indirect). Include a site map that delineates
the APE (preferably on a U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle). Provide the description of
the APE appropriate for the proposed project area. Note that not all areas of the United
States (i.e., the original 13 colonies) use the Public Land Survey System (e.g., township,
range, and section information).
2
The Tribal Policy Statement also encourages State-recognized Tribes to participate in NRC regulatory
processes, including licensing actions.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-24
3. Review the ER as well as the cultural resource investigations (e.g., archaeological and
architectural surveys) cited in the ER for details about historic and cultural resources, NRHP
evaluations, and the status of the applicant’s interaction with SHPO and Indian Tribes.
4. Briefly summarize and describe precontact (i.e., prehistoric) and historic land use up to the
recent past. The description should focus on providing relevant context for understanding
the types of historic and cultural resources that may be present within the APE and
surrounding areas as required for NHPA Section 106 reviews.
5. Identify and describe all past and current historic and cultural resource investigations
conducted within the APE and surrounding area.
6. The reviewer should conduct an independent review of SHPO archaeological and
architectural databases (i.e., site files) or similar repositories (e.g., Office of State
Archaeologist) to verify historic and cultural resources information provided by the applicant
in the ER.
7. Consider other sources of information obtained during the NRC site audit, via requests for
additional information and requests for confirmatory information, and through the
consultation process.
8. Identify and describe historic properties located within the APE along with NRHP eligibility
evaluations.
9. Identify and describe historic and cultural resources within the APE that are not eligible for
or listed in the NRHP but should be considered within the context of NEPA.
10. Describe and summarize the status of the NRC’s NHPA Section 106 consultation with the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes and interested
parties along with any comments received.
11. Review comments received during the scoping process to identify any issues associated
with historic and cultural resources.
12. Review other State regulations protecting historic and cultural resources and burial laws.
13. Refer to staff guidance regarding NHPA Section 106 consultation in Appendix B of this
ESRP.
3.7.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the historic and cultural resources information is adequate to
serve as a basis for assessing the potential impacts of initial LR or SLR and alternatives. The
reviewer should consult with SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes, and interested parties, as appropriate,
to obtain information on historic and cultural resources, especially historic properties which
would necessitate NHPA Section 106 consultation. The depth and extent of information
presented in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of the historic
properties present in the APE and the effects of continued plant operations, refurbishment, and
decommissioning activities on historic and cultural resources. The reviewer should verify that
historic and cultural resources have been identified and described in sufficient detail to provide
the basis for subsequent analysis and assessment of these impacts.
3.8
3.8.1
Socioeconomics
Areas of Review
This ESRP guides the review and consideration of socioeconomic factors that could be directly
or indirectly affected by changes in nuclear power plant operations. A nuclear power plant and
3-25
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
the communities that support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. The
communities provide the people, goods, and services needed to operate the nuclear power
plant. Power plant operations, in turn, provide employment and income and pay for goods and
services from the communities. The measure of a community’s ability to support power plant
operations depends on the ability of the community to respond to changing economic
conditions.
The socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) is defined by the counties where nuclear power
plant employees and their families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby
affecting economic conditions in the region. Changes in power plant operation affect
socioeconomic conditions in the ROI, including employment and income, recreation and
tourism, tax revenue, community services and education, population and housing, and
transportation.
The scope of the review should include the current socioeconomic factors that might be affected
by continued reactor operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal (initial LR or
SLR).
Data and Information Needs
The reviewer should consult the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a), before
undertaking extensive data collection.
The following data or information may be needed:
•
most recent average annual total number of permanent plant workers and county of
residence, average number of plant outage workers, frequency, and duration (in days or
weeks)
•
U.S. Bureau of Census information and data related to the ROI (by county) economic base,
including:
–
housing: total number of units, number of occupied units, number of vacant units,
vacancy rate, and median value
–
demographic information by race and ethnicity and population growth forecasts by
county
–
transient (seasonal) population including students attending colleges and universities
within 50 miles of the plant
–
civilian labor force by county
–
largest industrial employment by industrial sector category (North American Industry
Classification System code)
–
median household income and per capita income
–
percent of families and individuals living below the Census poverty threshold
–
unemployment
•
public water supply system information by source (groundwater or surface water, average
daily production, system design capacity, and population served)
•
information about the local public schools: school district(s), total enrollment
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-26
•
information on local transportation systems: site access roads, average annual daily traffic
volume and road capacity
•
Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Agriculture) information on migrant farm labor in
the ROI (by county), including:
–
number of farms and farm workers working less than 150 days
–
number of farms reporting migrant farm labor
–
number of farms with hired farm labor
•
list of major employers in ROI
•
annual property tax or payments in lieu of tax (PILOT) information including local tax
authorities (e.g., county, municipality, and public school district) and tax assessment
information including anticipated or recent changes in State tax laws
•
public recreational facilities, including capacity and utilization
3.8.2
Acceptance Criteria
The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2 also apply for the review of
affected environment socioeconomic characteristics.
3.8.3
Review Procedures
The following review steps are suggested:
1. Review socioeconomics discussions in the LR GEIS.
2. Determine if there is new information that should be evaluated. The following sources of
information should be included in the search for new information:
–
any new socioeconomics-related information in the applicant’s ER
–
any new socioeconomic information from scoping
3. Compile socioeconomic information on counties within the ROI.
4. Describe the following:
–
power plant employment and expenditures
–
regional economic characteristics
–
demographic characteristics
–
housing and community services
–
tax revenue
–
local transportation.
5. Prepare socioeconomic affected environment discussion for the SEIS.
3.8.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the socioeconomic information is adequate to serve as a basis
for assessing the potential impacts of initial LR or SLR. The amount of socioeconomic
3-27
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
information in the SEIS is governed by the potential effects of continued nuclear plant
operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term.
3.9
Human Health
3.9.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the discussion of radiological and nonradiological human
health impacts of nuclear power plants. The scope includes preparation of a SEIS section
describing the applicant’s radioactive waste management program, radiological environmental
monitoring program, radioactive effluent release program, occupational radiation exposure,
physical hazards, chemical hazards, microbiological hazards, and occupational electric hazards.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
a description of the radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid waste management and effluent
control systems and information on effluents released into the environment and waste
stored onsite
•
historical data on occupational doses to plant workers (from NUREG-0713, “Occupational
Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities”;
NRC 2022a, or latest revision)
•
a description of the radiological environmental monitoring program and environmental data
(from the applicant’s annual environmental operating reports)
•
historical maximum doses to a member of the public (from the applicant’s annual radioactive
effluent release reports)
•
information on the potential changes in radiological impacts from continued plant operations
during the renewal term
•
information on the radiological impacts of refurbishment
•
description of the site’s industrial safety program to include physical occupational hazards,
chemical hazards, occupational microbiological hazards, and occupational electrical hazards
(e.g., electromagnetic fields and electric shock)
•
description of the microbiological hazards for members of the public for plants that use a
cooling pond, lake, canal, or that discharge into publicly accessible surface waters
•
description of the in-scope transmission lines and adherence to National Electrical Safety
Code (NESC) standards
3.9.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of human health are based on the following requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G). If the applicant’s plant uses a cooling pond, lake, canal, or
discharges to publicly accessible surface waters, an assessment of the impact of the
proposed action on public health from thermophilic organisms in the affected water must be
provided.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-28
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H). If the applicant's transmission lines that were constructed for the
specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the
recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code for preventing electric shock from
induced currents, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock
hazard from the transmission lines must be provided.
3.9.3
Review Procedures
The SEIS section to be prepared on the radiological and nonradiological impacts is
informational in nature. No specific analysis is required. The following review steps are
suggested:
1. Review the discussion of Human Health in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2;
NRC 2024a).
2. Obtain historic information (typically five years of data) on radioactive effluents released
from the applicant’s plant.
3. Obtain information on expected radioactive releases and exposures from refurbishment
activities, if any.
4. Obtain information on projected changes in radioactive releases and exposures from
operations during the renewal term, if any.
5. Obtain historical information (typically five years of data) on the radiological environmental
monitoring program.
6. Obtain historical information (typically five years of data) on the occupational doses to plant
workers.
7. Prepare a section describing the radiological programs and systems for the SEIS. This
section should include summary descriptions of the applicant’s radioactive effluent
monitoring and radiological environmental monitoring programs. It should also include a
discussion of doses received by members of the public and plant workers for the most
recent calendar year and the trend of such doses for the most recent five years of plant
operation. Doses should be compared with relevant regulatory requirements; for example,
Appendix I to 10 CFR 50, 10 CFR 20.1201, and 10 CFR 20.1301. For the radiological
environmental monitoring program, provide a summary of the results for the most recent
calendar year and a trend of the data for the most recent five years of plant operation.
8. Prepare a section describing the chemical hazards. Review applicable plant procedures,
plans, and processes designed to prevent and minimize the potential for chemical or
hazardous waste release and minimize potential impact on workers, members of the public,
and the environment.
9. Prepare a section describing electromagnetic fields including a discussion of the in-scope
transmission lines.
10. Prepare a section describing microbiological hazards to workers. Review applicable plant
procedures, plans, and processes designed to prevent and minimize the potential for
exposure to elevated numbers of microorganisms in unheated and heated water systems
onsite.
11. Prepare a section that addresses physical occupational hazards and occupational electric
shock hazards.
3-29
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3.9.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the human health information is adequate to serve as a basis
for assessing the potential impacts of initial LR or SLR and alternatives. The level of detail of
SEIS input would depend on plant- and site-specific factors. The information included in the
SEIS should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitudes of the expected impacts. The
reviewer should verify that the radiological and nonradiological impact descriptions are
consistent, accurate, and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers for ESRPs
in other chapters.
3.10 Environmental Justice
3.10.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance on describing minority populations, low-income populations, and
Indian Tribes that could experience disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects from continued reactor operations and refurbishment activities associated
with license renewal (initial LR or SLR).
The descriptions to be provided by this review should be of sufficient detail to permit the
assessment and evaluation of human health and environmental effects in ESRP Section 4.10.
Data and Information Needs
Data and information on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes
depend on the location of the nuclear power plant. Information can be gleaned from the
applicant’s ER and from the sources discussed below. The following data or information should
be obtained:
•
Demographic data are available from online geographic information systems (GIS)
(e.g., EJScreen, an online GIS tool offered by EPA) and U.S. Bureau of the Census data,
including Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing GIS mapping
files.3 In addition, 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius demographic data can be generated using
the Circular Area Profiles GIS system from the Missouri Census Data Center, a cooperative
program with the Census Bureau’s State Data Center Program.4
•
Comments and concerns expressed by representatives of minority and low-income
(environmental justice) communities and Indian Tribes located near the nuclear power plant
site (from the ER and comments made during scoping). As part of scoping, it is important to
consult with representatives of environmental justice communities and Indian Tribes having
specific knowledge about the locations, resource dependencies, customs and practices, and
preexisting health and socioeconomic conditions of these populations. This will ensure that
environmental justice communities, including transient populations and Indian Tribes, are
not overlooked and assist with assessing the potential human health and environmental
effects of the proposed action on those populations and communities. Resources devoted to
this outreach should be commensurate with the likelihood of human health and
environmental effects.
3
The Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing GIS mapping file system is
accessible online at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html.
4 Missouri Census Data Center, Circular Area Profiles GIS system, is accessible online at
https://mcdc.missouri.edu/.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-30
•
A description of unique consumption patterns (e.g., subsistence agriculture, hunting, and
fishing) and resource dependencies reflecting the traditional or cultural practices of minority
populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes and existing health conditions.
3.10.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, acceptance criteria for the environmental
justice review are based on the following:
•
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) concerning Federal actions to address environmental
justice in minority and low-income populations.
•
“Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory
and Licensing Actions” (69 FR 52040) affirms the Commission’s commitment to the general
goals of Executive Order 12898 and strives to meet those goals as part of the NEPA review
for licensing actions.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N). Applicants shall provide information on the general demographic
composition of minority and low-income populations and communities (by race and
ethnicity), and Indian Tribes in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant that could be
disproportionately affected by license renewal, including continued reactor operations and
refurbishment activities.
Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above
are as follows:
•
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance for addressing environmental justice,
Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act,
December 10, 1997 (CEQ 1997).
•
Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and NEPA Committee,
Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews, March 2016 (EJ IWG 2016).
•
Guidance for specific information requirements for the environmental justice review is
contained in Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Office Instruction LIC-203,
Revision 4: Procedural Guidance for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments,
and Considering Environmental Issues. LIC-203 (NRC 2020c) is revised periodically. Refer
to the latest revision for current guidance.
3.10.3
Review Procedures
The review procedure should be as follows:
1. Identify minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes within a 50-mile
(80-kilometer) radius of the nuclear power plant. For each census block group within this
area, minority and low-income populations are identified when (1) the minority or low-income
population of an impacted area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority or low-income
population percentage of the impacted area is meaningfully greater than the minority or lowincome population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of
geographic analysis (e.g., 50-mile radius geographic area or county). All block groups with
minority and low-income percentages higher than the percentage for the geographic area
and all affected Indian Tribes should be identified on the maps.
2. Identify environmental justice issues and unique characteristics of minority and low-income
populations/communities and affected Indian Tribes during scoping.
3-31
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3. Determine geographic distribution by race, ethnicity, and poverty, as well as delineation of
Tribal lands. Identify any unique characteristics of minority and low-income populations and
the “special character” of communities and affected Indian Tribes near the nuclear power
plant.
–
Minority populations are individual(s) who self-identify as members of the following
population groups:
▪
Race: (Not Hispanic or Latino)
a)
Black or African American
b)
American Indian or Alaska Native
c)
Asian
d)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
e)
some other race
f)
two or more races
g)
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino (of any race).
–
Low-income population is defined as individuals or families living below the poverty level
as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (e.g., the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current
Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty).
–
Sources of information for determining geographic distribution and location of minority
populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes:
▪
3.10.4
Online or other GIS tools (e.g., ArcGIS, EJScreen, or CAPS).
Evaluation Findings
The amount of information in the SEIS is governed by the potential human health and
environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes from
continued reactor operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. The following
information should be included in the SEIS:
•
A general description of minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes
near the nuclear power plant. This description is to be accompanied by at least two maps
that highlight (1) the location of minority populations and Indian Tribes and (2) low-income
populations, respectively. These maps should be based on most recent decennial Census
supported by American Community Survey data, supplemented by other information, if
available.
•
A description of affected environmental justice communities and Indian Tribes with unique
consumption patterns (e.g., subsistence agriculture, hunting, and fishing) and resource
dependencies reflecting the traditional or cultural practices.
•
A description of any additional cultural, economic, or human health conditions that could
result in disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects
(including socioeconomic).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-32
3.11 Waste Management
3.11.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the preparation of a SEIS section describing the applicant’s
radioactive and nonradioactive waste management and effluent control systems.
The scope includes describing the existing systems, describing any changes to the systems to
be made during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) or refurbishment.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude
of the potential impacts. The following data or information may be needed.
Radioactive Waste Systems
•
A description of the radioactive liquid and gaseous waste management systems and effluent
control systems designed to collect, store, treat, and dispose of all wastes.
•
Identification of principal release points for radioactive materials to the environment and
historical information on composition of discharges.
•
Identification of any onsite direct radiation sources outside of the plant (e.g., storage of
contaminated equipment, low-level radioactive waste storage, or storage of used steam
generators).
•
Information on the changes in radiological waste impacts from operation that are expected
during the renewal term.
•
Identification of current waste disposal activities including size and location of waste
disposal sites (onsite, as applicable, and offsite) as well as the plans for ultimate treatment
and/or restoration of retired disposal sites.
•
A discussion of spent nuclear fuel storage plans for the license renewal term (e.g., ISFSI
details, expansion plans).
•
A summary of the sources, types, quantities, and composition of all radioactive waste
materials (e.g., liquid, solid and gaseous material within the plant) within the plant and
expected during the renewal period.
•
Identification of low-level radioactive waste storage capacity/disposal for the plant over the
license renewal term.
•
Identification of anticipated disposal plans for all wastes (i.e., transfer to an offsite waste
disposal facility or a treatment facility or store onsite).
•
A description of waste minimization plans or procedures that identifies process changes that
can be made to reduce or eliminate waste, including a description of methods to minimize
the volume of waste.
•
Identification of waste management cumulative impacts.
•
Site-specific effluent monitoring reports for the last five years of plant operation. (Note:
annual radioactive effluent release reports are issued by plant licensees and include a
summary of radioactive effluent releases from all the facilities on the plant site, including the
3-33
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
waste management and storage facilities. The same reports also provide data on the
volume and radioactivity content of solid radioactive waste shipped offsite for processing
and disposal. Similarly, the radiological environmental monitoring program conducted by
nuclear power plant licensees measures the direct radiation as well as environmental
concentrations of all radionuclides originating at the site as well as background radiation).
Nonradioactive Waste Systems
•
Description of the nonradioactive waste management systems/effluent treatment systems
(i.e., identification of the type of waste generated, regulatory permits, release points,
storage, and disposal).
•
Identification of source, types, and quantities of nonradioactive liquid and solid waste
material within the plant.
•
Identification of principal release points for nonradioactive materials to the environment and
historical information on composition of discharges (i.e., non-radioactive waste management
systems effluent release points) and the State/Federal regulations governing them.
•
Documentation of the permits issued by the agencies responsible for permitting
nonradioactive waste systems for atmospheric, liquid, or solid effluents (e.g., NPDES or
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permits).
•
Description of a pollution prevention and waste minimization program, if available.
•
Information on the changes in nonradiological impacts from operation that are expected
during the renewal term.
3.11.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2, the acceptance
criteria for the evaluation of radioactive and nonradioactive waste management are based on
the following requirements:
•
10 CFR 50.34a, Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material
in effluents - nuclear power reactors
•
10 CFR 50.36a, Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors
•
10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation
•
10 CFR 50.72, Immediate notification requirements for operating nuclear power reactors
•
10 CFR 50.73, Licensee event report system
•
10 CFR 50.75(g), Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning
•
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting
Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion “As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable” for
Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents
•
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; Design Criteria 60, Control of Releases of Radioactive
Materials to the Environment
•
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; Design Criteria 61, Fuel storage and handling and radioactivity
control
•
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; Design Criteria 64, Monitoring Radioactivity Releases
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-34
•
40 CFR Part 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power
Operations.
Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above
are as follows:
•
Regulatory Guide 1.109, Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of
Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix I (NRC 1977).
•
Regulatory Guide 4.1, Radiological Environmental Monitoring for Nuclear Power Plants
(NRC 2009b).
•
Regulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations
(NRC 2018b).
•
Regulatory Guide 4.15, Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Normal
Operation) - Effluent Streams and the Environment (NRC 2007b).
•
Regulatory Guide 1.21, Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactive Material in Liquid
and Gaseous Effluents and Solid Waste (NRC 2021).
•
Regulatory Guide 1.143, Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste Management Systems,
Structures, and Components Installed in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants
(NRC 2001).
•
Power reactor licensees are required to keep the public dose from radioactive effluents as
low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The ALARA criteria are contained in Appendix I of
10 CFR Part 50.
•
As further specified in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 concerning their effluent discharges,
“The licensee shall establish an appropriate surveillance and monitoring program
to:
1. Provide data on quantities of radioactive material released in liquid and
gaseous effluents to assure that the provisions of Paragraph A of this section
are met;
2. Provide data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive materials in
the environment to evaluate the relationship between quantities of radioactive
material released in effluents and resultant radiation doses to individuals from
principal pathways of exposure; and
3. Identify changes in the use of unrestricted areas (e.g., for agricultural
purposes) to permit modifications in monitoring programs for evaluating
doses to individuals from principal pathways of exposure.”
3.11.3
Review Procedures
The material to be prepared for the radioactive and nonradioactive waste management and
effluent control systems is informational in nature. No specific analysis is required. The following
review steps are suggested.
3-35
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Radioactive Waste Systems
1. Review the discussion of waste management and pollution prevention including the
discussions of plant radioactive waste management systems in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437,
Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
2. Obtain a description of the radioactive waste management and effluent control systems for
the applicant’s plant. The description should include identification of release points, a
description of all current waste systems including quantities, composition, and frequency of
waste generation.
3. Obtain a description of the sources, types, quantities, and composition of all radioactive
wastes expected from continued operation.
4. Obtain information on anticipated disposal plans for all wastes.
5. Obtain a description of low-level radioactive waste storage capacity/disposal for the plant
over the license renewal term.
6. Obtain information on any planned changes to the radioactive waste management and
effluent control systems that would affect releases and exposures from continued plant
operations during the license renewal term.
7. Obtain information on planned changes to the radioactive waste management and effluent
control systems during refurbishment.
8. Obtain information on pollution prevention and waste minimization measures in place.
9. Obtain information on the spent nuclear fuel storage plans for license renewal term.
10. Obtain site-specific effluent monitoring reports for the last five years of plant operation.
11. Prepare a section describing the radioactive waste management and effluent control
systems for the SEIS. This section should include general descriptions of gaseous, liquid,
and solid waste processing systems. It should also generally describe the applicant’s
gaseous and liquid effluent monitoring systems.
Nonradioactive Waste Systems
1. Review the discussion of waste management and pollution prevention including the
discussions of plant nonradioactive waste management systems in the LR GEIS
(NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
2. Obtain a description of the nonradioactive wastes and effluent control systems for the
applicant’s plant.
3. Obtain information on changes to the nonradioactive waste and effluent control systems that
could affect releases from continued plant operations during the renewal term.
4. Obtain information on planned changes to the nonradioactive waste and effluent control
systems during refurbishment.
5. Obtain a description of the pollution prevention and waste minimization program or policy, if
available.
6. Prepare a section describing the nonradioactive waste and effluent control systems for the
SEIS.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-36
3.11.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would depend on plant- and site-specific factors.
The level of detail of information included in the SEIS should be scaled according to the
anticipated magnitudes of the expected impacts. The reviewer should verify that the radioactive
and nonradioactive waste management and effluent control system descriptions are consistent,
accurate, and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers for ESRPs in other
chapters.
3.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
3.12.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data including
preparation of a SEIS section describing the applicant’s GHG plant-specific emissions and
climate change monitoring, mitigation, or related initiatives. This information supports the
evaluation of GHG emission impacts on climate change from continued plant operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal (initial LR or SLR).
In CLI-09-21 (NRC 2009a), the Commission provided direction to the staff on addressing GHG
issues in environmental reviews. Accordingly, the scope of this ESRP includes (1) consideration
of GHG emissions related to continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal, (2) observed regional climate change indicators (e.g., precipitation,
temperature, storm frequency and severity, sea level rise, floods, and droughts) and projected
regional climate changes, and (3) climate change impacts to resource areas affected by license
renewal.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
county-level GHG emission sources and associated reported GHG emission data
•
a description of nuclear power plant site direct (e.g., stationary combustion sources,
refrigeration systems, electrical transmission and distribution systems) and indirect (e.g.,
worker vehicles, purchased electricity) GHG emission sources from normal nuclear plant
operations and quantified annual GHG emissions from these sources
•
if refurbishment activities are planned, a description of GHG emitting sources (e.g.,
motorized equipment, construction vehicles, and worker vehicles) and quantitative GHG
emission data for each source
•
description of regional observed changes in climate (e.g., ambient temperature,
precipitation, sea level rise) from national climate assessment reports (e.g., U.S. Global
Change Research Program, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
•
observed changes or trends in climate parameters from onsite monitoring (e.g., warming
temperature trend from onsite meteorological station, warming trend in surface water
temperatures)
•
quantitative descriptions of regional projected climate changes and impacts (climate change
impacts should focus on those resource areas that are impacted by license renewal)
3-37
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3.12.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 3.1.2 of this ESRP, the
acceptance criteria for GHG and climate change information are based on the relevant
requirements of the following:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(Q). Applicants shall include an assessment of the effects of any
observed and projected future changes in climate on environmental resource areas that are
affected by license renewal.
Commission Memorandum and Order (NRC 2009a, CLI-09-21, November 3, 2009) providing
direction to the NRC staff: “We expect the Staff to include consideration of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental reviews for major licensing actions under
the National Environmental Policy Act. The Staff’s analysis for reactor applications should
encompass emissions from the uranium fuel cycle as well as from construction and operation of
the facility to be licensed. The Staff should ensure that these issues are addressed consistently
in agency NEPA evaluations and, as appropriate, update Staff guidance documents to address
greenhouse gas emissions.”
Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of requirements above are as
follows:
•
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule (74 FR 66496) – This rule summarizes the
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) finding that GHGs in the atmosphere endanger
public health and welfare.
•
40 CFR Part 98, “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting” – Establishes mandatory GHG
reporting requirements for certain facilities and contains multiple provisions relevant to the
air resources reviewer. 40 CFR 98.6 defines various terms, including an explicit definition of
compounds included in the term “greenhouse gas.” 40 CFR 98.2 establishes an annual
reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent per year for
certain facilities, including stationary fuel combustion units.
3.12.3
Review Procedures
The review procedure should be as follows:
1. Identify and quantify direct and indirect sources of GHG emission sources as a result of
normal plant operations and refurbishment activities. Direct GHG emissions include those
that are owned or controlled by an organization (e.g., stationary and mobile combustion
sources at nuclear power plants, fugitive emissions from refrigeration equipment, and
transmission lines). Indirect emissions are those associated with an organization’s activities
but are emitted from sources owned by other entities (e.g., purchase of electricity, worker
vehicle emissions). GHG emissions should be presented in units of carbon dioxide
equivalents per year.
2. Identify and describe primary county-level GHG emission sources and associated reported
GHG emission data.
3. Quantify GHG emissions from replacement power alternatives.
4. Tabulate and compare GHG emission sources from normal plant operations and
refurbishment activities, GHG emissions from replacement power alternatives, and
county-level emissions.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3-38
5. Discuss regional observed changes in climate and climate change information from national
climate assessment reports and available onsite monitoring.
3.12.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the GHG emissions and climate change information is
adequate as a basis for assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal. Scientific knowledge and Federal policies on
climate change are rapidly evolving. The climate change reviewer must be cognizant of relevant
laws, requirements, and guidance existing at the time of the review. The reviewer should consult
with appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies, as well as Indian Tribes, to assess
the accuracy of the GHG emissions and climate change information, if necessary.
3-39
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS
4.1
Overview
The following sections address the general procedures for evaluating the environmental
consequences of (1) the proposed action, which includes the potential impacts from continued
reactor operations and refurbishment activities; (2) the no-action alternative, which represents
a decision by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) not to renew the operating
license of a nuclear power plant beyond the current operating license term; (3) alternative
energy sources for replacing existing nuclear generating capacity using other energy sources
(including fossil fuel, new nuclear, and renewable energy); (4) alternative energy sources for
offsetting existing nuclear generation capacity using conservation and energy efficiency
(demand-side management), delayed retirement, or purchased power; and (5) alternatives for
reducing adverse impacts (e.g., revisions to operating procedures or design changes such as a
new cooling system).
In preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), it is permissible for the
staff’s evaluation of the potential environmental consequences (impacts) of the proposed action
and alternatives to the proposed action to be integrated with the corresponding descriptions of
the affected environment for each affected resource area in the same SEIS chapter (see
Chapter 3.0 of this environmental standard review plan [ESRP]).
4.1.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRP Sections 4.2
through 4.14. It includes a description of the environmental issues associated with continued
operation during the renewal term (initial license renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal
[SLR]) and any refurbishment discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS; NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a),
identifies those issues that the staff has determined to be inapplicable to the applicant’s plant
because of plant design, and directs readers to SEIS sections that discuss the applicable
issues.
4.1.2
Acceptance Criteria
The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraphs prepared for the environmental
consequences description under this ESRP, as well as the analyses prescribed elsewhere in
this chapter, are consistent with the following regulations:
•
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 51.45(c) (10 CFR 51.45(c)), “Analysis.” The
environmental report (ER) must include an analysis that considers and balances the
environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of replacement
power alternatives, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse
environmental effects.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action,
including the applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control
procedures as described in accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must
describe in detail the affected environment around the plant, the modifications directly
affecting the environment or any plant effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities.
4-1
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of
alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45.
•
10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and
analytic, and written in plain language with appropriate graphics.…The format provided in
Section 1(a) of Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently
evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft
environmental impact statement.
•
10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) will include a
preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed
action; the environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives
available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, and compliance with
environmental-quality standards and requirements that have been imposed by Federal,
State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribes. A draft SEIS for license renewal will
rely on conclusions as amplified by the supporting information in the LR GEIS for Category 1
issues.
•
10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a
nuclear power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an
EIS, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.”
•
10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, paragraph 7, concerning the environmental
consequences of alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions
which may be taken. Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a
discussion of those alternatives will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the
alternatives were eliminated. The level of information for each alternative considered in
detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for sound decisionmaking.
•
10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating
License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on Environmental
Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants.”
Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above
are as follows:
•
LIC-203, Revision 4, Procedural Guidance for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental
Assessments, and Considering Environmental Issues (NRC 2020c, or latest revision)
Technical Rationale
The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that
incorporate the conclusions in the LR GEIS related to the environmental impacts of continued
plant operations during the license renewal term, any proposed refurbishment, the no-action
alternative, and alternatives to replace or offset the generating capacity of the plant or to
mitigate potential adverse impacts. The review should also address any new and significant
information.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-2
4.1.3
Review Procedures
The material to be prepared is informational in nature; no specific analysis of data is required.
Environmental issues associated with continued operations and refurbishment during the
renewal term (initial LR or SLR) considered in the LR GEIS that were determined to be
Category 1 or uncategorized are listed in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues (Summary of Findings on
Environmental Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants)
Environmental Issue
Category
Impact Finding
Land Use
Onsite land use
1
Offsite land use
1
Offsite land use in
transmission line right-ofways (ROWs)(a)
1
SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal would be a small fraction of the nuclear power
plant site and would involve only land that is controlled by
the licensee.
SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected by
continued operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal.
SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal would continue with no change in land use
restrictions.
Visual Resources
Aesthetic impacts
1
SMALL. No important changes to the visual appearance of
plant structures or transmission lines are expected from
continued operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal.
Air Quality
Air quality impacts
Air quality effects of
transmission lines(a)
1
1
SMALL. Air quality impacts from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal are
expected to be small at all plants. Emissions from
emergency diesel generators and fire pumps and routine
operations of boilers used for space heating are minor.
Impacts from cooling tower particulate emissions have
been small.
Emissions resulting from refurbishment activities at
locations in or near air quality nonattainment or
maintenance areas would be short-lived and would cease
after these activities are completed. Operating experience
has shown that the scale of refurbishment activities has not
resulted in exceedance of the de minimis thresholds for
criteria pollutants, and best management practices,
including fugitive dust controls and the imposition of permit
conditions in State and local air emissions permits, would
ensure conformance with applicable State or Tribal
implementation plans.
SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen from
transmission lines is insignificant and does not contribute
measurably to ambient levels of these gases.
4-3
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Environmental Issue
Category
Impact Finding
Noise
Noise impacts
1
SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory
guidelines for offsite receptors during continued operations
and refurbishment associated with license renewal.
Geologic Environment
Geology and soils
1
Surface-water use and
quality (non-cooling
system impacts)
1
Altered current patterns
at intake and discharge
structures
1
Altered salinity gradients
1
Altered thermal
stratification of lakes
1
Scouring caused by
discharged cooling water
1
Discharge of metals in
cooling system effluent
1
Discharge of biocides,
sanitary wastes, and
minor chemical spills
1
Surface water use
conflicts (plants with
once-through cooling
systems)
1
SMALL. The impact of continued operations and
refurbishment activities on geology and soils would be
small for all nuclear power plants and would not change
appreciably during the license renewal term.
Surface Water Resources
SMALL. Impacts are expected to be small if best
management practices are employed to control soil erosion
and spills. Surface water use associated with continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal would not increase significantly or would be
reduced if refurbishment occurs during a plant outage.
SMALL. Altered current patterns would be limited to the
area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures.
These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power
plants.
SMALL. Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to the
area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures.
These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power
plants.
SMALL. Effects on thermal stratification would be limited to
the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge
structures. These impacts have been small at operating
nuclear power plants.
SMALL. Scouring effects would be limited to the area in
the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These
impacts have been small at operating nuclear power
plants.
SMALL. Discharges of metals have not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants with
cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have
been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. Discharges are
monitored and controlled as part of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process.
SMALL. The effects of these discharges are regulated by
Federal and State environmental agencies. Discharges
are monitored and controlled as part of the NPDES permit
process. These impacts have been small at operating
nuclear power plants.
SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants with oncethrough heat dissipation systems.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-4
Environmental Issue
Effects of dredging on
surface water quality
Category
1
Temperature effects on
sediment transport
capacity
1
Impact Finding
SMALL. Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the
vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain
barge shipping has not been found to be a problem for
surface water quality. Dredging is performed under permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from
other State or local agencies.
SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a
problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not
expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.
Groundwater Resources
Groundwater
contamination and use
(non-cooling system
impacts)
1
Groundwater use
conflicts (plants that
withdraw less than 100
gallons per minute
[gpm])
Groundwater quality
degradation resulting
from water withdrawals
1
1
SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from
continued operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal. Industrial practices involving the use of
solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals,
and/or the use of wastewater ponds or lagoons have the
potential to contaminate site groundwater, soil, and subsoil.
Contamination is subject to State or U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulated cleanup and monitoring
programs. The application of best management practices
for handling any materials produced or used during these
activities would reduce impacts.
SMALL. Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not
expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts.
SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear
power plants would not contribute significantly to
groundwater quality degradation.
Terrestrial Resources
Exposure of terrestrial
organisms to
radionuclides
1
Cooling system impacts
on terrestrial resources
(plants with once-through
cooling systems or
cooling ponds)
1
Cooling tower impacts on
terrestrial plants
1
SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms from continued
nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment during the
license renewal term would be expected to remain well
below U.S. Department of Energy exposure guidelines
developed to protect these organisms.
SMALL. Continued operation of nuclear power plant
cooling systems during license renewal could cause
thermal effluent additions to receiving waterbodies,
chemical effluent additions to surface water or
groundwater, impingement of waterfowl, disturbance of
terrestrial plants and wetlands from maintenance dredging,
and erosion of shoreline habitat. However, plants where
these impacts have occurred successfully mitigated the
impact, and it is no longer of concern. These impacts are
not expected to be significant issues during the license
renewal term.
SMALL. Continued operation of nuclear power plant
cooling towers could deposit particulates and water
droplets or ice on vegetation and lead to structural
damage or changes in terrestrial plant communities.
However, nuclear power plants where these impacts
occurred have successfully mitigated the impact. These
impacts are not expected to be significant issues during
the license renewal term.
4-5
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Environmental Issue
Bird collisions with plant
structures and
transmission lines(a)
Category
1
Transmission line rightof-way (ROW)
management impacts on
terrestrial resources(a)
1
Electromagnetic field
effects on terrestrial
plants and animals(a)
1
Impact Finding
SMALL. Bird mortalities from collisions with nuclear
power plant structures and in-scope transmission lines
would be negligible for any species and are unlikely to
threaten the stability of local or migratory bird populations
or result in noticeable impairment of the function of a
species within the ecosystem. These impacts are not
expected to be significant issues during the license
renewal term.
SMALL. In-scope transmission lines tend to occupy only
industrial-use or other developed portions of nuclear
power plant sites and, therefore, effects of ROW
maintenance on terrestrial plants and animals during the
license renewal term would be negligible. Application of
best management practices would reduce the potential for
impacts.
SMALL. In-scope transmission lines tend to occupy only
industrial-use or other developed portions of nuclear
power plant sites and, therefore, the effects of
electromagnetic fields on terrestrial plants and animals
during the license renewal term would be negligible.
Aquatic Resources
Impingement mortality
and entrainment of
aquatic organisms
(plants with cooling
towers)
1
Entrainment of
phytoplankton and
zooplankton
1
Effects of thermal
effluents on aquatic
organisms (plants with
cooling towers)
1
SMALL. No significant impacts on aquatic populations
associated with impingement mortality and entrainment at
nuclear power plants with cooling towers have been
reported, including effects on fish and shellfish from direct
mortality, injury, or other sublethal effects. Impacts during
the license renewal term would be similar and small.
Further, the effects of these cooling water intake systems
would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES permit
conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b).
SMALL. Entrainment has not resulted in noticeable impacts
on phytoplankton or zooplankton populations near
operating nuclear power plants. Impacts during the license
renewal term would be similar and small. Further, the
effects would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES
permit conditions established pursuant to CWA
Section 316(b).
SMALL. Acute, sublethal, and community-level effects of
thermal effluents have not resulted in noticeable impacts on
aquatic communities at nuclear power plants with cooling
towers. Impacts during the license renewal term would be
similar and small. Further, effects would be mitigated
through adherence to State water quality criteria or CWA
Section 316(a) variances.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-6
Environmental Issue
Infrequently reported
effects of thermal
effluents
Category
1
Effects of nonradiological
contaminants on aquatic
organisms
1
Exposure of aquatic
organisms to
radionuclides
1
Effects of dredging on
aquatic resources
1
Non-cooling system
impacts on aquatic
resources
1
Impact Finding
SMALL. Continued operation of nuclear power plant
cooling systems could result in certain infrequently
reported thermal impacts, including cold shock, thermal
migration barriers, accelerated maturation of aquatic
insects, proliferation of aquatic nuisance organisms,
depletion of dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation,
eutrophication, and increased susceptibility of exposed
fish and shellfish to predation, parasitism, and disease.
Most of these effects have not been reported at operating
nuclear power plants. Plants that have experienced these
impacts successfully mitigated the impact, and it is no
longer of concern. Infrequently reported thermal impacts
are not expected to be significant issues during the license
renewal term.
SMALL. Heavy metal leaching from condenser tubes was
an issue at several operating nuclear power plants. These
plants successfully mitigated the issue, and it is no longer
of concern. Cooling system effluents would be the primary
source of nonradiological contaminants during the license
renewal term. Implementation of best management
practices and adherence to NPDES permit limitations
would minimize the effects of these contaminants on the
aquatic environment.
SMALL. Doses to aquatic organisms from continued
nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment during the
license renewal term would be expected to remain well
below U.S. Department of Energy exposure guidelines
developed to protect these organisms.
SMALL. Dredging at nuclear power plants is expected to
occur infrequently, would be of relatively short duration,
and would affect relatively small areas. Continued
operation of many plants may not require any dredging.
Adherence to best management practices and CWA
Section 404 permit conditions would mitigate potential
impacts at plants where dredging is necessary to maintain
function or reliability of cooling systems. Dredging is not
expected to be a significant issue during the license
renewal term.
SMALL. No significant impacts on aquatic resources
associated with landscape and grounds maintenance,
stormwater management, or ground-disturbing activities
at operating nuclear power plants have been reported.
Impacts from continued operation and refurbishment
during the license renewal term would be similar and
small. Application of best management practices and
other conservation initiatives would reduce the potential
for impacts.
4-7
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Environmental Issue
Impacts of transmission
line right-of-way (ROW)
management on aquatic
resources(a)
Category
1
Impact Finding
SMALL. In-scope transmission lines tend to occupy only
industrial-use or other developed portions of nuclear
power plant sites and, therefore, the effects of ROW
maintenance on aquatic plants and animals during the
license renewal term would be negligible. Application of
best management practices would reduce the potential for
impacts.
Socioeconomics
Employment and income,
recreation and tourism
1
Tax revenue
1
Community services and
education
1
Population and housing
1
Transportation
1
Radiation exposures to
plant workers
1
SMALL. Although most nuclear plants have large numbers
of employees with higher than average wages and
salaries, employment, income, recreation, and tourism
impacts from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected to be small.
SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local
jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments,
payments in lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on
energy production. The amount of tax revenue paid during
the license renewal term as a result of continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal is not expected to change.
SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal to local
community and educational services would be small. With
little or no change in employment at the licensee’s plant,
value of the power plant, payments on energy production,
and PILOT payments expected during the license renewal
term, community and educational services would not be
affected by continued power plant operations.
SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal to regional
population and housing availability and value would be
small. With little or no change in employment at the
licensee’s plant expected during the license renewal term,
population and housing availability and values would not be
affected by continued power plant operations.
SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal to traffic
volumes would be small.
Human Health
SMALL. Occupational doses from continued operations
and refurbishment associated with license renewal are
expected to be within the range of doses experienced
during the current license term, and would continue to be
well below regulatory limits.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-8
Environmental Issue
Radiation exposures to
the public
Category
1
Chemical hazards
1
Microbiological hazards
to plant workers
1
Electromagnetic fields
(EMFs)(a)
N/A
Physical occupational
hazards
1
Design-basis accidents
1
Severe accidents(b)
1
Impact Finding
SMALL. Radiation doses to the public from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal are expected to continue at current levels, and
would be well below regulatory limits.
SMALL. Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting from
continued operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal are expected to be minimized by the
licensee implementing good industrial hygiene practices
as required by permits and Federal and State regulations.
Chemical releases to the environment and the potential for
impacts to the public are expected to be minimized by
adherence to discharge limitations of NPDES and other
permits.
SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be
controlled by continued application of accepted industrial
hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures as
required by permits and Federal and State regulations.
Uncertain impact. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not
uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with
field exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that have a
toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) in
that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced and
longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of
the science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion
on human health impacts is possible.
SMALL. Occupational safety and health hazards are
generic to all types of electrical generating stations,
including nuclear power plants, and are of small significance
if the workers adhere to safety standards and use protective
equipment as required by Federal and State regulations.
Postulated Accidents
SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the
environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are of
small significance for all plants.
SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of
atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water,
releases to groundwater, and societal and economic
impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants.
Severe accident mitigation alternatives do not warrant
further plant-specific analysis because the demonstrated
reductions in population dose risk and continued severe
accident regulatory improvements substantially reduce the
likelihood of finding cost-effective significant plant
improvements.
4-9
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Environmental Issue
Category
Impact Finding
Waste Management
Low-level waste storage
and disposal
1
Onsite storage of spent
nuclear fuel
1
SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in
place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors
ensure that the radiological impacts on the environment
would remain small during the license renewal term.
During the license renewal term, SMALL. The expected
increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional
20 years of operation can be safely accommodated onsite
during the license renewal term with small environmental
impacts through dry or pool storage at all plants.
1
For the period after the licensed life for reactor operations,
the impacts of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during
the continued storage period are discussed in
NUREG-2157 and as stated in § 51.23(b), shall be deemed
incorporated into this issue.
For the high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal
component of the fuel cycle, the EPA established a dose
limit of 0.15 mSv (15 millirem) per year for the first
10,000 years and 1.0 mSv (100 millirem) per year between
10,000 years and 1 million years for offsite releases of
radionuclides at the proposed repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada.
Offsite radiological
impacts of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste
disposal
Mixed-waste storage and
disposal
1
Nonradioactive waste
storage and disposal
1
The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be
sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any
plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR
part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the
Commission has not assigned a single level of significance
for the impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal,
this issue is considered Category 1.
SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the
facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper
handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and
exposure to toxic materials for the public and the
environment at all plants. License renewal would not
increase the small, continuing risk to human health and the
environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The
radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of
long-term disposal of mixed waste from any individual
plant at licensed sites are small.
SMALL. No changes to systems that generate
nonradioactive waste are anticipated during the license
renewal term. Facilities and procedures are in place to
ensure continued proper handling, storage, and disposal,
as well as negligible exposure to toxic materials for the
public and the environment at all plants.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-10
Environmental Issue
Category
Impact Finding
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Greenhouse gas
impacts on climate
change
1
Offsite radiological
impacts— individual
impacts from other than
the disposal of spent fuel
and high-level waste
1
Offsite radiological
impacts— collective
impacts from other than
the disposal of spent fuel
and high-level waste
1
SMALL. Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change from
continued operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal are expected to be small at all plants.
Greenhouse gas emissions from routine operations of
nuclear power plants are typically very minor, because
such plants, by their very nature, do not normally combust
fossil fuels to generate electricity.
Greenhouse gas emissions from construction vehicles and
other motorized equipment for refurbishment activities
would be intermittent and temporary, restricted to the
refurbishment period. Worker vehicle greenhouse gas
emissions for refurbishment would be similar to worker
vehicle emissions from normal nuclear power plant
operations.
Uranium Fuel Cycle
SMALL. The impacts to the public from radiological
exposures have been considered by the Commission in
Table S-3 of this part. Based on information in the GEIS,
impacts to individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid
releases, including radon-222 and technetium-99, would
remain at or below the NRC’s regulatory limits.
There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses
to the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of
estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may
not be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and
operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and
standards. The Commission concludes that the collective
impacts are acceptable.
The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be
sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any
plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR
Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the
Commission has not assigned a single level of significance
for the collective impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this
issue is considered Category 1.
Nonradiological impacts
1
SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel
of the uranium fuel cycle
cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating license for
any plant would be small.
Transportation
1
SMALL. The impacts of transporting materials to and
from uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the
public, and the environment are expected to be small.
Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning
Termination of plant
1
SMALL. License renewal is expected to have a negligible
operations and
effect on the impacts of terminating operations and
decommissioning
decommissioning on all resources.
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; CWA = Clear Water Act; EMF = electromagnetic field; EPA = U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; GEIS = generic environmental impact statement; gpm = gallons per minute;
Hz = hertz; N/A = not applicable; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; NPDES = National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; PILOT = payments in lieu of tax;
ROW = right-of-way.
4-11
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
(a) This issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric power transmission lines, which are defined as
transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation where electricity is fed into the regional
power distribution system and transmission lines that supply power to the nuclear plant from the grid.
(b) Although the NRC does not anticipate any license renewal applications for nuclear power plants for which a
previous severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) or severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA)
analysis has not been performed, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that
have not considered such alternatives and would be the functional equivalent of a Category 2 issue requiring
plant-specific analysis.
Issues and processes common to all nuclear power plants having generic (i.e., the same or
similar) environmental impacts are considered Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and
significant information, the conclusions in the LR GEIS may be adopted in the SEIS. Category 2
issues are those issues that cannot be generically dispositioned and require a plant-specific
analysis to determine the level of impact. These issues are listed in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2 Category 2 Issues (Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues for Initial
and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants)
Environmental Issue
Surface water use conflicts
(plants with cooling ponds or
cooling towers using makeup
water from a river)
Groundwater use conflicts
(plants that withdraw more
than 100 gallons per minute
[gpm])
Groundwater use conflicts
(plants with closed-cycle
cooling systems that
withdraw makeup water
from a river)
Groundwater quality
degradation (plants with
cooling ponds)
Radionuclides released to
groundwater
Non-cooling system impacts
on terrestrial resources
Category
Impact Finding
Surface Water Resources
2
SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts could be of small or
moderate significance, depending on makeup water
requirements, water availability, and competing water
demands.
Groundwater Resources
2
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Plants that withdraw
more than 100 gpm could cause groundwater use
conflicts with nearby groundwater users.
2
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Water use conflicts
could result from water withdrawals from rivers during
low-flow conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge.
The significance of impacts would depend on makeup
water requirements, water availability, and competing
water demands.
2
SMALL or MODERATE. Sites with cooling ponds could
degrade groundwater quality. The significance of the
impact would depend on site-specific conditions
including cooling pond water quality, site hydrogeologic
conditions (including the interaction of surface water
and groundwater), and the location, depth, and pump
rate of water wells.
2
SMALL or MODERATE. Leaks of radioactive liquids
from plant components and pipes have occurred at
numerous plants. Groundwater protection programs
have been established at all operating nuclear power
plants to minimize the potential impact from any
inadvertent releases. The magnitude of impacts would
depend on site-specific characteristics.
Terrestrial Resources
2
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The magnitude of
effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and
refurbishment, unrelated to operation of the cooling
system, would depend on numerous site-specific
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-12
Environmental Issue
Category
Water use conflicts with
terrestrial resources (plants
with cooling ponds or cooling
towers using makeup water
from a river)
2
Impingement mortality and
entrainment of aquatic
organisms (plants with oncethrough cooling systems or
cooling ponds)
2
Effects of thermal effluents on
aquatic organisms (plants
with once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds)
2
Water use conflicts with
aquatic resources (plants
with cooling ponds or cooling
towers using makeup water
from a river)
2
Impact Finding
factors, including ecological setting, planned activities
during the license renewal term, and characteristics of
the plants and animals present in the area. Application
of best management practices and other conservation
initiatives would reduce the potential for impacts.
SMALL or MODERATE. Nuclear power plants could
consume water at rates that cause occasional or
intermittent water use conflicts with nearby and
downstream terrestrial and riparian communities. Such
impacts could noticeably affect riparian or wetland
species or alter characteristics of the ecological
environment during the license renewal term. The one
plant where impacts have occurred successfully
mitigated the impact. Impacts are expected to be small
at most nuclear power plants but could be moderate at
some.
Aquatic Resources
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impacts of
impingement mortality and entrainment would generally
be small at nuclear power plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling ponds that have
implemented best technology requirements for existing
facilities under Clean Water Act Section 316(b). For all
other plants, impacts could be small, moderate, or
large depending on characteristics of the cooling water
intake system, results of impingement and entrainment
studies performed at the plant, trends in local fish and
shellfish populations, and implementation of mitigation
measures.
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Acute, sublethal,
and community-level effects of thermal effluents on
aquatic organisms would generally be small at nuclear
power plants with once-through cooling systems or
cooling ponds that adhere to State water quality
criteria or that have and maintain a valid CWA
Section 316(a) variance. For all other plants, impacts
could be small, moderate, or large depending on sitespecific factors, including ecological setting of the
plant; characteristics of the cooling system and
effluent discharges; and characteristics of the fish,
shellfish, and other aquatic organisms present in the
area.
SMALL or MODERATE. Nuclear power plants could
consume water at rates that cause occasional or
intermittent water use conflicts with nearby and
downstream aquatic communities. Such impacts could
noticeably affect aquatic plants or animals or alter
characteristics of the ecological environment during
the license renewal term. The one plant where impacts
have occurred successfully mitigated the impact.
Impacts are expected to be small at most nuclear
power plants but could be moderate at some.
4-13
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Environmental Issue
Category
Impact Finding
Federally Protected Ecological Resources
2
Endangered Species Act:
The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant
federally listed species and
operation and refurbishment on federally listed species
critical habitats under U.S.
and critical habitats would depend on numerous siteFish and Wildlife Service
specific factors, including the ecological setting; listed
jurisdiction
species and critical habitats present in the action area;
and plant-specific factors related to operations, including
water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other grounddisturbing activities. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service under Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) would be required if license renewal may
affect listed species or critical habitats under this
agency's jurisdiction.
2
Endangered Species Act:
The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant
federally listed species and
operation and refurbishment on federally listed species
critical habitats under National
and critical habitats would depend on numerous siteMarine Fisheries Service
specific factors, including the ecological setting; listed
jurisdiction
species and critical habitats present in the action area;
and plant-specific factors related to operations, including
water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other grounddisturbing activities. Consultation with the National
Marine Fisheries Service under Endangered Species Act
Section 7(a)(2) would be required if license renewal may
affect listed species or critical habitats under this
agency's jurisdiction.
2
Magnuson-Stevens Act:
The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant
essential fish habitat
operation and refurbishment on essential fish habitat
would depend on numerous site-specific factors,
including the ecological setting; essential fish habitat
present in the area, including habitats of particular
concern; and plant-specific factors related to operations,
including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and
other activities that may affect aquatic habitats.
Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service
under Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 305(b) would be
required if license renewal could result in adverse effects
to essential fish habitat.
2
National Marine Sanctuaries
The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant
Act: sanctuary resources
operation and refurbishment on sanctuary resources
would depend on numerous site-specific factors,
including the ecological setting; national marine
sanctuaries present in the area; and plant-specific
factors related to operations, including water withdrawal,
effluent discharges, and other activities that may affect
aquatic habitats. Consultation with the Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries under National Marine
Sanctuaries Act Section 304(d) would be required if
license renewal could destroy, cause the loss of, or
injure sanctuary resources.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-14
Environmental Issue
Historic and cultural
resources(a)
Category
Impact Finding
Historic and Cultural Resources
2
Impacts from continued operations and refurbishment on
historic and cultural resources located onsite and in the
transmission line ROW are analyzed on a plant-specific
basis. The NRC will perform a National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 review, in
accordance with 36 CFR Part 800 which includes
consultation with the State and Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer, Indian Tribes, and other interested
parties.
Human Health
Microbiological hazards to
the public
2
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These
microorganisms are not expected to be a problem at
most operating plants except possibly at plants using
cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or that discharge to
publicly accessible surface waters. Impacts would
depend on site-specific characteristics.
Electric shock hazards(a)
2
SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Electrical shock
potential is of small significance for transmission
lines that are operated in adherence with the
National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Without a
review of conformance with NESC criteria of each
nuclear power plant’s in-scope transmission lines, it
is not possible to determine the significance of the
electrical shock potential.
Environmental Justice
Impacts on minority
2
Impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, low-income
populations, Indian Tribes, and subsistence
populations, and Indian Tribes
consumption resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal will be
addressed in nuclear plant-specific reviews.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Climate change impacts on
2
Climate change can have additive effects on
environmental resources
environmental resource conditions that may also be
directly impacted by continued operations and
refurbishment during the license renewal term. The
effects of climate change can vary regionally and
climate change information at the regional and local
scale is necessary to assess trends and the impacts on
the human environment for a specific location. The
impacts of climate change on environmental resources
during the license renewal term are location-specific and
cannot be evaluated generically.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects
2
Cumulative effects or impacts of continued operations
and refurbishment associated with license renewal
must be considered on a plant-specific basis. The
effects depend on regional resource characteristics, the
incremental resource-specific effects of license
renewal, and the cumulative significance of other
factors affecting the environmental resource.
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; CWA = Clean Water Act; NESC = National Electrical Safety Code;
NHPA = National Historic Preservation Act; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; ROW = right-of-way.
4-15
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
(a) This issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric power transmission lines, which are defined as
transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation where electricity is fed into the regional
power distribution system and transmission lines that supply power to the nuclear plant from the grid.
4.1.4
Evaluation Findings
The environmental project manager (EPM) should prepare the introductory paragraphs for the
SEIS. The paragraph(s) should introduce the issues to be covered by ESRP Sections 4.2
through 4.14.
4.2
Land Use and Visual Resources
4.2.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter called
plant-specific) land use and aesthetic impacts from continued nuclear plant operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal (initial LR or SLR) as well as from reasonable
alternatives. Land use and aesthetic impacts are evaluated in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437,
Revision 2; NRC 2024a) for all nuclear power plants.
The scope includes the review of (1) the applicant’s ER, (2) land use and aesthetic impacts in
the LR GEIS, and (3) any new and significant land use and visual resource information.
Following this review, the reviewer then prepares input to the SEIS. Land use and visual
resource issues (Category 1), evaluated in the LR GEIS, are listed in Table 4-1.
Data and Information Needs
According to the LR GEIS, land use and visual resources have not been affected by continued
nuclear plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. In addition,
ongoing activities at the nuclear power plant have not changed appreciably with time, and no
change in land use and aesthetic impacts are expected during initial LR and SLR. Based on
this, the following data or information may be needed:
•
a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and significant land use and
visual resource information in the ER
•
any new and significant plant-specific land use and aesthetic impact information identified
during scoping
•
any new and significant plant-specific land use and aesthetic impact information identified
during site visit, staff environmental review, and discussions with the applicant
4.2.2
Acceptance Criteria
The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of
land use and aesthetic impacts.
4.2.3
Review Procedures
The following review steps are suggested:
1. The applicant is required by NRC regulation to disclose new and significant land use and
visual resource information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which
it is aware (see 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv)). In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-16
applicant’s process for discovering new land use and visual resource information and
evaluating the significance of any new information discovered.
2. Review public scoping meeting transcripts and related correspondence. Compare any new
land use and visual resource information with the conclusions in the LR GEIS.
3. Evaluate the significance of any new information for its effect on the land use and aesthetic
impact analysis.
4. Prepare SEIS discussion describing the search for new and significant information,
summarizing any new information found and the results of the significance evaluation.
Incorporate by reference the conclusions from the LR GEIS for the proposed action or
modify as necessary to account for any significant new information.
4.2.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the analysis provides a sufficient basis for determining land
use and aesthetic impacts from continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities
associated with license renewal as well as from reasonable alternatives.
4.3
Air Quality and Noise
4.3.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of air quality and noise impacts from continued
plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment as well as from reasonable
alternatives. Air quality and noise impacts are discussed in LR GEIS, NUREG-1437, Revision 2
(NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of air quality and noise impacts in the LR GEIS,
(2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant
information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS. Table 4-1 lists the applicable air quality and
noise (Category 1) issues considered in the LR GEIS for initial LR or SLR.
Projected air quality impacts from continued operations and refurbishment are a Category 1
issue in the LR GEIS and Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51. Air quality effects of
transmission lines and noise impacts are also Category 1 issues.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
new information on the air quality impacts identified by the public and other information
sources
4.3.2
Acceptance Criteria
The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 of this ESRP also apply for the
evaluation of air quality and noise impacts.
4-17
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4.3.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of air quality and noise impacts in the LR GEIS to identify the
information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for
evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.
2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The
following sources of information should be included in the search for new information:
–
The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new
and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of
which it is aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for
discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information
discovered.
–
Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application.
Compare information presented by the public with information considered in the
LR GEIS.
3. Evaluate the significance of new information.
4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new
information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions
from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for new and significant information.
4.3.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to
reach a conclusion related to the potential air quality impacts, effects of in-scope transmission
lines, and noise impacts from continued plant operations and refurbishment as well as from
reasonable alternatives. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the
review procedures.
4.4
Geology and Soils
4.4.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of potential geology and soil impacts from
continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment as well as from
reasonable alternatives. Impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2;
NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of geology and soils in the LR GEIS, (2) review
of the applicant’s ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant information, and
(4) preparing input to the SEIS. Table 4-1 lists the applicable geology and soils issue
(Category 1) considered in the LR GEIS for initial LR and SLR.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-18
•
the LR GEIS
•
new information on geology and soils identified by the public and other information sources
4.4.2
Acceptance Criteria
The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of
geology and soil impacts.
4.4.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of geology and soils impacts in the LR GEIS to identify the
information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for
evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. Table 4-1 lists the
geology and soils issue addressed in the LR GEIS.
2. Determine if there is new information that should be evaluated. The following sources of
information should be included in the search for new information:
–
The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new
and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of
which it is aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for
discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information
discovered.
–
Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application.
Compare information presented by the public with information considered in the
LR GEIS.
3. Evaluate the significance of new information.
4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new
information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions
from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for new and significant information.
4.4.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to
reach a conclusion related to the potential geology and soils impacts from continued plant
operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term as well as from reasonable
alternatives. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review
procedures.
4.5
4.5.1
Water Resources
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis of surface water and groundwater impacts from
continued plant operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term as well as from
reasonable alternatives. Surface water and groundwater impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS,
NUREG-1437, Revision 2 (NRC 2024a).
4-19
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of surface water and groundwater issues in the
LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new and
significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS. Table 4-1 lists the applicable
Category 1 issues and Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issues for surface water and
groundwater issues identified in the LR GEIS for initial LR and SLR.
4.5.2
Acceptance Criteria (General for Water Resources Issues)
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of surface water and groundwater impacts are based on the following
requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicant’s plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and
withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action
on water availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related
impacts on stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be
provided. The applicant shall also provide an assessment of the impacts of the withdrawal of
water from the river on alluvial aquifers during low flow.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C). If the applicant’s plant pumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite)
of groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on
groundwater must be provided.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D). If the applicant’s plant utilizes cooling ponds, an assessment of
the impact of the proposed action on groundwater quality must be provided.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P). An applicant shall assess the impact of any documented
inadvertent releases of radionuclides into groundwater. The applicant shall include in its
assessment a description of any groundwater protection program used for the surveillance
of piping and components containing radioactive liquids for which a pathway to
groundwater may exist. The assessment must also include a description of any past
inadvertent releases and the projected impact to the environment (e.g., aquifers, rivers,
lakes, ponds, the ocean) during the license renewal term.
•
Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribe water laws and water rights.
•
40 CFR Part 121, State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit.
•
40 CFR Part 122, concerning the NPDES permit conditions for discharges including
stormwater discharges.
•
40 CFR Part 124, concerning the NPDES permit process.
•
40 CFR Part 125, concerning water-quality standards for the NPDES program.
•
40 CFR Part 133, concerning treated effluents.
•
40 CFR Part 149, concerning possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and
water use in or above a sole source aquifer.
•
40 CFR Part 165, concerning the disposal and storage of pesticides.
•
40 CFR Part 403, concerning pretreatment of waste effluents.
•
40 CFR Part 423, concerning effluent limitations for the steam electric power generating
point source category.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-20
Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of regulations identified above
are summarized as follows (footnote to 10 CFR 51.71(d)):
Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (i.e., commonly cited as the Clean Water Act [CWA]), is not a
substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh all environmental
effects of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to
consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse
effects. If an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the
permitting authority, the NRC will consider the assessment in its determination of the
magnitude of the environmental impacts and in its determination of 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 at the
license renewal stage. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from
the permitting authority, NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and
other agencies having relevant expertise) will establish its own impact determination.
In PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994),
the United States Supreme Court interpreted the CWA as allowing States to impose conditions
on certifications, such as limitations on a given project, insofar as necessary to enforce a
designated use contained in the State's water quality standard. The Court held that these
limitations do not have to be specifically tied to a discharge requirement.
4.5.3
Review Procedures (General for Water Resources Issues)
1. Review the discussion of surface water and groundwater issues in the LR GEIS to identify
the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for
evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.
2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The
following sources of information should be included in the search for new information:
–
The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new
and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of
which it is aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for
discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information
discovered.
–
Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application.
Compare information presented by the public with information considered in the
LR GEIS.
–
Identify relative sources of information used for evaluating impacts, including:
▪
Studies and monitoring programs: Consider and briefly summarize as
appropriate any studies or monitoring programs that provide site-specific data
and can assist with understanding the environmental impacts. Include the
location, dates, objectives, methods, and results applicable to this license
renewal application, and what data or data summaries might be available for
NRC review.
▪
If data are more than five years old, explain why the studies would or would not
be relevant for assessing the effects of present and projected future plant
operation over the term of license renewal. For example, consider whether both
4-21
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
the potentially affected resources and the effect of the plant on them have
remained and can be expected to remain unchanged over the term of license
renewal.
▪
Communications with and views of regulatory agencies: Document any
communications with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA or other water quality or
water allocation permitting agencies) that are relevant to assessing impact and
are not documented elsewhere in the ER. If relevant communications are
documented elsewhere, refer the reader to the appropriate sections.
▪
Other sources: Give in-text citations to sources of data and information used to
assess impact and provide a list of references at the end of the chapter.
3. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new
information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions
from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for new and significant information.
Additional specific guidance follows for each surface water and groundwater issue identified as
plant-specific (Category 2) in the LR GEIS.
4.5.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to
reach a conclusion related to the potential surface water and groundwater impacts from
continued plant operations and any refurbishment during the license renewal term as well as
from reasonable alternatives. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described
in the review procedures.
4.5.5
Surface Water Use Conflicts (Plants with Cooling Ponds or Cooling Towers
Using Makeup Water From a River)
4.5.5.1 Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the potential surface water use conflicts at plants
using cooling ponds or cooling towers that withdraw makeup water from a river. Impacts are
discussed in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of surface water use conflicts in the LR GEIS
for initial LR and SLR, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new
and potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
new information on surface water and groundwater use identified by the public and other
information sources
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-22
4.5.5.2 Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for evaluating the use of surface water and groundwater are addressed in
ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources.
4.5.5.3 Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of potential surface water use conflicts with nearby surface water
users at plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river in the
LR GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step
establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and
the staff.
2. Summarize average and peak surface water withdrawals and consumptive water use for the
current license term and quantify any projected increases during the license renewal term by
the nuclear power plant (see ESRP Section 3.5).
3. Briefly describe the hydrologic regime of the affected surface waters, including relevant
information on the watershed, drainage basin, subbasin, catchment, etc. and including
contributing and any interconnected alluvial aquifers, wetlands, and riparian areas.
4. For the period of record, describe and assess mean annual river flow (discharge), monthly
mean flow, 90 percent exceedance flow, high- and low-flow extremes, and consider and
describe conditions that could lead to extreme low-flow periods.
5. Identify other surface water users relying on the affected surface waters, including
downstream municipal, agricultural, or industrial users with which the nuclear power plant
may compete, and quantify their average, peak, and seasonal water demands.
6. Use the general review procedures in ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources, and also
consider and review the following:
–
a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant
information
–
any new information included in the applicant’s ER on surface water use conflicts and
quality issues known to the applicant and/or the public
–
any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit
operational water-use impact
–
summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific
waterbody restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations
–
Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribe standards and regulations applicable to
water use including surface water withdrawal registration and reporting and consumptive
water use and return flows
–
proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use standards and
regulations.
7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment
–
describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts
4-23
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
–
describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
4.5.5.4 Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to
reach a conclusion related to the potential surface water use conflicts from continued plant
operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term. The information that should be
included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.
4.5.6
4.5.6.1
Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants That Withdraw More Than 100 Gallons per
Minute [gpm])
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the potential groundwater use conflicts at plants
pumping more than 100 gallons per minute for potable and service water and operational
dewatering, as well as those using Ranney wells. Impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS
(NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater use conflicts in the LR GEIS for
initial LR and SLR, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new and
potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
new information on groundwater-use conflicts identified by the public and other information
•
sources
4.5.6.2
Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater-use conflicts are addressed in ESRP
Section 4.5, Water Resources.
4.5.6.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of the potential for groundwater water use conflicts with nearby
groundwater users at plants pumping more than 100 gallons per minute in the LR GEIS.
This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the
public, and the staff.
2. Determine the total seasonal groundwater pumpage needs for the plant. If any season has
an average groundwater pumpage of greater than 100 gallons per minute, then continue the
analysis at Step 3. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that describes the plant’s
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-24
groundwater use and concludes that there are no impacts resulting from groundwater
pumpage for potable and service water and operational dewatering.
3. Determine the extent of the influence of the plant’s well(s) predicted by either standard
analytic approaches or numerical models. Steady-state analytic approaches can be used
with the maximum seasonal pumping rates. Numerical models can be used either with the
maximum pumping rate to estimate steady-state drawdown or with the average seasonal
pumping rates for a transient simulation of the drawdown. Any model results should be
validated with any piezometer observations. Possible impacts on predictions from
heterogeneous aquifer parameters, particularly stratigraphy, should be considered. If the
extent of the cone of depression caused by the plant’s well(s) extends beyond the site’s
boundary, then continue the analysis. This assessment also can include independent review
by the NRC staff of modeling analyses or semi-quantitative analyses prepared by the
applicant, with adequate supporting documentation.
4. Determine the magnitude of the reduction in yield resulting from the plant’s pumpage
predicted by numerical procedures. If the drawdown extends beyond the site boundary and
into a zone influenced by other wells, then continue the analysis.
5. Use the review procedures in ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources, and also consider and
review the following:
–
descriptions of the site and local groundwater aquifers including geohydrologic
characterization data
–
descriptions of the spatial and seasonal changes in water table elevation and pumpage
rates for wells both inside and outside the site boundary
–
descriptions of any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or
limit operational water-use impacts
–
descriptions of Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribe standards
and regulations applicable to groundwater use
–
descriptions of proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use and
applicable water quality standards and regulations.
6. Review the applicant’s ER, including:
–
applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on the groundwater-use and quality issues
known to the applicant and/or the public
–
any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit
operational water-use impact
–
summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific
waterbody restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations
–
proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use and water quality
standards and regulations.
7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment
–
describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts
4-25
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
–
describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
4.5.6.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to
reach a conclusion related to the potential groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant
operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be
included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.
4.5.7
4.5.7.1
Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants with Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems that
Withdraw Makeup Water from a River)
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of groundwater-use conflicts resulting from
surface-water withdrawals from a river during low-flow conditions. Impacts are discussed in the
LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater use conflicts in the LR GEIS for
initial LR and SLR, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new and
potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
new information on groundwater-use conflicts identified by the public and other information
sources
4.5.7.2
Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater-use conflicts are addressed in ESRP
Section 4.5, Water Resources.
4.5.7.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion in the LR GEIS of potential groundwater use conflicts resulting from
surface-water withdrawals during low-flow conditions that may affect alluvial aquifer
recharge and groundwater users. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information
identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.
2. Determine whether the river used for makeup water supply is oversubscribed (i.e., the
demand for water exceeds water availability) during any season. Water-use permits often
include specific restrictions on withdrawals during certain low-flow conditions. If the basin is
oversubscribed, continue the analysis. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-26
describes the plant’s surface water withdrawals and concludes that no impacts are expected
on groundwater users including alluvial aquifers resulting from surface water withdrawals
during low-flow conditions.
3. Determine whether the river recharges the aquifer or the aquifer discharges into the river. If
the aquifer consistently discharges to the river, then groundwater withdrawals would not be
impacted by changes in river flow, whereas the river flows would be impacted by the
groundwater withdrawals, although often not significantly. If the aquifer is consistently
recharged by the river, then groundwater withdrawals would be impacted by changes in river
flow, whereas the river flow would not be significantly impacted by the groundwater
withdrawals. Often the direction of water transfer between rivers and their associated
aquifers alternates back and forth as one moves downstream. By comparing the piezometer
data from the affected aquifer with the river stage height data, the direction of flow can be
determined. If the aquifer does not consistently discharge into the river downstream from the
makeup water withdrawal location, continue the analysis.
4. Determine the magnitude of the reduction in groundwater yield resulting from the plant’s
cooling tower makeup water withdrawal. Estimating the magnitude of the reduction of
groundwater yield generally requires application of analytic or numerical models. This
assessment can also include independent review by the NRC staff of modeling analyses or
semi-quantitative analyses prepared by the applicant, with adequate supporting
documentation. Only those wells located in areas downstream from the makeup water
diversion and completed in an aquifer that includes recharge from the river need be
considered. Sensitivity analyses should be included on the parameters governing the
exchange of water between the river and the aquifer. Based on the magnitude of the
reduction in yield, the impact would be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE.
5. Use the review procedures in ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources, and also consider and
review the following:
–
descriptions of the site, the affected river, and the local groundwater aquifers, including
geohydrologic characterization data
–
the spatial and seasonal changes in water table elevation, surface withdrawals,
groundwater withdrawals, stream stage height for the river, and for the aquifer with
hydraulic connection to the river
–
any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit
operational water-use impacts
–
Federal, State, regional, local and Indian Tribe standards and regulations applicable to
groundwater and surface-water use
–
proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-use permits, standards,
and regulations.
6. Review the applicant’s ER, including:
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on the groundwater-use and quality issues
known to the applicant and/or the public
–
any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit
operational water use impact
–
summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific
waterbody restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations
4-27
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use standards and
regulations.
7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment
–
describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
–
describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
4.5.7.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to
reach a conclusion related to the potential groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant
operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be
included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.
4.5.8
4.5.8.1
Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants with Cooling Ponds)
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the potential impact of groundwater quality
degradation resulting from closed cycle cooling ponds. Impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS
(NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater quality degradation in the
LR GEIS for initial LR and SLR, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) identifying and addressing
any new and potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
new information on groundwater quality degradation identified by the public and other
information sources
4.5.8.2
Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater quality degradation are addressed in
ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-28
4.5.8.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of groundwater quality degradation resulting from closed-cycle
cooling-pond sites leaking into the subsurface and aquifers in the LR GEIS. This step
establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public,
and the staff.
2. Determine the evolving chemical composition of the cooling pond water. Closed-cycle
cooling ponds may have high concentrations of total dissolved solids, heavy metals, and
chlorinated organic compounds as a result of evaporation, contact with plant equipment,
and water-treatment systems, respectively. These concentrations can evolve over time. The
current chemical composition of the cooling water should be described, as well as the
estimated chemical composition throughout the renewal term.
3. Review monitoring data on the chemical composition of groundwater in the vadose zone
and aquifer that would likely receive water infiltrating from the cooling pond, as well as
groundwater unaffected by the cooling pond. If the ambient groundwater quality in the
aquifer is better than the estimated quality of the cooling pond water during the license
renewal term, then continue with the analysis. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS
that describes the current and projected cooling pond quality and underlying groundwater
quality and concludes that no impacts are expected on groundwater quality from continued
cooling pond operations, including degradation of groundwater for beneficial uses.
4. Review monitoring data on the infiltration from the cooling ponds to the water table. If
the cooling ponds have no liners or the liners are not expected to remain impermeable
throughout the license renewal term, then continue with the analysis.
5. Describe the estimated infiltration rate from the ponds throughout the license renewal term.
These estimates should be used as the boundary conditions for a groundwater flow and
transport model. Vadose zone transport can be neglected if the water infiltrating beneath the
cooling pond is assumed to immediately enter the aquifer. If the predicted groundwater
plume associated with a conservative nonsorbing tracer is likely to enter the zone of
influence of a well, then continue the analysis. This assessment can also include
independent review by the NRC staff of modeling analyses or semi-quantitative analyses
prepared by the applicant, with adequate supporting documentation.
6. Describe the changes in water quality for each of the impacted supply wells. Both the timing
and magnitude of water quality changes should be described. Because this analysis would
require the application of groundwater flow and transport simulation models, describe the
model calibration activities and any peer-review activities. Compare the predicted changes
in groundwater quality to the current or future beneficial uses for the groundwater to assess
the magnitude of the impact.
7. Use the review procedures in ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources, and also consider and
review the following:
–
cooling pond characteristics (e.g., use of liners, use of impermeable materials,
impermeable soils) that would retard/prevent infiltration into local aquifers
–
types and concentrations of impurities in the cooling pond water and chemistry of soils
along pathways to local aquifers to determine whether cooling pond water can
contaminate the groundwater or local surface water
4-29
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
quality of water of local aquifers that could be affected by infiltration of cooling pond
water
–
Federal, State, regional, and local agencies and Indian Tribe groundwater quality
requirements with emphasis on any changes to these requirements that have occurred
during the plant’s license term and any anticipated changes to those requirements
during the license renewal term
–
offsite groundwater users who could be affected by the degradation of aquifers;
characterization should include locations and elevations of offsite wells, their pumping
rates, and the water needs of groundwater users
–
the predicted cumulative effects of using closed-cycle cooling ponds on groundwater
quality. This description should include maps of the contamination plume. Information
should be provided on groundwater contamination existing at the time of the license
renewal application and projected contamination during the license renewal term
–
the mitigation measures proposed to prevent or minimize groundwater quality
degradation and the estimated impact of implementing these measures. Explain the
reasons for not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.
8. Review the applicant’s ER, including:
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on the groundwater quality degradation issues
known to the applicant and/or the public
–
any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit
operational water-use impact
–
summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water quality or specific
restrictions on groundwater use and quality imposed by State or Federal regulations
–
proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use and water quality
standards and regulations.
9. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment
–
describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
–
describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
4.5.8.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to
reach a conclusion related to the potential groundwater quality degradation from continued plant
operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be
included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-30
4.5.9
4.5.9.1
Radionuclides Released to Groundwater
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the potential for radionuclides released to
groundwater due to inadvertent leaks of radioactive liquids as a result of continued plant
operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS
(NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of radionuclides released to groundwater in the
LR GEIS for initial LR or SLR, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) identifying and addressing
any new and potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
new information on radionuclides released to groundwater identified by the public and other
information sources
4.5.9.2
Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of radionuclides released to groundwater are addressed in
ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources.
4.5.9.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of the potential for radionuclides released to groundwater in the
LR GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the
applicant, the public, and the staff.
2. Use the review procedures in ESRP Section 4.5, Water Resources, and also consider and
review the following: For plants that have groundwater monitoring systems with wells, review
and describe:
–
locations of monitoring wells and water supply wells, including construction information
such as depth, diameter, screened interval, and construction material
–
depths of wells and groundwater elevations
–
groundwater flow for each aquifer, hydrostratigraphic unit, or other strata (e.g., backfill)
potentially impacted by the releases of liquids containing radionuclides beneath the site
–
radionuclide concentrations across the site (e.g., tritium concentrations expressed as
picocuries per liter)
–
the plant’s groundwater protection program
4-31
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
for plants that rely on a system other than a groundwater monitoring system composed
of wells, describe the program used for preventing, detecting, and responding to
inadvertent releases of radioactive materials into the groundwater.
3. Review the applicant’s ER, including
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on incidents regarding radionuclides released to
groundwater known to the applicant and/or the public
–
any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit
operational groundwater quality impact (best management practices)
–
summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water quality or specific
restrictions on groundwater use and quality imposed by State or Federal regulations
–
proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water use and water quality
standards and regulations.
4. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment
–
describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts, if any
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts, if any
–
describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
4.5.9.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to
reach a conclusion related to the potential impacts of radionuclides released to groundwater
from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The
information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.
4.6
4.6.1
Ecological Resources
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance on how the NRC staff should consider the potential impacts on
ecological resources from continued operation of a nuclear power plant during an initial LR or
SLR term as well as from reasonable alternatives. Ecological resources include terrestrial,
aquatic, and federally protected resources. Impacts are discussed in the LR GEIS
(NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope of this review includes (1) review of the LR GEIS’s analysis of ecological impacts
from license renewal for initial LR or SLR, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) review of
available studies, data, and other available information related to the issue, (4) identification and
disposition of any new and significant information, and (5) preparation of SEIS input. Table 4-1
lists the applicable Category 1 issues and Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issues for
terrestrial and aquatic resource issues identified in the LR GEIS.
Ecological impact assessment for license renewal differs from that for original licensing because
license renewal reviews occur after a nuclear power plant has an established history of
operation. Whereas ecological impact assessment during initial licensing is predictive or
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-32
prospective (e.g., it assumes a proposed stressor and proceeds to estimate impacts), the
assessment for license renewal can use a combination of prospective and retrospective
approaches. For example, ecological modeling could be used to predict future impacts (in either
original licensing or license renewal), while empirical statistical analysis could be used to assess
past impacts based on actual observations (in license renewal only). Suter and Barnthouse
(1993) discuss the differences between prospective and retrospective assessment and
appropriate techniques for their analysis.
Data and Information Needs
Data and information needed for a given review would be site-specific and would depend on
nuclear power plant site-specific and plant-specific factors. The ecological resources review
may require the following information on the ecological environment:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
copies of ecological surveys and studies performed on or near the site
•
copies of regional, State, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls that reduce or
mitigate impacts on the ecological environment
•
copies of site- or fleet-wide environmental procedures, wildlife management plans, best
management practices, and conservation initiatives undertaken or proposed by the applicant
•
transmission line ROW maintenance procedures
•
information on federally protected ecological resources from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, “the Services”)
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) databases and State natural
heritage sites, including species and habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), and National
Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA)
•
new information on ecological resources identified by the public and other information
sources
4.6.2
Acceptance Criteria (General for Ecological Resources Issues)
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.5.2,
acceptance criteria for the evaluation of ecological resource impacts are based on the following
requirements:
•
40 CFR Part 122 and 40 CFR Part 125, concerning impingement mortality and entrainment
at existing facilities subject to CWA Section 316(b)
•
40 CFR Part 423, concerning effluent discharges subject to CWA Section 316(a) and 402
•
50 CFR Part 402, concerning interagency consultation for federally listed species and critical
habitats protected under the ESA
•
50 CFR Part 600, concerning interagency consultation for essential fish habitat (EFH)
protected under the MSA
4-33
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
The following Federal statutes also apply to the ecological resources review. See Section 3.6.2
for brief summaries of each statute.
•
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 668–668d)
•
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.)
•
Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.)
•
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)
•
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.)
•
Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.)
•
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.)
•
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.)
•
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (33 U.S.C. § 403 et seq.)
The following additional NRC guidance may be relevant to the ecological resources review. See
Section 3.6.2 for brief summaries of each document.
•
Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. 2, Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power
Stations (NRC 2012b).
•
Regulatory Guide 4.24, Rev. 0, Aquatic Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations
(NRC 2017a).
4.6.3
Review Procedures (General for Ecological Resources Issues)
This approach generally follows the EPA’s (1998) framework for ecological risk assessment.
The analysis should consider how nuclear power plant operation would affect ecosystem
structure and function, alter the stability of plant or animal populations, modify the value or
availability of ecosystem services, or noticeably affect other attributes of the ecological
environment. Ecosystem services refer to a wide range of conditions and processes through
which natural ecosystems, and the species that are part of them, help sustain and fulfill human
life (Daily et al. 1997).
1. Review the discussion of ecological resource impacts in the LR GEIS. This step establishes
the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, relevant Federal and State
resource agencies, affected Indian Tribes, the public, and the staff. Table 4-1 and Table 4-2
identify the 24 ecological resource issues (15 Category 1 and 9 Category 2) evaluated in the
LR GEIS and codified in Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51.
2. Review the discussion of license renewal and its impacts on ecological resources provided
in the applicant’s ER.
3. Identify the relevant sources of information, which may include:
–
Surveys, studies, and monitoring. Summarize any surveys, studies, and monitoring that
provide site-specific, local, or regional data on ecological resources and that are relevant
to assessing the environmental impacts of license renewal and alternatives. Include the
biological entities or ecological attributes chosen for investigation, methodology, results,
and conclusions.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-34
–
Communications with and views of relevant regulatory agencies. Document any
communications with Federal and State agencies and Indian Tribes with special
expertise or jurisdiction (e.g., EPA or other water quality permitting agencies concerning
impingement and entrainment and thermal impacts; FWS and NMFS concerning
federally listed species and critical habitats; State natural resource agencies; etc.) that
are relevant to assessing impacts and are not documented elsewhere. Include the views
of affected Indian Tribes in cases where culturally significant ecological resources may
be affected. Discuss major points of view and significant concerns or objections raised
by these entities. If relevant communications are documented elsewhere, refer the
reader to the appropriate sections. Include other interested stakeholders, as appropriate.
–
Other sources. Include in-text citations to other sources of information relied upon and
provide full citations in a literature cited section.
4. Identify specific ecological resources and the attributes of those resources potentially at risk.
Because ecological systems are complicated, only a subset of resources can be addressed.
–
Identify the potentially affected ecological resources. Describe the potentially affected
resources in terms of ecosystem or habitat type (e.g., oak-hickory forest, tallgrass
prairie, tidal salt marsh). Give special attention to important habitats (e.g., important bird
areas, known bat hibernacula, spawning and rearing areas, locally significant habitats,
natural heritage areas, wildlife sanctuaries and preserves, federally or State-managed
lands and waters).
–
Describe the potentially affected plants and animals in terms of functional groups
(e.g., plants, mammals, reptiles, fish, invertebrates, etc.) or trophic structure
(e.g., producers and consumers). For instance, an aquatic system may include plankton,
macrophytes, and periphyton (primary producers); zooplankton and benthic
macroinvertebrates (primary consumers); and bottom feeding, planktivorous, and
piscivorous fish (secondary and tertiary consumers).
–
For federally protected ecological resources, identify and describe the potentially
affected federally listed species and designated critical habitats under the ESA. Include
candidate and proposed species and proposed critical habitats, if applicable. Identify and
describe EFH, including habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC), by federally
managed species and life stage. Identify and describe any national marine sanctuaries
and the living and nonliving resources of those sanctuaries.
–
Identify attributes of those resources potentially at risk. Identify the attributes of the
resources of concern that are potentially at risk and that are important to protect
(EPA 1998). If adverse effects on a species, habitat, or other ecological resource are
possible, the resource should be assessed in terms of spatial scale (e.g., local, regional,
or national), temporal scale (e.g., the time frame over which stressors or effects will be
evaluated), and resource value (e.g., social, economic, or ecological).
–
Evaluate biodiversity, which refers to the variety of life on Earth at all its levels including
genes, individuals, species, habitats, and ecosystems. As an important attribute to
consider, biodiversity helps maintain the structural diversity and functional integrity of
ecosystems and provides a wide pool of biological resources that can respond and
adapt to various natural and human-made stressors (CEQ 1993).
5. Explain the relationships between nuclear power plant operation and ecological resource
attributes. Relationships can be examined by identifying the pathways through which
potential stressors act on the chosen ecological receptors and expressing these as risk
4-35
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
hypotheses (see EPA 1998, Section 3.4.1). Risk hypotheses may be very simple, predicting
the potential effect of one stressor on one receptor, or extremely complex.
6. Assess and characterize potential impacts. For each potential stressor, multiple ecological
receptors may exist, and each receptor may have multiple measurable and susceptible
attributes. The effects of nuclear power plant operation on any ecological receptor may be
direct or indirect and may vary in spatial or temporal scale. Additionally, the assessment
approach may be prospective or retrospective depending on the available data. With such
complexity, examining a single line of evidence may not be sufficient to assess a given
impact. In such cases, the reviewer should examine several lines of evidence involving
several ecological receptors when data allow. If using multiple lines of evidence, explain the
qualitative or quantitative method for combining the lines of evidence to arrive at an overall
assessment of impact. A typical approach for accomplishing this is to consider weight of
evidence (e.g., Menzie et al. 1996; EPA 1998).
If adverse impacts are identified, describe mitigation measures that have been implemented
at the nuclear power plant to reduce such impacts and note whether such measures would
continue during the license renewal term. Describe any additional mitigation proposed by
the applicant or measures that would be required in the future (e.g., conditions anticipated in
a future renewed NPDES permit concerning best technology available to minimize
impingement mortality and entrainment). Evaluate the expected effects of the mitigation
measures. Briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any measures that were
considered but rejected.
7. Review in the ER the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant
information and any new information concerning ecological resource issues.
8. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment
–
describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts
–
identifies new and significant information, if applicable
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts.
4.6.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of written input to the SEIS should be governed by the number of
Category 2 issues applicable to the review and the depth of analysis required to reach a
conclusion concerning the potential impacts of license renewal on ecological resources as well
as from reasonable alternatives. The information that should be included in the SEIS is
described in the review procedures.
4.6.5
4.6.5.1
Non-Cooling System Impacts on Terrestrial Resources
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the effects of nuclear power plant operations on
terrestrial resources during an initial LR or SLR term that are unrelated to operation of the
cooling system. Such activities include landscape and grounds maintenance, stormwater
management, elevated noise levels and vibration, and ground-disturbing activities.
Section 4.6.1.1.1 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this issue. The scope of this review
includes (1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicant’s ER,
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-36
(3) review of available studies, data, and other available information related to the issue,
(4) identification and disposition of any new and potentially significant information, and
(5) preparation of input for the SEIS.
Data and Information Needs
Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological
resource impacts.
4.6.5.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of non-cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources are based on the
following requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of
refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction
activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the
impact of the proposed action on federally protected ecological resources in accordance
with Federal laws protecting such resources, including but not limited to, the Endangered
Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
4.6.5.3
Review Procedures
This approach generally follows the EPA’s (1998) framework for ecological risk assessment.
Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review procedures for all ecological resource
issues. Follow these procedures along with the following steps unique to the issue of noncooling system impacts on terrestrial resources.
1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.
2. Review the discussion in the applicant’s ER of activities associated with license renewal
unrelated to operation of the cooling system that could affect terrestrial resources. Such
activities include landscape and grounds maintenance, stormwater management, elevated
noise levels and vibration, and ground-disturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities may
be related to refurbishment or other planned activities during the license renewal period that
involve demolition or construction.
3. Describe the following, with a focus on the interfaces with the terrestrial environment and
how site procedures, permits, and other controls minimize or mitigate impacts on the
terrestrial environment.
–
Summarize the applicant’s site and landscape maintenance activities. Identify site
procedures and permits related to the impacts of these activities on terrestrial resources.
–
Summarize stormwater management on the site, including any stormwater management
plans and NPDES permit conditions related to the impacts of stormwater on terrestrial
resources.
–
Summarize any elevated noise or vibration levels that would be of particular concern for
terrestrial resources, such as those that could disrupt wildlife behavioral patterns or
cause animals to avoid certain areas.
4-37
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
Describe general operations and maintenance activities during the license renewal
period that could affect terrestrial resources such as maintenance or repair of existing
buildings, roadways, parking lots, piping, fencing, and security-related structures.
–
Describe ground-disturbing activities anticipated during the license renewal period that
would disturb terrestrial habitat. Include the amount of land to be disturbed, whether
disturbance would be temporary or permanent, the ecological characteristics of the
habitat, the species found within the area, and any unique or rare features of the habitat
or species found within it. Include terrestrial habitat that would be disturbed by transport
or delivery of equipment and supplies as well as laydown or storage of materials,
structures, and components. Describe any related road, bridge, rail, or barge slip
modifications that would occur that would affect terrestrial habitat.
4. Discuss relevant regional, State, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls not already
described that would reduce or mitigate non-cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources.
5. Describe site- or fleet-wide environmental procedures, wildlife management plans, best
management practices, and conservation initiatives undertaken or proposed by the applicant
that would benefit the terrestrial environment or otherwise mitigate non-cooling system
impacts on terrestrial resources.
6. Review the applicant’s ER, including
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the
applicant and/or the public.
7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment
–
describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
–
describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
4.6.5.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis
required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on terrestrial
resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review
procedures.
4.6.6
4.6.6.1
Water Use Conflicts with Terrestrial Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or
Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water from a River)
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of water use conflicts that may arise at nuclear
power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that use makeup water from a river and how
those conflicts could affect terrestrial resources during the initial LR or SLR term. Notably, this
issue also applies to nuclear power plants with hybrid cooling systems that withdraw makeup
water from a river (i.e., once-through cooling systems with helper cooling towers) (e.g.,
NRC 2020b). Section 4.6.1.1.6 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this issue. The scope
of this review includes (1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of the
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-38
applicant’s ER, (3) review of available studies, data, and other available information related to
the issue, (4) identification and disposition of any new and potentially significant information,
and (5) preparation of SEIS input.
Data and Information Needs
Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological
resource impacts.
4.6.6.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of water use conflicts with terrestrial resources are based on the following
requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicant’s plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and
withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action
on water availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related
impacts on stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be
provided.
4.6.6.3
Review Procedures
This approach generally follows the EPA’s (1998) framework for ecological risk assessment.
Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review procedures for all ecological resource
issues. Follow these procedures along with the following steps unique to the issue of water use
conflicts with terrestrial resources.
1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.
2. Review the discussion in the applicant’s ER concerning surface water use.
3. Describe the following, with a focus on the interfaces with the terrestrial environment and
how site procedures, permits, and other controls minimize or mitigate impacts on the
terrestrial environment. Give special attention to riparian, wetland, and marsh habitats that
require regular or periodic surface water flow.
–
Summarize the baseline hydrologic regime of the affected surface waters, including
seasonal fluctuations in flow and conditions that could lead to extreme periods of low
flow.
–
Summarize current and anticipated consumptive water use by the nuclear power plant.
–
Identify other users relying on the affected surface waters, including downstream
municipal, agricultural, or industrial users, with which the nuclear power plant may
compete.
–
Identify terrestrial habitats and species that would be especially sensitive to reduced
water availability (e.g., riparian, wetland, marsh, and other habitats that require
saturation or periodic inundation; amphibians, especially early life stages; wildlife that
heavily rely on surface waters, such as beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus), and wading birds; etc.).
–
Discuss regional, State, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls concerning water
use and any agreements with water resources control boards.
4-39
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
Summarize any other current or proposed practices and measures to control or limit
operational water-use impacts.
–
Describe past water use conflicts with terrestrial resources, if any, and evaluate whether
such conflicts would be likely to arise again during the license renewal term.
4. Review the applicant’s ER, including
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the
applicant and/or the public.
5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment
–
describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
–
describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
4.6.6.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis
required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on terrestrial
resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review
procedures.
4.6.7
4.6.7.1
Impingement Mortality and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms (Plants with
Once-through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds)
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the impacts of impingement mortality and
entrainment (IM&E) at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds
during the license renewal term. Section 4.6.1.2.1 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this
issue during initial LR or SLR. The scope of this review includes (1) review of the relevant
sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) review of available studies, data,
and other available information related to the issue, (4) identification and disposition of any new
and potentially significant information, and (5) preparation of SEIS input.
Notably for this issue, Section 316(b) of the CWA addresses the adverse environmental impacts
caused by the intake of cooling water from waters of the United States. This section of the CWA
grants the EPA the authority to regulate cooling water intake structures to minimize adverse
impacts on the aquatic environment. Under the CWA Section 316(b) regulations for existing
facilities at 40 CFR 122 and 40 CFR 125, Subpart J, the location, design, construction, and
capacity of cooling water intake structures of regulated facilities must reflect the best technology
available (BTA) for minimizing IM&E. The EPA, or authorized States and Indian Tribes, are
responsible for making BTA determinations. These agencies impose BTA requirements through
NPDES permitting programs. When available, the NRC staff relies on the expertise and
authority of the NPDES permitting authority with respect to the impacts of IM&E.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-40
Data and Information Needs
Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological
resource impacts.
4.6.7.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of impingement mortality and entrainment are based on the following
requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). If the applicant’s plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling
pond water intake and discharge systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current
Clean Water Act (CWA) 316(b) Best Technology Available determinations and, if necessary,
a 316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or equivalent State permits and
supporting documentation. If the applicant cannot provide these documents, it shall assess
the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from impingement
mortality and entrainment and thermal discharges.
4.6.7.3
Review Procedures
This approach generally follows the EPA’s (1998) framework for ecological risk assessment.
Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review procedures for all ecological resource
issues. Follow these procedures along with the following steps unique to the issue of
impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms.
1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.
2. Review the discussion in the applicant’s ER concerning the nuclear power plant’s cooling
water intake structure design and operation, NPDES permit status, and impingement
mortality and entrainment studies and data.
3. Review impingement and entrainment studies conducted at the nuclear power plant and any
supporting monitoring and data.
4. Review the nuclear power plant’s current NPDES permit and the status of the permitting
authority’s BTA determinations.
–
If the NPDES permitting authority has made BTA determinations for the nuclear power
plant pursuant to CWA Section 316(b) in accordance with the current regulations at
40 CFR Part 122 and 40 CFR Part 125, which were promulgated in 2014 (79 FR 48300),
and that plant has implemented any associated requirements or those requirements
would be implemented before the license renewal period, then the NRC staff assumes
that adverse impacts on the aquatic environment will be minimized (see 10 CFR
51.10(c); 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B); 10 CFR 51.71(d)). In such cases, the reviewer can
conclude that the impacts of either impingement mortality, entrainment, or both would be
SMALL over the course of the license renewal term, and no additional analysis is
required.
–
If the NPDES permitting authority has not made BTA determinations, the reviewer
should analyze the potential impacts of impingement mortality, entrainment, or both
using a weight-of-evidence approach. In this approach, the reviewer should consider
multiple lines of evidence to assess the presence or absence of ecological impairment
(i.e., noticeable or detectable impact) on the aquatic environment. For instance, as its
lines of evidence, the staff might consider characteristics of the cooling water intake
4-41
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
system design, the results of impingement and entrainment studies performed at the
facility, and trends in fish and shellfish population abundance indices. The reviewer
should then consider these lines of evidence together to predict the level of impact
(SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) that the aquatic environment is likely to experience
over the course of the license renewal term.
5. Obtain additional information to assist in evaluating the specific nature of impingement and
entrainment effects, as needed, including the following:
–
location of the cooling water intake structure, intake velocities, and withdrawal volumes
–
information on screening device technologies and fish collection and return technologies
–
swimming abilities of local species or their surrogates, including burst, prolonged, or
sustained speeds
–
other relevant life history characteristics of local species, such as size and susceptibility
to impingement or entrainment at various life stages; population abundances and
distributions; special species statuses and designations; and regional management
objectives
–
physical or biological factors that might concentrate or attract organisms to the area of
the intake.
6. Review the applicant’s ER, including
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the
applicant and/or the public.
7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that
–
summarizes the status of the NPDES permitting authority’s CWA Section 316(b) BTA
determinations
–
adopts the NPDES permitting authority’s conclusions (if the permitting authority has
made BTA determinations)
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment (if the permitting
authority has not made BTA determinations)
–
describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
–
describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
4.6.7.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis
required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on aquatic
resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review
procedures.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-42
4.6.8
4.6.8.1
Effects of Thermal Effluents on Aquatic Organisms (Plants with Once-through
Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds)
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the impacts of thermal effluents on aquatic
organisms at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds during
the license renewal term. Section 4.6.1.2.4 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this issue
during initial LR or SLR. The scope of this review includes (1) review of the relevant sections of
the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) review of available studies, data, and other
available information related to the issue, (4) identification and disposition of any new and
potentially significant information, and (5) preparation of SEIS input.
Notably for this issue, Section 316(a) of the CWA addresses the adverse environmental impacts
associated with thermal discharges into waters of the United States. Under this section of the
Act, the EPA, or authorized States and Indian Tribes, establish thermal surface water quality
criteria for waters of the United States within their jurisdiction. The EPA, or authorized States
and Indian Tribes, also have the authority to impose alternative, less-stringent, facility-specific
effluent limits (called “variances”) on the thermal component of individual point source
discharges. To be eligible, regulated facilities must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
NPDES permitting authority, that facility-specific effluent limitations will assure the protection
and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the
receiving body of water. CWA Section 316(a) variances are valid for the term of the NPDES
permit (i.e., five years). Facilities must reapply for variances with each NPDES permit renewal
application. When available, the NRC staff relies on the expertise and authority of the NPDES
permitting authority with respect to thermal impacts on aquatic organisms.
Data and Information Needs
Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological
resource impacts.
4.6.8.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms are based on the following
requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). If the applicant’s plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling
pond water intake and discharge systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current
Clean Water Act (CWA) 316(b) determinations and, if necessary, a 316(a) variance in
accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or equivalent State permits and supporting
documentation. If the applicant cannot provide these documents, it shall assess the impact
of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from impingement mortality
and entrainment and thermal discharges.
4.6.8.3
Review Procedures
This approach generally follows the EPA’s (1998) framework for ecological risk assessment.
Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review procedures for all ecological resource
issues. Follow these procedures along with the following steps unique to the issue of the effects
of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms.
4-43
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.
2. Review the discussion in the applicant’s ER concerning the nuclear power plant’s cooling
water system and effluent discharges, NPDES permit status, and thermal studies and data.
3. Review thermal studies conducted at the nuclear power plant and any supporting monitoring
and data.
4. Review the nuclear power plant’s current NPDES permit and the status of the permitting
authority’s CWA Section 316(a) determination.
–
If the NPDES permitting authority has made a determination under CWA Section 316(a)
that thermal effluent limits are sufficiently stringent to assure the protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on
the receiving body of water, and the nuclear power plant has implemented any
associated requirements, then the NRC staff assumes that adverse impacts on the
aquatic environment will be minimized (see 10 CFR 51.10(c); 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B);
and 10 CFR 51.71(d)). In such cases, the reviewer can conclude that thermal impacts on
aquatic organisms would be SMALL over the course of the license renewal term, and no
additional analysis is required.
–
If the NPDES permitting authority has not granted a CWA Section 316(a) variance, the
reviewer should analyze the potential impacts of thermal discharges using a weight-ofevidence approach. In this approach, the reviewer should consider multiple lines of
evidence to assess the presence or absence of ecological impairment (i.e., noticeable or
detectable impact) on the aquatic environment. For instance, as its lines of evidence, the
reviewer might consider characteristics of the cooling water discharge system design,
the results of thermal studies performed at the facility, and trends in fish and shellfish
population abundance indices. The reviewer should then consider these lines of
evidence together to predict the level of impact (SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) that
the aquatic environment is likely to experience over the course of the license renewal
term.
5. Obtain additional information to assist in evaluating the specific nature of thermal stresses,
as needed, including the following:
–
thermal plume characteristics, such as areal extent of the plume and thermal contour
maps
–
thermal tolerances of local species or their surrogates
–
other relevant life history characteristics of local species, such as seasonal absence or
presence; population abundances and distributions; special species statuses and
designations; and regional management objectives
–
data on fish kill events related to nuclear power plant operation
–
physical or biological factors that might concentrate or attract organisms to the thermal
plume.
6. Review the applicant’s ER, including
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the
applicant and/or the public.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-44
7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that
–
summarizes the status of the NPDES permitting authority’s CWA Section 316(a)
determination
–
adopts the NPDES permitting authority’s conclusions (if the permitting authority has
made a CWA Section 316(a) determination)
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment (if the permitting
authority has not made BTA determinations)
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
–
describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
4.6.8.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis
required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on aquatic
resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review
procedures.
4.6.9
4.6.9.1
Water Use Conflicts with Aquatic Resources (Plants with Cooling Ponds or
Cooling Towers Using Makeup Water From a River)
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of water use conflicts that may arise at nuclear
power plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers that use makeup water from a river and how
those conflicts could affect aquatic resources during the initial LR or SLR term. Notably, this
issue also applies to nuclear power plants with hybrid cooling systems that withdraw makeup
water from a river (i.e., once-through cooling systems with helper cooling towers) (e.g.,
NRC 2020b). Section 4.6.1.2.10 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this issue. The
scope of this review includes (1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of
the applicant’s ER, (3) review of available studies, data, and other available information related
to the issue, (4) identification and disposition of any new and potentially significant information,
and (5) preparation of SEIS input.
Data and Information Needs
Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological
resource impacts.
4.6.9.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of water use conflicts with aquatic organisms are based on the following
requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicant’s plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and
withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action
on water availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related
impacts on stream (aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be
provided.
4-45
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4.6.9.3
Review Procedures
This approach generally follows the EPA’s (1998) framework for ecological risk assessment.
Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review procedures for all ecological resource
issues. Follow these procedures along with the following steps unique to the issue of water use
conflicts with aquatic resources.
1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.
2. Review the discussion in the applicant’s ER concerning surface water use.
3. Describe the following, with a focus on the interfaces with the aquatic environment and how
site procedures, permits, and other controls minimize or mitigate impacts on the terrestrial
environment.
–
Summarize the baseline hydrologic regime of the affected surface waters, including
seasonal fluctuations in flow, and conditions that could lead to extreme periods of low
flow.
–
Summarize current and anticipated consumptive water use by the nuclear power plant.
–
Identify other users relying on the affected surface waters, including downstream
municipal, agricultural, or industrial users, with which the nuclear power plant may
compete.
–
Identify aquatic habitats and species that would be especially sensitive to reduced water
availability (e.g., nearshore habitat; aquatic plants; early life stages of fish and shellfish;
species that rely on specific microhabitats that may not be available under low flow
conditions; etc.).
–
Discuss regional, State, Federal, and Indian Tribe permits and controls concerning water
use and any agreements with water resources control boards.
–
Summarize any other current or proposed practices and measures to control or limit
operational water-use impacts.
–
Describe past water use conflicts with aquatic resources, if any, and evaluate whether
such conflicts would be likely to arise again during the license renewal term.
4. Review the applicant’s ER, including
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the
applicant and/or the public.
5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that:
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment
–
describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
–
describes any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-46
4.6.9.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis
required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on aquatic
resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review
procedures.
4.6.10
4.6.10.1
Endangered Species Act: Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitats
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the impacts of nuclear power plant license
renewal on federally listed species and critical habitats protected under the ESA. Sections
4.6.1.3.1 and 4.6.1.3.2 of the LR GEIS discuss the impacts of these issues during initial LR or
SLR. The scope of this review includes (1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS,
(2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) review of available studies, data, and other available
information related to the issue, (4) identification and disposition of any new and potentially
significant information, (5) consultation with the Services, as appropriate, and (6) preparation of
SEIS input.
Congress enacted the ESA in 1973 to protect and recover imperiled species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA provides a program for the conservation of
endangered and threatened plants and animals (collectively, “listed species”) and the habitats in
which they are found, and it prohibits any person from the take of listed species, as defined in
the Act, without a permit. The FWS and NMFS are the lead Federal agencies for implementing
the ESA, and these agencies are charged with determining species that warrant listing. The
Services divide responsibility for listing and managing species: the FWS is responsible for
terrestrial and freshwater species, and NMFS is responsible for marine and anadromous
species.
Section 7 of the ESA establishes interagency consultation requirements for actions by Federal
agencies. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA charges Federal agencies to aid in the conservation of
listed species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult with the
Services for actions that “may affect” federally listed species and critical habitats and to ensure
that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of those species or destroy or
adversely modify those habitats. Private actions with a Federal nexus, such as construction and
operation of facilities that involve Federal licensing or approval, are also subject to consultation.
Therefore, the NRC’s issuance of initial LR or SLR licenses may trigger consultation
requirements. Consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7(a)(2) is commonly referred to as
“Section 7 consultation.” Appendix A.1 of this ESRP describes the types of Section 7
consultation and provides guidance to the NRC staff in conducting such consultations.
Notably, the LR GEIS discusses federally listed species and critical habitats as two issues:
those under FWS jurisdiction and those under NMFS jurisdiction. License renewal may affect
listed species and critical habitats under the jurisdiction of one or both Services, and a given
review may necessitate separate Section 7 consultations with each Service.
4-47
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Data and Information Needs
Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological
resource impacts. Additional data and information needs that may be necessary to meet the
statutory and regulatory requirements of the ESA are incorporated into the review procedure
below.
4.6.10.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of impacts on federally listed species and critical habitats protected under the
ESA are based on the following requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of
refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction
activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the
impact of the proposed action on federally protected ecological resources in accordance
with Federal laws protecting such resources, including but not limited to, the Endangered
Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
4.6.10.3
Review Procedures
This approach generally follows the EPA’s (1998) framework for ecological risk assessment.
Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review procedures for all ecological resource
issues. Follow these procedures along with the following steps unique to the issue of federally
listed species and critical habitats.
1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.
2. Review the applicant’s ER, including
–
the action area, federally listed species and critical habitats potentially present in the
action area, and activities associated with license renewal that could affect these
resources
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the
applicant and/or the public.
3. Perform an ESA analysis consistent with the interagency consultation guidance in
Appendix A.1 of this ESRP.
4. Initiate and conduct Section 7 consultation with the Services, as appropriate, consistent with
the interagency consultation guidance in Appendix A.1 of this ESRP.
5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that
–
documents the ESA analysis or that incorporates by reference a separately prepared
biological evaluation or biological assessment, if prepared (see Appendix A.1)
–
reports findings for each federally listed or proposed species and designated or
proposed critical habitat in accordance with the terminology used in the ESA and its
implementing regulations (see Appendix A.1, Table A-1).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-48
4.6.10.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis
required to reach an impacts conclusion for the two ESA-related Category 2 issues regarding
Federally protected ecological resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is
described in the review procedures.
4.6.11
4.6.11.1
Magnuson-Stevens Act: Essential Fish Habitat
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the impacts of nuclear power plant license
renewal during initial LR or SLR on EFH protected under the MSA, as amended by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act.
Section 4.6.1.3.3 of the LR GEIS discusses the impacts of this issue. The scope of this review
includes (1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicant’s ER,
(3) review of available studies, data, and other available information related to the issue,
(4) identification and disposition of any new and potentially significant information,
(5) consultation with NMFS, as appropriate, and (6) preparation of SEIS input.
Congress enacted the MSA in 1976 to foster long-term biological and economic sustainability of
the Nation’s marine fisheries. The MSA is a comprehensive, multi-purposed statute. Its key
objectives include preventing overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, increasing long-term
economic and social benefits, and ensuring a safe and sustainable supply of seafood. NOAA,
together with eight regional Fishery Management Councils established under the MSA,
implement the provisions of the MSA.
The MSA directs the Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NMFS, to designate
areas of EFH and to manage marine resources within those areas. EFH is defined as the
coastal and marine waters and substrate necessary for fish to spawn, breed, feed, or grow to
maturity (50 CFR 600.10). NMFS further defines “waters,” “substrate,” and “necessary” at
50 CFR 600.10. EFH applies to federally managed finfish and shellfish (herein referred to as
“EFH species”). As of 2022, the Councils and NMFS have designated EFH for nearly
1,000 species at multiple life stages.
The Fishery Management Councils also may designate some EFH as a HAPC if that habitat
exhibits one or more of the following traits: rare, stressed by development, possessing important
ecological functions for EFH species, or especially vulnerable to anthropogenic degradation.
HAPC can cover a specific location (e.g., an estuary bank or a single spawning location) or
cover habitat type that is found at many locations (e.g., coral, nearshore nursery areas, pupping
grounds). HAPC designation does not convey additional restrictions or protections on an area.
The designation simply focuses increased scrutiny, study, or mitigation planning compared to
surrounding areas because HAPCs represent high-priority areas for conservation, management,
or research and are necessary for healthy ecosystems and sustainable fisheries. The Fishery
Management Councils may, however, restrict the use or possession of fishing gear types within
HAPC. The geographic boundaries of HAPC are subject to refinement through amendments, as
research better informs management decisions (NOAA 2020).
Section 305(b) of the MSA contains interagency consultation requirements pertaining to Federal
agencies and their actions. Under MSA Section 305(b)(2), Federal agencies must consult with
4-49
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
NMFS for actions that may adversely affect EFH. Private actions with a Federal nexus, such as
construction and operation of facilities that involve Federal licensing or approval, also are
subject to consultation. Therefore, the NRC’s issuance of initial LR or SLR licenses may trigger
consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant to MSA Section 305(b) is commonly referred
to as “EFH consultation.” Appendix A.2 of this ESRP describes the types of EFH consultation
and provides guidance to the NRC staff in conducting such consultations.
Data and Information Needs
Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological
resource impacts. Additional data and information needs that may be necessary to meet the
statutory and regulatory requirements of the MSA are incorporated into the review procedure
below.
4.6.11.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of impacts on EFH are based on the following requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of
refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction
activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the
impact of the proposed action on federally protected ecological resources in accordance
with Federal laws protecting such resources, including but not limited to, the Endangered
Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
4.6.11.3
Review Procedures
This approach generally follows the EPA’s (1998) framework for ecological risk assessment.
Section 4.6.3 of the ESRP contains general review procedures for all ecological resource
issues. Follow these procedures along with the following steps unique to the issue of EFH.
1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.
2. Review the applicant’s ER, including
–
the affected area, EFH and HAPC potentially present in the affected area, and activities
associated with license renewal that could affect these habitats
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the
applicant and/or the public.
3. Perform an EFH analysis consistent with the interagency consultation guidance in
Appendix A.2 of this ESRP.
4. Initiate and conduct EFH consultation with NMFS, as appropriate, consistent with the
interagency consultation guidance in Appendix A.2 of this ESRP.
5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that
–
documents the EFH analysis or that incorporates by reference a separately prepared
EFH assessment, if prepared (see Appendix A.2)
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-50
–
reports findings for each EFH by federally managed species and life stage in accordance
with the terminology used in the EFH and its implementing regulations (see
Appendix A.2, Table A-2).
4.6.11.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis
required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on federally
protected ecological resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described
in the review procedures.
4.6.12
4.6.12.1
National Marine Sanctuaries Act: Sanctuary Resources
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the impacts of nuclear power plant license
renewal on sanctuary resources protected under the NMSA. Section 4.6.1.3.4 of the LR GEIS
discusses the impacts of this issue during initial LR or SLR. The scope of this review includes
(1) review of the relevant sections of the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) review of
available studies, data, and other available information related to the issue, (4) identification and
disposition of any new and potentially significant information, (5) consultation with NOAA’s
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), as appropriate, and (6) preparation of SEIS
input.
Congress enacted the NMSA in 1972 to protect areas of the marine environment that have
special national significance. The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to establish the
National Marine Sanctuary System and designate sanctuaries within that system. ONMS is
charged with comprehensively managing this system, which includes 15 sanctuaries and the
Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national monuments, encompassing more than
600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters from Washington State to the Florida
Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. Within these areas, sanctuary resources
include any living or nonliving resource of a national marine sanctuary that contributes to the
conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, educational, cultural, archaeological, scientific,
or aesthetic value of the sanctuary. As of 2023, five additional sanctuaries are proposed for
designation. Maps of designated and proposed sanctuaries are available at
https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/maps.html.
In 1992, Congress amended the NMSA to require interagency coordination. Pursuant to
Section 304(d) of the NMSA, Federal agencies must consult with ONMS when their proposed
actions are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource. Private actions
with a Federal nexus, such as construction and operation of facilities that involve Federal
licensing or approval, are also subject to consultation. Therefore, the NRC’s issuance of
initial LR or SLR licenses may trigger consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant to
NMSA Section 304(d) is commonly referred to as “NMSA consultation.” Appendix A.3 of this
ESRP describes NMSA consultation and provides guidance to the NRC staff in conducting such
consultations.
4-51
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Data and Information Needs
Section 4.6.1 of this ESRP lists data and information needs for the evaluation of ecological
resource impacts. Additional data and information needs that may be necessary to meet the
statutory and regulatory requirements of the NMSA are incorporated into the review procedure
below.
4.6.12.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.6.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of impacts on sanctuary resources protected under the NMSA are based on
the following requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of
refurbishment, continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction
activities on important plant and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the
impact of the proposed action on federally protected ecological resources in accordance
with Federal laws protecting such resources, including but not limited to, the Endangered
Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
4.6.12.3
Review Procedures
This approach generally follows the EPA’s (1998) framework for ecological risk assessment.
Section 4.6.3 of this ESRP contains general review procedures for all ecological resource
issues. Follow these procedures along with the following steps unique to sanctuary resources.
1. Review the discussion of this issue in the LR GEIS.
2. Review the applicant’s ER, including
–
the affected area, national marine sanctuaries and sanctuary resources potentially
present in the affected area, and activities associated with license renewal that could
affect these habitats
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the
applicant and/or the public.
3. Perform an NMSA analysis consistent with the interagency consultation guidance in
Appendix A.3 of this ESRP.
4. Initiate and conduct NMSA consultation with the ONMS, as appropriate, consistent with the
interagency consultation guidance in Appendix A.3 of this ESRP.
5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS related to this issue that
–
documents the EFH analysis or that incorporates by reference a separately prepared
EFH assessment, if prepared (see Appendix A.3)
–
reports findings for each EFH by federally managed species and life stage in accordance
with the terminology used in the EFH and its implementing regulations (see
Appendix A.3, Table A-3).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-52
4.6.12.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of written SEIS input should be governed by the depth of analysis
required to reach a conclusion concerning the impacts of this Category 2 issue on federally
protected ecological resources. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described
in the review procedures.
4.7
4.7.1
Historic and Cultural Resources
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of potential impacts of initial LR or SLR, as well as
from reasonable alternatives, on historic and cultural resources and historic properties protected
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; 54 U.S.C. § 300101
et seq.). Impacts are discussed in Section 4.7.1 of the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2;
NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of relevant sections of the LR GEIS; (2) review of the applicant’s
ER; (3) review of available cultural resource investigations and other available information
related to the issue; (4) identification and disposition of any new and potentially significant
information; (5) consultation with appropriate consulting parties as defined in 36 CFR 800.2, as
appropriate; and (6) preparing input to the SEIS. Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issue
for historic and cultural resources.
Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their
“undertakings” (e.g., initial LR or SLR) on historic properties and consult with the appropriate
State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO), Indian
Tribes, and interested parties. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires
Federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their actions on the “affected human
environment,” which includes “aesthetic, historic, and cultural resources.” The issuance of a
renewed operating license for a nuclear power plant is an “undertaking” that could affect historic
properties.
In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c) “Use of the NEPA process for section 106 purposes,” the
NRC conducts its Section 106 responsibilities under NEPA for license renewal reviews. The
NRC may use the NEPA process to comply with Section 106 in lieu of the procedures set forth
in Sections 800.3 through 800.6 provided all consulting parties (Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, SHPO, THPO, Indian Tribes, the public, and other interested stakeholders) have
been notified in advance and it meets the standards of 36 CFR 800.8(c). The NRC will consult
with the appropriate SHPO/THPO for each plant-specific license renewal review. Most issues
can be identified through early coordination.
An assessment of the potential impacts for license renewal differs from that of original licensing
because ground-disturbing activities occurred during initial nuclear power plant construction
resulting in extensive disturbance of much of the land in and immediately surrounding the power
block. Many nuclear power plant facilities were constructed prior to the implementation of
NHPA Section 106 regulations located at 36 CFR Part 800; therefore, there were no formal
standards for archaeological field investigations or requirements to identify and consult with
Indian Tribes. In some cases, archaeological and architectural resource investigations were
completed prior to construction, but the methods used then are unlikely to meet the current
Secretary of Interior’s standards for archaeological and architectural resource investigation.
4-53
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Historic and cultural resource field investigations may be necessary if none were completed
previously or may need to be updated to meet current standards.
The area(s) within which historic and cultural resources should be identified is referred to as the
area(s) of potential effect (APE[s]), defined at 36 CFR 800.16(d) as the geographic area or
areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or
use of important cultural resources, if any such resources exist. The APE is influenced by the
scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by
the undertaking (36 CFR 800.16(d)). For NRC reviews, the license renewal (initial LR or SLR)
APE includes lands within the nuclear power plant site boundary and the transmission lines up
to the first substation that may be directly (e.g., physically) affected by land-disturbing or other
operational activities associated with continued plant operations and maintenance and/or
refurbishment activities. The APE may extend beyond the nuclear plant site when these
activities may indirectly (e.g., visual and auditory) affect historic properties. This determination is
made irrespective of land ownership or control.
The purpose of the historic and cultural resources assessment is to ensure that such resources
that are considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places are not
adversely affected by initial LR or SLR. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, mitigation should
be developed in consultation with the appropriate SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes, and other
interested parties. For historic or cultural resources that do not meet the criteria to be
considered a historic property under the NHPA, the NRC will assess whether there are any
potential impacts on these resources through the NEPA process.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
new and significant information identified by the public and other information sources
•
a map that identifies the APE and a site disturbance map
•
cultural resource investigations (e.g., archaeological or architectural) conducted within the
direct and indirect APE and surrounding area
•
information related to evaluations for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places
(36 CFR Part 60), and associated consultations with the SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes, and
interested parties (e.g., certified local governments, local preservation officials)
•
applicant’s cultural resource protection procedures or Cultural Resource Management Plans
4.7.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2, acceptance criteria
for the evaluation of historic and cultural resources impacts are based on the relevant
requirements of the following:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K). All applicants shall identify any potentially affected historic
and cultural resources and historic properties and assess whether continued
operations and any planned refurbishment activities would affect these resources
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-54
in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and in
the context of the National Environmental Policy Act.
•
36 CFR Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”
•
36 CFR Part 60, “National Register of Historic Places.”
•
36 CFR Part 63, “Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.”
•
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.).
4.7.3
Review Procedures
To analyze the impact of plant operations during the renewal term on historic and cultural
resources, review the information collected and discussed in Section 3.7 of the ESRP and
complete the following steps:
1. Review the discussion of the impacts of plant operations during the renewal term on historic
and cultural resources in the LR GEIS to identify the information considered and the
conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluation of information identified
by the applicant, the public, and the staff.
2. Analyze the historic and cultural resources and historic properties impacts associated with
continued plant operations during the renewal term and refurbishment, as follows:
–
Define the undertaking (i.e., initial LR or SLR).
–
Describe the implementation of the NHPA Section 106 review through NEPA in
accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c).
–
Identify and discuss any activities associated with continued operations, maintenance,
and refurbishment that could affect onsite or offsite historic and cultural resources
located within the direct and indirect APEs. Such activities include ground-disturbing
activities (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavating, road work), increases in traffic, and
noise and visual intrusions.
–
Review the site disturbance map (developed by a qualified archaeologist) that indicates
areas of heavy disturbance and areas of high potential for undiscovered historic and
cultural resources.
–
Identify and assess effects to historic properties found in the direct and indirect APEs
that may be affected by the proposed undertaking (i.e., initial LR or SLR). Use the
criteria specified in 36 CFR 800.5 to assess adverse effects on historic properties.
Provide a basis and documentation for how a conclusion is reached.
–
Identify and assess effects to historic and cultural resources that are not determined to
be historic properties but may be considered important cultural resources in the context
of NEPA, as amended (e.g., sacred sites, cemeteries, local gathering areas).
–
Discuss the direct and indirect effects (e.g., ground disturbance, physical, visual,
auditory, atmospheric such as fugitive dust, light, and traffic), if any, from the proposed
project, and from any associated transmission lines on nearby historic properties or
important historic and cultural resources.
–
Review any issues related to historic and cultural resources identified during the public
scoping period.
4-55
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
Review any correspondence from the SHPO/THPO, Indian Tribes, interested parties, or
local preservation officials regarding any cultural resource investigations conducted on
the applicant’s site.
–
If significant resources are located within the APE, review any procedures or integrated
cultural resources management plans instituted by the applicant to protect the historic
and cultural resources identified on the site or within the in-scope transmission line
ROWs. Also, verify that the applicant has developed these procedures and plans in
consultation with the appropriate SHPO/THPO, local preservation official, or Indian
Tribes.
–
Through consultation with Indian Tribes, identify any traditional cultural properties.
For impacts on historic properties assessed under Section 106 of the NHPA, the
assessment would result in one of three potential determinations (see 36 CFR 800.4 and
see Appendix B for further guidance):
–
No historic properties present, the undertaking will have no effect to historic properties
–
Historic properties present, the undertaking will have no adverse effect upon them
–
Historic properties present, the undertaking will have an adverse effect upon one or
more historic properties (see 36 CFR 800.5).
For historic or cultural resources that do not meet the criteria to be considered a historic
property under the NHPA, the NRC will assess whether there are any potential significant
impacts on these resources through the NEPA process.
3. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
–
analyzes the impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes
the information that has been reviewed, and the analyses that have been conducted
–
describes measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
–
discusses any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment
evaluation findings.
4.7.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the information in the assessment would be governed by the extent and
significance of the effects of continued operations and refurbishment activities during the
renewal term as well as from reasonable alternatives on historic and cultural resources. The
reviewer should verify that sufficient information is available to meet the relevant requirements
and that the SEIS includes the information described under the review procedures.
4.8
4.8.1
Socioeconomics
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of plant-specific socioeconomic impacts from
continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal as well
as from reasonable alternatives. Socioeconomic impacts are evaluated in the LR GEIS
(NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a) for all nuclear power plants.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-56
The scope includes the review of (1) the applicant’s ER, (2) socioeconomic impacts in the
LR GEIS during initial LR or SLR, and (3) any new and significant socioeconomic information.
Following this review, the reviewer then prepares input to the SEIS. Socioeconomic issues
(Category 1), evaluated in the LR GEIS, are listed in Table 4-1.
Data and Information Needs
According to the LR GEIS, continued operations and refurbishment activities in support of
license renewal have had little to no socioeconomic effect on communities near nuclear power
plants. Socioeconomic effects of power plant operations have become well established and
normal fluctuations in employment, income, and tax revenue have not altered the quality and
availability of community services and housing, or increased traffic volumes.
License renewal applicants consistently indicate they have no plans to add operations workers,
and increased maintenance and safety inspection activities during the renewal term can be
managed using the current workforce. Consequently, people living near nuclear power plants
have not experienced any significant socioeconomic impact since construction and the onset of
reactor operations. In addition, refurbishment activities, including steam generator and vessel
head replacement, have been conducted during regularly scheduled power plant refueling and
maintenance outages. Based on this, the following data or information is needed:
•
a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and significant socioeconomic
information in the ER
•
any new and significant plant-specific socioeconomic impact information identified during
scoping
•
any new and significant plant-specific socioeconomic impact information identified during
site visit, staff environmental review, and discussions with applicant
4.8.2
Acceptance Criteria
The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of the
socioeconomic impacts.
4.8.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the socioeconomic review are as follows:
1. The applicant is required by NRC regulation to disclose new and significant socioeconomic
information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware (see
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv)). In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for
discovering new socioeconomic information and evaluating the significance of any new
information discovered.
2. Review public scoping meeting transcripts and related correspondence.
3. Compare any new socioeconomic information with the conclusions in the LR GEIS.
4. Evaluate the significance of any new socioeconomic information for its effect on the
socioeconomic impact analysis.
5. Prepare SEIS discussion describing the search for new and significant information,
summarizing any new information found and the results of the significance evaluation.
4-57
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Incorporate by reference the conclusions from the LR GEIS for the proposed action or
modify as necessary to account for any significant new information.
4.8.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the analysis provides a sufficient basis for determining
socioeconomic impacts of continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities
associated with license renewal as well as from reasonable alternatives.
4.9
Human Health
4.9.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of the human-health impacts
from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment as well as
from reasonable alternatives. Human health impacts are evaluated in the LR GEIS
(NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of human health impacts from continued plant operations during
the initial LR and SLR term and refurbishment in the LR GEIS, (2) evaluation of new information
for significance, and (3) preparation of input to the SEIS. Table 4-1 lists the applicable
Category 1 issues and Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issues for human health
identified in the LR GEIS.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
new information on human health impacts identified by the public and other information
sources
4.9.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2, the acceptance
criteria for the evaluation of human-health impacts are based on the following requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G). If the applicant's plant uses a cooling pond, lake, canal, or
discharges to publicly accessible surface waters, an assessment of the impact of the
proposed action on public health from thermophilic organisms in the affected water must be
provided.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H). If the applicant’s transmission lines that were constructed for the
specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the
recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code for preventing electric shock from
induced currents, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock
hazard from the transmission lines must be provided.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-58
4.9.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of potential human health impacts from continued plant operations
during the operating license renewal term in the LR GEIS. This step establishes the basis
for evaluating any new and significant human health information identified by the applicant,
the public, and the staff.
2. Determine whether there is any new human health impact information that should be
evaluated. The following sources of information should be included in the search for new
information:
–
The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new
and significant information on the human health impacts of operating license renewal of
which it is aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for
discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information.
Assess whether the process is adequate to ensure a reasonable likelihood that the
applicant would be aware of new information.
–
Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the operating license
renewal application. Compare the human health information presented by the public with
information considered in the LR GEIS. Determine whether the information post-dates
the analysis leading to the LR GEIS.
–
Part 20 standards and regulations. Have the applicable standards and regulations
changed since the analysis leading to the LR GEIS? If so, determine whether these
changes affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal.
3. Evaluate the significance of new human health impact information.
4. Review the applicant’s ER, including:
–
the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on human health impact issues known to the
applicant and/or the public.
5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing
new information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting
conclusions from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for new and significant
information.
Additional specific guidance follows for each surface water and groundwater issue identified as
plant-specific (Category 2) in the LR GEIS.
4.9.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis
required to reach a conclusion related to the potential human health impacts from continued
plant operations and refurbishment as well as from reasonable alternatives. The information that
should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.
4-59
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4.9.5
4.9.5.1
Microbiological Hazards to the Public
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of the human-health impacts
associated with microbiological hazards to the public associated with heated-water discharges
from the plant’s cooling system during the renewal term. This issue is identified as a Category 2
issue in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) reviewing the impacts to human health from microbiological organism
during initial LR or SLR discussion in the LR GEIS, (2) evaluating new information for
significance, and (3) preparing input to the SEIS.
Microbiological organisms of concern for public and occupational health include enteric
pathogens (bacteria that typically exist in the intestines of animals and humans [e.g.,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa]), thermophilic fungi, bacteria (e.g., Legionella spp. and Vibrio spp.),
free-living amoebae (e.g., Naegleria fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp.), and organisms that
produce toxins that affect human health (e.g., dinoflagellates [Karenia brevis] and blue-green
algae). Exposure to these microorganisms, or in some cases the endotoxins or exotoxins
produced by the organisms, can cause illness or death.
Maximum contaminant levels of various microorganisms, including Legionella, in public drinking
water systems are regulated by 40 CFR 141.70. However, there are no specific regulations tied
to microorganisms that are associated with cooling towers or thermal discharges.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
new information on impacts to human health from thermophilic microorganisms identified by
the public and other information sources
4.9.5.2
Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of human health impacts from microbiological organisms
are addressed in ESRP Section 4.9.2.
4.9.5.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of potential impacts to human health from microbiological organisms
associated with continued plant operations during the operating license renewal term in the
LR GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating any new and significant information
identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.
2. Review the plant cooling system. If the plant cooling system uses a cooling pond, lake,
canal, or discharges to publicly accessible surface waters, then continue the analysis at
Step 3. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that describes the plant cooling
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-60
system; states that the cooling system discharges to waters not accessible to the public; and
concludes that there would not be a detrimental impact from the thermal discharges on the
concentration levels of microbiological organisms of concern.
–
A description of the location of the thermal discharges for the plant’s cooling system
(i.e., a cooling pond, lake, canal, or publicly accessible surface waters) and a
characterization of the waterbody receiving discharges from the cooling system (e.g., a
large lake or ocean).
–
The temperature increase expected for the aquatic environment that is subject to the
plant’s thermal discharges.
–
The results of any analyses that have been made for the presence of microorganisms.
Microbiological organisms of concern for public and occupational health include enteric
pathogens (bacteria that typically exist in the intestines of animals and humans
[e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa]), thermophilic fungi, bacteria (e.g., Legionella spp. and
Vibrio spp.), free-living amoebae (e.g., Naegleria fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp.), as
well as organisms that produce toxins that affect human health (e.g., dinoflagellates
[Karenia brevis] and blue-green algae). In addition, analyses for the presence of
unusually high concentrations of the normally present Legionella sp. (Legionnaires’
disease bacteria) and the free-living amoebae of the genera Naegleria and
Acanthamoeba should be cited.
–
A list of the outbreaks of waterborne diseases in the United States during the previous
10 years in the vicinity of the plant. This list is published regularly by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2017).
–
An evaluation of available data concerning the occurrence and concentrations of any of
the microorganisms listed above in the vicinity of the plant and a determination of
whether any of them are present under conditions and in locations that might be harmful
to members of the public. If such an evaluation exists, it may be obtained from the
applicant or from the State Public Health Department in the State in which the plant is
located.
3. Consult with the State Public Health Department and review any records associated with
waterborne disease outbreaks in the region. If the State Public Health Department is
concerned about such outbreaks or the potential for such outbreaks, then continue the
analysis at Step 4. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS describing the plant
cooling system that does the following:
–
outlines the process leading to the determination that there have been no or few
waterborne disease outbreaks in the region
–
provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating their basis for
not being concerned about the potential for an impact to the public health from
microbiological organisms associated with the cooling system
–
concludes that it appears unlikely that thermal discharges from the plant would increase
the number of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms to levels that could cause a
public health problem.
4. If the State advises that tests should be conducted for concentration of Naegleria fowleri (or
other thermophilic microorganisms) in the receiving waters, the licensee should consider
performing the tests when the facility has been operating at a power level typical of the level
anticipated during the license renewal term for at least a month to ensure a steady-state
population during the sampling. Samples should be taken at locations of potential public
4-61
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
use. An evaluation of the data should be performed, and a determination made of the
magnitude of potential impacts of Naegleria fowleri (or other thermophilic microorganisms)
on public health during the license renewal term. If the potential for an impact is determined,
then continue the analysis at Step 5. If the State does not advise that tests be conducted,
but they still have a concern related to the presence of deleterious thermophilic
microorganisms, then continue the analysis at Step 5 without the testing. Otherwise, prepare
a statement for the SEIS that:
–
describes the results of the tests that were performed
–
provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating their basis for
not being concerned about the potential for an impact to the public health from
microbiological organisms associated with the cooling system because of the tests that
were performed
–
concludes that it appears unlikely that thermal discharges from the plant would increase
the number of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms to levels that could cause a
public health problem.
5. Request that the applicant consider mitigative measures to minimize the potential impacts if
the results of the consultation with the State Public Health Department and/or the review of
records associated with waterborne disease outbreaks in the region show any cause for
concern regarding public health concerns related to deleterious thermophilic
microorganisms. Mitigative measures may include the following:
–
setting up and executing a monitoring program for deleterious thermophilic
microorganisms
–
limiting public access to areas affected by the plant’s thermal discharges (such as
prohibiting public swimming in the mixing zone of the river).
6. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
–
describes the plant cooling system
–
summarizes the information related to any waterborne disease outbreaks in the region
–
provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating any concerns
regarding the potential for an impact to the public health from microbiological organisms
associated with the cooling system
–
identifies and describes the mitigative measures considered and committed to by the
applicant
–
concludes that the impacts of microbiological organisms associated with the cooling
system are SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE within the context of the analysis in the
LR GEIS, considering the mitigative measures committed to by the applicant
–
discusses any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
4.9.5.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis
required to reach a conclusion related to the potential impacts on human health from
microbiological organisms associated with the plant’s cooling system. The information that
should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-62
4.9.6
4.9.6.1
Electric Shock Hazards
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the electric shock hazards from transmissionline-induced currents. This issue is identified as a Category 2 issue in the LR GEIS
(NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the impacts to human health from electric shock from in-scope
transmission-line-induced currents during initial LR or SLR in the LR GEIS, (2) evaluation of
new information for significance, and (3) preparation of input to the SEIS.
The scope should include determining if transmission lines constructed for the purpose of
connecting the plant to the transmission system meet the recommendations of the National
Electrical Safety Code (NESC) for preventing electric shock from induced currents. If not, the
scope includes assessing the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from
the transmission lines. The scope also includes preparation of input to the SEIS.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
new information on impacts to human health from electric shock from transmission-lineinduced currents identified by the public and other information sources
4.9.6.2
Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of electric shock from transmission-line-induced currents
are addressed in ESRP Section 4.9.2, with the following addition:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), concerning assessing impacts of transmission systems not
meeting NESC criteria.
Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulation identified above
are as follows:
•
NESC (IEEE SA 2017 and 2023) provides guidance concerning electric shock hazards.
4.9.6.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of the issues associated with electric shock hazards from induced
transmission line currents in the LR GEIS.
2. Review the route of the in-scope transmission lines.
4-63
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3. Review the applicant’s analysis demonstrating that the transmission lines continue to meet
NESC clearance standards to which they were built. The following data or information may
be needed to assess human health impacts from electric shock from transmission-lineinduced currents:
–
description of the in-scope transmission lines
–
verification of initial transmission line conformance with NESC criteria (NESC edition to
which the lines were built or a later edition)
–
a description of a transmission line management program, if any, including continued
compliance with NESC electrical shock provisions
–
plans to bring lines into conformance with NESC criteria if not already in compliance.
Consider basic electrical design parameters, including transmission design voltage or
voltages, line capacity, conductor type and configuration, spacing between phases,
minimum conductor clearances to ground, maximum predicted electric field strength(s)
at 1 meter above ground, the predicted electric field strength(s) at the edge of the rightof-way in kilovolts per meter, and the design bases for these values (from the ER)
–
If NESC clearance standards cannot be demonstrated, a transmission line survey
identifying sites or areas that do not meet the standards and that may not meet the
standards following anticipated changes in transmission-line operations or changes in
land use in the right-of-way.
–
If the applicant does not state that in-scope transmission lines meet electrical shock
hazard of the NESC code or the applicant’s demonstration is not adequate, then
continue the review at Step 4. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
▪
describes the route of the in-scope transmission lines
▪
describes the line (voltage, capacity, conductor configuration, minimum
conductor- to-ground clearance, and maximum predicted electrical field strengths
1 meter above ground, etc.)
▪
provides the basis for the staff evaluation
▪
concludes that the system meets the criteria of the NESC.
4. Identify any sites or areas where the transmission lines fail to meet the NESC clearance
standards. These areas should be shown on maps, photographs, or drawings to be included
in the SEIS.
5. Identify measures that could be taken to meet the standards in the areas where the
transmission lines fail to meet the NESC standards. Determine which measures the
applicant plans or proposes to undertake, if any, and whether those measures would result
in transmission lines meeting the standards.
6. Identify and evaluate mitigation measures for those areas where the transmission lines
would not meet NESC standards.
7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
–
describes the route of the in-scope transmission lines
–
describes the line (voltage, capacity, conductor configuration, minimum conductor-toground clearance, and maximum predicted electrical field strengths 1 meter above
ground, etc.) and potential shock hazard from the transmission lines
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-64
–
identifies sites or areas where NESC standards would not be met and explains why the
standards are not appropriate to the situation or why the applicant would not make
modifications to meet standards
–
describes measures to mitigate potential impacts in those areas
–
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
–
discusses any new information developed or used in the plant-specific assessment.
4.9.6.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis
required to reach a conclusion related to the potential electric shock from transmission-lineinduced currents. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review
procedures.
4.10 Environmental Justice
Under Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629), Federal agencies are responsible for
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income
populations. Although independent agencies, like the NRC, were requested to comply with
Executive Order 12898, the NRC Chairman, in a March 1994 letter to the President, committed
the NRC to endeavoring to carry out its measures “as part of NRC’s efforts to comply with the
requirements of NEPA” (NRC 1994).
On December 10, 1997, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued “Environmental Justice
Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act.” The CEQ developed this guidance to
“further assist Federal agencies with their NEPA procedures.” The NRC commented on draft
and revised draft versions of this guidance document.
On August 24, 2004, the Commission issued a “Policy Statement on the Treatment of
Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions” (69 FR 52040), which
states, “The Commission is committed to the general goals set forth in E.O. 12898, and strives
to meet those goals as part of its NEPA review process.” The following guidance is consistent
with this policy statement.
4.10.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance on conducting environmental justice reviews for proposed
licensing actions requiring an EIS as part of NRC’s compliance with NEPA. This issue is
identified as a Category 2 issue in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes the review of (1) the applicant’s ER, (2) the LR GEIS, and (3) any new and
significant environmental justice information. Following this review, the reviewer then prepares
input to the SEIS. The environmental justice issue (Category 2) evaluated in the nuclear plantspecific SEIS is listed in Table 4-2.
Guidance on environmental justice review requirements is found in NRR Office Instruction
LIC-203, Revision 4: “Procedural Guidance for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental
Assessments, and Considering Environmental Issues” (NRC 2020c).
4-65
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
The scope of the review should include an analysis of the effects from continued nuclear plant
operations and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal (initial LR or SLR) as
well as from reasonable alternatives on minority populations, low-income populations, and
Indian Tribes. The review should be of sufficient detail to permit the determination of whether
human health and environmental effects are likely to be disproportionately high and adverse on
these populations.
Data and Information Needs
The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
any new and significant plant-specific environmental justice impact information and
concerns identified during scoping
•
any new and significant plant-specific environmental justice impact information and
concerns identified during consultations with representatives of environmental justice
communities and Indian Tribes
4.10.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the criteria specified in Section 4.1.2, acceptance criteria for evaluating
environmental justice impacts are based on the following:
•
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629), concerning Federal actions to address environmental
justice in minority and low-income populations.
•
“Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory
and Licensing Actions” (69 FR 52040) affirms the Commission’s commitment to the general
goals of Executive Order 12898 and strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA review
for licensing actions.
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N). Applicants shall provide information on the general demographic
composition of minority and low-income populations and communities (by race and
ethnicity), and Indian Tribes in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant that could be
disproportionately affected by license renewal, including continued reactor operations and
refurbishment activities.
Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above
are as follows:
•
CEQ guidance for addressing environmental justice, Environmental Justice: Guidance under
the National Environmental Policy Act, December 10, 1997 (CEQ 1997).
•
Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice and NEPA Committee,
Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews, March 2016.
•
Guidance for specific information requirements for the environmental justice review is in
NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 4, “Procedural Guidance for Categorical Exclusion,
Environmental Assessments, and Considering Environmental Issues” (NRC 2020c).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-66
4.10.3
Review Procedures
The review procedure should be as follows:
1. Identify environmental justice issues, concerns, and unique characteristics of minority and
low-income populations/communities and Indian Tribes during scoping.
2. Determine whether license renewal would have any human health and environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes and whether there
are other environmental justice concerns. Potential human health and environmental effects
are determined through NRC’s NEPA review process using LIC-203 (NRC 2020c):
–
Impacts that could potentially affect or cause concern to minority populations,
low-income populations, and Indian Tribes are evaluated in other environmental
resource areas (e.g., air and water quality, socioeconomics, and cultural resources)
during the license renewal environmental review. Any potential effects and/or concerns
should be summarized in the environmental justice impacts section of the SEIS.
–
In considering human health and environmental effects to minority populations, lowincome populations, and Indian Tribes, different patterns of consumption of natural
resources should also be considered (i.e., differences in rates and/or pattern of fish,
vegetable, water, and/or wildlife subsistence consumption reflective of the unique
characteristics of these populations and the “special character” of communities located
near the nuclear plant) (see Section 4–4 of Executive Order 12898, “Subsistence
Consumption of Fish and Wildlife,” 59 FR 7629).
–
Consider whether there are any means or pathways for minority populations, low-income
populations, or Indian Tribes to be disproportionately affected by license renewal-related
activities. Examine the potential impacts to special pathway receptors (e.g., American
Indian, Hispanic, and others living a traditional lifestyle pattern of subsistence). For
example, special pathway impacts consider levels of contaminants in native vegetation,
crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals in the vicinity of
nuclear plant sites.
–
Sources of information include
▪
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, annual radiological
environmental operating reports
▪
State radiological monitoring programs.
3. Determine if human health or environmental effects are disproportionately high and adverse.
–
Consider the following questions:
▪
Would the human health or environmental effects be greater for minority
populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes than the general
population?
▪
Would any of these effects not be experienced by the general population?
▪
Would the human health or environmental effects on minority populations,
low-income populations, or Indian Tribes be significant, unacceptable, or above
generally accepted norms such as regulatory limits or State and local statutes
and ordinances? Should each human health or environmental effect, and where
appropriate, the cumulative and multiple effects, be reviewed for significance?
4-67
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
4.10.4
To the extent practicable, identify mitigation measures that reflect the needs and
preferences of the affected minority population, low-income population, or Indian Tribe
and environmental justice communities.
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the analysis provides a sufficient basis for determining
environmental justice impacts of continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities
associated with license renewal as well as from reasonable alternatives.
4.11 Waste Management
4.11.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of waste management activities at nuclear power
plants and their impacts during the license renewal term and refurbishment as well as those
from reasonable alternatives. Table 4-1 lists the applicable Category 1 issues for waste
management identified in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of waste management during the initial LR or
SLR term in the LR GEIS, (2) identification and evaluation of any new information, and
(3) preparation of input to the SEIS.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant
information
•
any new information included in the ER on waste management, pollution prevention and
waste minimization at the plant
•
the LR GEIS
4.11.2
Acceptance Criteria
The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of
waste management impacts.
4.11.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of waste management during the license renewal term in the
LR GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step
establishes the basis for evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public,
and the staff.
2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The
following sources of information should be included in the search for new information:
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-68
–
The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new
and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of
which it is aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for
discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information
discovered.
–
Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare
information presented by the public with information considered in the LR GEIS.
If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, continue with the analysis.
Otherwise, prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information,
stating the conclusion that there is no new information, and adopting the conclusions
from the LR GEIS.
3. Evaluate the significance of new information.
4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new
information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions
from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for significant new information.
4.11.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to
reach a conclusion related to waste management, pollution prevention, and waste minimization
during the license renewal term as well as from reasonable alternatives. The information that
should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.
4.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
4.12.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts
from continued plant operations during the initial LR or SLR term and refurbishment and
associated climate change impacts. The staff should assess both the potential effects of
the proposed action (license renewal) on climate change and from reasonable alternatives,
as indicated by GHG emissions, and the effects of climate change on resource areas
affected by the proposed action. GHG emissions and climate change impacts are discussed
in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of GHGs and climate change issues in the
LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) identify and address any new and significant
information, and (4) prepare input to the SEIS. Table 4-1 lists the applicable Category 1 issue
and Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issue for GHG emissions and climate change
identified in the LR GEIS.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
4-69
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
•
new information on GHGs and climate change identified by the public and other information
sources
4.12.2
Acceptance Criteria (General for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate
Change Issues)
In addition to the acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 of this ESRP, the acceptance
criteria for evaluation of GHGs and climate change impacts are based on the following
requirements:
Commission Memorandum and Order (NRC 2009a, CLI-09-21, November 3, 2009)
providing direction to the NRC staff: “We expect the Staff to include consideration of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental reviews for
major licensing actions under the National Environmental Policy Act. The Staff’s
analysis for reactor applications should encompass emissions from the uranium fuel
cycle as well as from construction and operation of the facility to be licensed. The Staff
should ensure that these issues are addressed consistently in agency NEPA
evaluations and, as appropriate, update Staff guidance documents to address
greenhouse gas emissions.”
Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of requirements above are as
follows:
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule (74 FR 66496) – This rule summarizes
the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) finding that GHGs in the atmosphere
endanger public health and welfare.
40 CFR Part 98, “Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting” – Establishes mandatory
GHG reporting requirements for certain facilities and contains multiple provisions
relevant to the air resources reviewer. 40 CFR 98.6 defines various terms, including an
explicit definition of compounds included in the term “greenhouse gas.” 40 CFR 98.2
establishes an annual reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
(CO2) equivalent per year for certain facilities, including stationary fuel combustion
units.
4.12.3
Review Procedures (General for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate
Change Issues)
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of GHGs and climate change issues in the LR GEIS to identify the
information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for
evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. Table 4-1 lists the
applicable Category 1 issue and Table 4-2 lists the applicable Category 2 issue for GHG
emissions and climate change identified in the LR GEIS.
2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The
following sources of information should be included in the search for new information:
–
The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new
and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-70
which it is aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for
discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information
discovered.
–
Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application.
Compare information presented by the public with information considered in the
LR GEIS.
–
Identify relevant sources of information used for evaluating impacts, including:
–
▪
Studies and monitoring programs: Briefly summarize any studies or monitoring
programs that provide site-specific data and can assist with understanding GHG
emission sources and climate change impacts, including trends in key climate
change indicators (e.g., precipitation, temperature, storm frequency and severity,
sea level rise, floods, and/or droughts). Include the location, dates, objectives,
methods, and results applicable to this license renewal application, and what
data or data summaries might be available for NRC review. The geographic
scope considered for climate change indicators should not be greater than the
U.S. National Climate Assessment regions (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, etc.),
and when available, local scale-scale changes should be considered.
▪
Communications with and views of relevant regulatory agencies: Document any
communications with Federal, State, and Tribal agencies with special expertise
(e.g., EPA or State agencies concerning GHG emission regulation and climate
change response) that are relevant to assessing impacts and are not
documented elsewhere. If relevant communications are documented elsewhere,
refer the reader to the appropriate sections. Include other interested
stakeholders, as appropriate.
▪
Other sources: Give in-text citations to sources of data and information used to
assess impact and provide a list of references at the end of the chapter.
Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
▪
describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment
▪
describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts, if warranted
▪
provides the significance level of the environmental impacts
▪
describes new and significant information, if any.
Additional specific guidance follows for the GHG emissions and climate change issue identified
as plant-specific (Category 2) in the LR GEIS.
4.12.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required
to reach a conclusion related to the GHG and climate change impacts from continued plant
operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term. The information that should
be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.
4-71
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4.12.5
4.12.5.1
Climate Change Impacts on Environmental Resources
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of climate change impacts on environmental
resource areas that are impacted by license renewal and any refurbishment. Impacts are
discussed in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of climate change impacts during initial LR or
SLR in the LR GEIS, (2) review of the applicant’s ER, (3) identifying and addressing any new
and potentially significant information, and (4) preparing input to the SEIS.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
information on climate change impacts identified by the public and other information sources
•
climate change projections from models, studies, and reports (e.g., U.S. Global Climate
Change Research Program)
4.12.5.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.12.2 of this ESRP, the acceptance
criteria for the evaluation of climate change impacts are based on the following requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(Q). Applicants shall include an assessment of the effects of any
observed and projected changes in climate on environmental resource areas that are
affected by license renewal.
4.12.5.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
•
Review the discussion of climate change impacts in the LR GEIS to identify the information
considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluation of
information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.
•
Review regional climate change projections for the 20-year license renewal term from
climate change models, studies, and reports (e.g., U.S. Global Climate Change Research
Program). The geographic scope considered for climate change projections should not be
greater than the U.S. National Climate Assessment regions (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest,
etc.), and when available, local scale projections should be considered. Changes in climate
parameters should be quantified and can include changes in, but not limited to, ambient
temperature, precipitation, surface water temperature and levels, length of growing season,
and/or flooding, as appropriate.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-72
•
Review the applicants ER, including
–
applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information
–
any new information included in the ER on climate change, impacts, and issues known
to the applicant
–
any currently employed or proposed practices and measure to mitigate climate change
impacts.
•
Determine environmental resource areas that are incrementally affected by license renewal.
The climate change impacts should focus on the environmental resources that could be
incrementally affected by license renewal.
•
Determine how and to what extent climatological changes could affect the environmental
resource baseline conditions.
•
Prepare a statement for the SEIS that:
–
Describes and quantifies climate change projections. When discussing changes in
climate parameters, identify climate models and the future GHG emission projections
and scenarios selected.
–
Discusses reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts in proportion to their
significance, including trends, on environmental resource areas that are incrementally
affected by license renewal. This establishes the future environmental baseline.
–
Describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts.
4.12.5.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis
required to reach conclusions on potential climate change impacts on environmental resources
when added to the impact contribution from continued operations during the license renewal
term and refurbishment impacts associated with license renewal. The information that should be
included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.
4.13 Cumulative Effects
4.13.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of cumulative effects. This issue
is identified as plant-specific (Category 2) in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2;
NRC 2024a).
The scope for each individual section includes (1) review of the cumulative effects during
initial LR or SLR in the LR GEIS, (2) evaluation of the data and analysis in the applicant’s ER,
(3) analysis and evaluation of the data, if appropriate, and (4) preparation of input to the SEIS.
The cumulative effects issue (Category 2) evaluated in the nuclear plant-specific SEIS is listed
in Table 4-2.
4-73
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4.13.2
Acceptance Criteria
In addition to the acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2, the acceptance criteria for the
evaluation of cumulative effects are based on the following requirements:
•
Cumulative effects is a Category 2 issue and requires a plant-specific analysis (see 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O)). CEQ defines cumulative effects in 40 CFR 1508.1(i)(3) as “… effects on
the environment that result from the incremental effects of the action when added to the
effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what
agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative
effects can result from actions with individually minor but collectively significant effects
taking place over a period of time.” Cumulative effect analyses should consider new and
ongoing activities, such as license renewal, that are conducted, regulated, or approved by a
Federal agency. The goal of the analysis is to introduce environmental considerations into
the planning process as early as needed to improve decisionmaking. Actions to be
considered in cumulative impact analyses include activities associated with license renewal
(e.g., continued reactor operations and refurbishment), that are conducted, regulated, or
approved by a Federal agency.
4.13.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Focus on the environmental resources that could be affected by the incremental effects of
continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment. These environmental resource areas
include
–
air quality and noise
–
water resources
–
ecological resources
–
historic and cultural resources
–
socioeconomics
–
human health
–
environmental justice
–
waste management.
2. Establish the following for each resource area:
–
The geographic region of influence that encompasses the areas of potential effect and
the distance at which the environmental effects of the proposed action and past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable actions may be experienced. Geographic regions of
influence vary by affected resource.
–
The time frame for the cumulative effects analysis incorporates the incremental effects of
the proposed action (license renewal) with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
actions because these combined effects may accumulate or develop over time. Past and
present actions include all actions up to and including the date of the license renewal
request. The time frame for the consideration of reasonably foreseeable actions is the
20-year license renewal (initial LR or SLR) term. Reasonably foreseeable actions include
current and ongoing planned activities, approved and funded for implementation, or
generally have a high probability of being implemented.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-74
–
The environmental effects from past and present actions are accounted for in baseline
assessments presented in affected environment discussions in Chapter 3 of the ER.
Chapter 4 of the ER accounts for the incremental effects or impacts of license renewal.
–
The incremental effects of the proposed action (license renewal) when added to the
effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions result in the overall
cumulative effect. A qualitative cumulative effects analysis is conducted in instances
where the incremental effects of the proposed action (license renewal) and past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable actions are uncertain or not well known.
–
For some resource areas (e.g., water resources, aquatic resources, and human health),
the incremental contributions of ongoing actions within a region are managed and/or
monitored through an established regulatory process (e.g., CWA Section 402 pursuant
to 40 CFR Part 122 [NPDES program], 10 CFR Part 20 [NRC radiological protection],
29 CFR 1910 [Occupational safety and health]) under State and/or Federal authority. In
these cases, it may be assumed that cumulative effects are managed as long as these
actions (e.g., facility operations) comply with the respective regulations, permits, or
operating license.
–
The cumulative effects analysis only considers resources and environmental conditions
that could be affected by the proposed license renewal action, including the effects of
continued reactor operations during the license renewal term and any refurbishment
activities at a nuclear power plant. In order for there to be a cumulative effect, the
proposed action (license renewal) must have an incremental new, additive, or increased
physical effect or impact on the resource or environmental condition beyond what is
already occurring.
4.13.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the cumulative effects analysis provides a sufficient basis for
determining the impacts from continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities
associated with license renewal.
4.14 Impacts Common to All Alternatives
4.14.1
4.14.1.1
Uranium Fuel Cycle
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the preparation of introductory paragraphs for the portion of
the SEIS that describes environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the initial LR or
SLR term.
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of the uranium fuel cycle in the LR GEIS,
(2) identification and evaluation of new information related to the uranium fuel cycle, and
(3) preparation of input to the SEIS that presents the analyses related to those Category 1
issues. Table 4-1 lists the applicable Category 1 issues for the uranium fuel cycle identified in
the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
4-75
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant
information on environmental issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal
term
•
new information on the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term known to the applicant
•
new and potentially significant information on the uranium fuel cycle identified by the public
•
a list of environmental issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term for
which there is significant new information
4.14.1.2
Acceptance Criteria
The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of the
uranium fuel cycle.
4.14.1.3
Review Procedures
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of the issue in the LR GEIS to identify the information considered
and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluation of information
identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. Table 4-1 lists the uranium fuel cycle
issues that were addressed in the LR GEIS for which generic conclusions were reached.
2. Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following
sources of information should be included in the search for new information:
–
When reviewing the ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new
information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered.
–
Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application.
–
Environmental quality standards and regulations.
–
If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, then continue with Step 3.
3. Evaluate the significance of new information.
4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new
information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions
from the LR GEIS modified as necessary to account for significant new information.
4.14.1.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis
required to reach conclusions on issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal
term. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-76
4.14.2
Replacement Power Alternative Fuel Cycles
4.14.2.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of the environmental impacts of replacement power
alternative fuel cycles during the renewal term (initial LR or SLR). This ESRP examines the
potential environmental impacts associated with the replacement power alternative fuel cycles.
If a renewed license were denied, then the plant generally would be decommissioned earlier
than if the license was renewed, and other electricity-generating sources would be pursued if
power were still needed.
Analysis of replacement power alternative fuel cycles does not involve the determination of
whether any power is needed or should be generated. The decision to generate power and the
determination of how much power is needed are at the discretion of State and utility officials.
The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of potential impacts of replacement power
alternative fuel cycles in the LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a); (2) identification
and evaluation of new information related to potential impacts of replacement power alternative
fuel cycles; and (3) preparation of input to the SEIS that presents the analyses related to
replacement power alternative fuel cycles.
Data and Information Needs
The following data or information may be needed:
•
the applicant’s ER
•
the LR GEIS
•
new information on the potential impacts of replacement power alternative fuel cycles
identified by the public and other information sources.
4.14.2.2
Acceptance Criteria
The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of the
impacts of alternative fuel cycles.
4.14.2.3
Review Procedures
To analyze the environmental impact of replacement power alternative fuel cycles, the reviewer
should complete the following steps:
1. Review the discussion of potential environmental impacts of replacement power alternative
fuel cycles in the LR GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions
reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluation of information identified by the
applicant, the public, and the staff.
2. Obtain information for evaluation. The following sources of information should be included in
the search for information:
–
The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new
and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of
which it is aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for
discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information
discovered.
4-77
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
–
Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare
information presented by the public with information considered in the LR GEIS.
3. Determine, from the scope of environmental impacts of replacement power alternative fuel
cycles, those that are minor and those that are likely to be sufficiently important to require
detailed analysis.
4. If, based on this analysis, the reviewer determines that there would be more than minor
impacts, proceed to Step 5. Otherwise, if the reviewer determines that there would be no
environmental impacts or that the impacts would be minor, develop a statement to this
effect.
5. Analyze the environmental impacts associated with replacement power alternative fuel
cycles, as follows:
–
Identify and calculate the likely environmental impacts of required replacement power
alternative fuel cycles including conservation and purchased or imported power, based
on the LR GEIS, the applicant’s ER, and the integrated resource plans for the area(s)
or region(s) currently or (if different) likely to be served by the nuclear power plant.
Assume appropriate mitigation measures (for example emission control technologies
and best management practices) for each replacement power alternative.
–
Describe the impacts in sufficient detail so that reviewers may compare the adverse
and beneficial impacts of the alternatives with those of renewing the operating license.
Impact analyses should consider land use, water quality, air quality, ecological
resources, human health, social and economic systems, waste management, aesthetics,
and cultural resources. The impacts analyses should include direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts. Each impact should be analyzed in proportion to its significance.
6. Based on the results of the assessments listed above, prepare a section for the SEIS
describing the search for new information, summarizing new information found, presenting
results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions from the LR GEIS modified
as necessary to account for new and significant information.
4.14.2.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and
significance of the effects of replacement power alternative fuel cycles.
4.14.3
4.14.3.1
Termination of Nuclear Plant Operations and Decommissioning
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the consideration of impacts from the termination of nuclear
plant operations and decommissioning, as well as from reasonable alternatives, and preparation
of input to the SEIS.
The scope includes the review of (1) the applicant’s ER, (2) termination of nuclear plant
operations and decommissioning impacts in the LR GEIS, and (3) any new and potentially
significant termination of nuclear plant operations and decommissioning impact information.
Following this review, the reviewer then prepares input to the SEIS. The termination of plant
operations and decommissioning issue (Category 1) for initial LR or SLR, as evaluated in the
LR GEIS (NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a), is listed in Table 4-1.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-78
Data and Information Needs
According to the LR GEIS, the environmental consequences of terminating reactor operations
and decommissioning nuclear power plants attributable to the proposed action (license renewal)
would be the environmental effects from an additional 20 years of nuclear power plant
operations and refurbishment. The impacts from decommissioning a nuclear power plant are
evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning of Nuclear
Facilities: Supplement 1, Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors,
NUREG-0586 (NRC 2002). Based on this, the following data or information may be needed:
•
a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and significant information in the
ER
•
any new and significant plant-specific impact information identified during scoping
•
any new and significant plant-specific impact information identified during site visit, staff
environmental review, and discussions with applicant
4.14.3.2
Acceptance Criteria
The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 4.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of the
impacts of continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment, associated with license
renewal, on the termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning.
4.14.3.3
Review Procedures
The following review steps are suggested:
1. The applicant is required by NRC regulation to disclose new and significant information
regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware (see 10 CFR
51.53(c)(3)(iv)). In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for
discovering new information and evaluating the significance of any new information
discovered.
2. Review public scoping meeting transcripts and related correspondence. Compare any new
information with the conclusions in the LR GEIS.
3. Evaluate the significance of any new information for its effect on the impact analysis.
4. Prepare SEIS discussion describing the search for new and significant information,
summarizing any new information found and the results of the significance evaluation.
Incorporate by reference the conclusions from the LR GEIS for the proposed action or
modify as necessary to account for any significant new information.
4.14.3.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer should ensure that the analysis provides a sufficient basis for determining the
impacts of continued nuclear plant operations and refurbishment activities, associated with
license renewal, on the termination of plant operations and decommissioning, as well as from
reasonable alternatives.
4-79
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4.15 References
4.15.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the consolidated listing of references cited in the main
chapters of the SEIS.
4.15.2
Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the following
requirements (see also Section 4.1.2):
•
10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning preparation of a draft EIS that is concise, clear, analytical, and
written in plain language
4.15.3
Review Procedures
The EPM should contact reviewers for ESRP Sections 4.2 through 4.14 and compile a list of
references cited in the SEIS sections that the reviewers have prepared. The citations should
be checked for completeness and accuracy and prepared for inclusion in the SEIS.
4.15.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare the SEIS section that lists
references cited in the SEIS sections covering environmental impacts. The completed reference
list constitutes the findings for this ESRP.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
4-80
5.0
5.1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS
Overview
This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides general procedures for evaluating the
environmental impacts of postulated plant accidents during the license renewal term (initial
license renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]).
5.1.1
Areas of Review
The scope of this plan is the development of paragraphs that introduce the material from the
reviews conducted under ESRP Sections 5.2 and 5.3. It includes the description of the
environmental issues associated with postulated accidents discussed in the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS;
NUREG-1437, Revision 2, NRC 2024a). Table 4-1 lists the applicable Category 1 issues for
postulated accidents identified in the LR GEIS including design-basis accidents and severe
accidents.
5.1.2
Acceptance Criteria (General for Postulated Accidents Issues)
The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are
consistent with the regulations specified in Section 4.1.2, which also apply for the evaluation of
postulated accidents.
Technical Rationale
The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant’s description of the potential environmental
impacts of postulated accidents during the renewal term is discussed in the following paragraph:
The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified
by the supporting information in the LR GEIS, for issues that are designated as
Category 1 or resolved Category 2, information developed for those open Category 2
issues applicable to the plant, and any significant new information in an EIS prepared
at the license renewal stage. The review conducted under this ESRP leads to
preparation of introductory paragraphs that orient the reader concerning the relevance
of the material to the overall organization and goals of the SEIS and add clarity to the
presentation.
5.1.3
Review Procedures
The material to be prepared is informational in nature, and no specific analysis of data is
required.
Generic conclusions relative to impacts were reached in the LR GEIS for those issues that are
appropriate for all nuclear power plants or a specific subset of plants, including for design-basis
accidents and severe accidents. These conclusions were that (1) a single level of significance
could be assigned to the impact and (2) plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be
sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. The generic analysis for design-basis accidents
and for severe accidents described in the LR GEIS applies to all plants. For design-basis
accidents, the LR GEIS concludes that because licensees are required to maintain the nuclear
plant within acceptable design and performance criteria consistent with the current licensing
5-1
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
basis, the environmental impacts are SMALL. For severe accidents, it concludes that the
probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water,
releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts of severe accidents are of small
significance. In the absence of new and significant information, these issues may be addressed
in the SEIS without additional plant-specific analysis.
All nuclear power plant licensees have performed analyses of the measures that could mitigate
the consequences of severe accidents.
If there is new and significant information related to the environmental impacts associated with
postulated accidents identified by the applicant, members of the public, or the staff during the
environmental review, the reviewer for this ESRP should prepare a table that directs readers to
the SEIS sections dealing with the issues.
5.1.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare introductory paragraphs for
the SEIS. The paragraph(s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the
reviewers of information covered by ESRP Sections 5.2 and 5.3. The paragraph(s) should list
the types of information to be presented and describe their relationships to information
presented earlier and to be presented later in the SEIS.
5.2
5.2.1
Postulated Accidents
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the review of environmental impacts of postulated plant
accidents during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) and preparation of input to the
SEIS. These issues are discussed in Section 4.9.1.2 and Appendix E of the LR GEIS
(NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a).
The scope includes (1) review of the LR GEIS discussion of postulated accidents,
(2) identification and evaluation of new information related to environmental impacts of
postulated accidents during the renewal term for significance, and (3) preparation of input
to the SEIS that dispositions the Category 1 issues.
Impacts of design-basis and severe accidents during the SLR term are Category 1 issues,
as listed in Table 4-1. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases to
groundwater and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants.
If a severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMA) review or severe accident mitigation design
alternatives (SAMDA) review has been conducted, only new and significant information should
be evaluated. In the unlikely event that the applicant has not previously conducted a SAMA or
SAMDA analysis for the facility, then a full SAMA analysis must be provided. For information on
reviewing a new SAMA analysis, please see Revision 1 of this document. The new and
significant information specific to the SAMA or SAMDA analysis may be reviewed to the
guidance provided in NEI 17-04, Revision 1, “Model SLR New and Significant Assessment
Approach for SAMA,” dated August 2019 (NEI 2019), which is endorsed by the NRC in
Revision 2 of NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1 (NRC 2024b).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
5-2
Data and Information Needs (General for Postulated Accidents)
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude
of the potential impacts. The following data or information may be needed:
•
a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant
information on environmental issues related to postulated accidents during the license
renewal term (initial LR or SLR)
•
new information on environmental impacts of postulated plant accidents during the license
renewal term (initial LR or SLR) known to the applicant, including applicable and most
recent probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) hazard information
•
new and potentially significant information on environmental impacts of postulated plant
accidents during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) identified by the public
5.2.2
Acceptance Criteria (General for Postulated Accidents)
The applicable acceptance criteria specified in Section 5.1.2 also apply for the evaluation of the
impacts of the postulated accidents during the renewal term.
5.2.3
Review Procedures
Evaluate the significance of new information related to the NRC’s conclusion in Table 4-1
regarding postulated accidents.
Evaluate the significance of new information related to the NRC’s conclusion in Table 4-1,
Severe accidents. That is, the conclusion that “(t)he probability‐weighted consequences of
atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal
and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants.
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of the issue in the LR GEIS to identify the information considered and
the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluation of information
identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff.
2. Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following
sources of information should be included in the search for new information:
–
The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new
and significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is
aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering
new information related to environmental impacts of postulated accidents and evaluating
the significance of any new information discovered.
–
Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare
information presented by the public with information considered in the LR GEIS.
–
Environmental standards and regulations. Have the applicable environmental quality
standards and regulations changed since the analysis leading to the LR GEIS? If so, do
the changes affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal?
5-3
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
3. If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, then continue with Step 4.
Otherwise, prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information,
stating the conclusion that there is none, and adopting conclusions from the LR GEIS.
4. Evaluate the significance of new information.
5. Prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing
new information found, and presenting results of evaluation of significance.
5.2.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis
required to reach a conclusion related to the environmental impacts of postulated accidents
during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR). The information that should be included in
the SEIS is described in the review procedures. In accordance with the Commission’s direction
in the Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-12-0063—Final Rule (NRC 2012a), when
reiterating the conclusion of the LR GEIS in the evaluation findings, the following entire phrase
shall be included in the text: “the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are
SMALL.”
5.3
Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
5.3.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of SAMAs. Because license
SAMAs have been considered at all facilities that the NRC anticipates applying for license
renewal in the future, license renewal SAMAs are no longer a Category 2 issue for the operating
nuclear power plant fleet; only an evaluation for new and significant information for a previous
SAMA or SAMDA is necessary. However, should a facility apply for license renewal that has not
previously performed a SAMA analysis, then the staff should look to NUREG-1555,
Supplement 1, Revision 1 for guidance on how to review an initial SAMA analysis.
The scope includes an analysis of any new and significant information relating to the applicant’s
previously performed SAMA or SAMDA analysis and the preparation of an appropriate
statement for the SEIS. The previous analysis of SAMAs includes the identification and
evaluation of alternatives that reduce the radiological risk from a severe accident by preventing
substantial core damage (i.e., preventing a severe accident) or by limiting releases from
containment in the event that substantial core damage occurs (i.e., mitigating the impacts of a
severe accident). The purpose of the review was to ensure that plant and procedure changes
with the potential for improved severe accident safety performance are identified and evaluated.
Data and Information Needs
The type of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information should be reviewed or audited:
•
New information pertaining to data used in a SAMA analysis that has changed or become
available since the time the preceding SAMA analysis was performed.
•
New information dependent on plant activities or site-specific changes. Examples include
–
identification of a new hazard (e.g., a fault that was not previously analyzed in the
seismic analysis)
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
5-4
–
updated plant risk model (e.g., a fire PRA that replaces the Individual Plant Examination
of External Events (IPEEE) analysis)
–
impacts of plant changes that are included in the plant risk models that will be reflected
in the model results and do not need to be assessed separately.
•
Modifications determined to have no risk impact need not be included (e.g., replacement of
the condenser vacuum pumps).
•
For risk model updates performed to reflect the latest PRA model state of the practice, it is
noted that the actual physical plant risk may not have changed, but because the best
estimate assessment/understanding of the risk has changed, it is considered to be new
information.
•
Consideration of whether potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs identified in U.S. license
renewal applications after submittal of the SAMA analysis for the analyzed plant could be
new information.
•
Applicants for boiling water reactor licenses should assess SAMAs from other boiling water
reactor applications; likewise, applicants for pressurized water reactor licenses should
assess SAMAs from other pressurized water reactor applications.
•
If there is a basis for excluding this body of SAMAs from the pool of new information to be
evaluated for significance, the rationale should be documented.
•
Other data needs may include those provided in NEI 17-04, Section 3.1 based on the
relevant assessment stage reached (NEI 2019).
•
Consistent with guidance in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 2
(NRC 2024b), the ER should briefly describe the processes that were used for identifying
new information and determining its significance. If a determination is made that no new and
significant information exists, then the ER should state this determination.
•
Alternatively, if a determination is made that one or more “potentially significant” SAMAs are
also potentially cost beneficial, then the ER should describe those SAMAs and state that
new and significant information has been identified. The ER also should indicate whether
the new and significant SAMAs are aging‐related and describe supplementary actions to be
taken relative to their discovery, if any.
5.3.2
Acceptance Criteria
Applicable general acceptance criteria are specified in Section 5.1.2. In addition, NEI 17-04
(NEI 2019) provides one acceptable approach for assessing the significance of new information
of which the applicant for renewal of a nuclear power reactor operating license or extension of a
combined license is aware that relates to either (1) the SAMDA analysis or SAMA analysis
documented in the NRC’s final environmental statement (FES), final SEIS, or environmental
assessment (EA) that supported issuance pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 (or Part 54) of the
reactor’s initial (or renewed) operating license or (2) the SAMDA analysis documented in the
NRC’s FES, final SEIS, or EA that supported issuance pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52 of the
reactor’s combined license and the design certification incorporated therein by reference, if any.
In the event that a SAMA is performed acceptance criteria for the analysis and evaluation of
SAMAs are based on the following additional requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), “If the staff has not previously considered severe accident
mitigation alternatives for the applicant’s plant in an environmental impact statement
5-5
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
or related supplement or in an environmental assessment, a consideration of alternatives
to mitigate severe accidents must be provided.”
For the SAMA or SAMDA new and significant evaluation, the following regulatory positions and
specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above are as follows:
•
NEI 17-04, Revision 1 (NEI 2019), “Model SLR New and Significant Assessment Approach
for SAMA,” provides information for one acceptable way for the applicant to evaluate new
and significant information specific to the SAMA or SAMDA analysis.
•
NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 5, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC 2017b) states the policy for the preparation and the contents of
regulatory analyses, including estimation of values and impacts for alternatives.
•
NUREG-1530 (NRC 2022b) provides information on dollars per person-roentgen-equivalentman conversion factor for offsite damage costs.
•
Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for
Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications (NRC 2024b) provides guidance on
preparation of ERs associated with license renewal.
•
Regulatory Guides 1.174 (NRC 2018a) and 1.200 (NRC 2020a) provide guidance on
general concepts in use and evaluation of probabilistic risk assessments for risk-informed
decisions.
In addition to the above, the reviewer should be familiar with Nuclear Energy Institute 05-01,
“SAMA Analysis Guidance Document” (NEI 2005), which is the nuclear industry’s guidance
document describing how to perform the SAMA analysis and describes the information that
should be included in the SAMA analysis portion of the ER.
The following acceptance criterion may be used in the SAMA or SAMDA new and significant
review:
As detailed in NEI 17-04 (NEI 2019), a tiered approach is used that employs a coarse screening
process in Stage 1 and progresses to a detailed screening process in Stage 3. Applicants that
are able to demonstrate in the Stage 1 screening process that there is no potentially significant
new information are not required to perform the Stage 2 or Stage 3 evaluations. New
information will be deemed “potentially significant” to the extent it results in the identification in
Stage 1 of an unimplemented SAMA that reduces the maximum benefit (MB) by 50 percent or
more. The first stage of the model approach uses PRA risk insights and/or risk model
quantifications to estimate the percent reduction in MB associated with (1) any unimplemented
“Final Plant‐Specific SAMAs” and (2) those SAMAs identified as potentially cost beneficial for
other industry plants that have been determined to be applicable to but not already implemented
at the analyzed plant (referred to herein as “Applicable Industry SAMAs”). In the event that one
or more unimplemented Final Plant‐Specific SAMAs or Applicable Industry SAMAs are shown in
Stage 1 to reduce the MB by 50 percent or more, the applicant must develop an updated
averted cost‐risk estimate for implementing those SAMAs. Such development is the Stage 2
assessment.
In the event that the results of the Stage 2 assessment support the Stage 1 conclusion that one
or more SAMAs reduce the MB by 50 percent or more, those “potentially significant” SAMAs
must be further assessed in Stage 3. The Stage 3 assessment consists of performing a cost‐
benefit analysis for the “potentially significant” SAMAs identified in Stage 2. If any “potentially
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
5-6
significant” SAMA is found in Stage 3 to be also potentially cost‐beneficial, then the finding
indicates the existence of new and significant’ information. Hence, because new and significant
information exists, the applicant must supplement the previous SAMA analysis.
Technical Rationale
The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant’s SAMAs if new and significant information
exists is discussed in the following paragraphs.
If any “potentially significant” SAMA is found in Stage 3 of the NEI 17-04 process to be
potentially cost‐beneficial, then the finding indicates the existence of new and significant
information. Hence, because new and significant information exists, the applicant must
supplement the previous SAMA analysis.
The SEIS should include an analysis of new and significant information that relates to the
previous SAMA or SAMDA. The Stage 3 assessment consists of performing a cost‐benefit
analysis for the “potentially significant” SAMAs identified in Stage 2. If any “potentially
significant” SAMA is found in Stage 3 to be also potentially cost‐beneficial, then the finding
indicates the existence of new and significant’ information. Hence, because new and
significant information exists, the applicant must supplement the previous SAMA analysis.
A 1989 court decision (Limerick Ecology Action vs. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 [3rd Cir. 1989])
stated that the “Action of NRC in addressing severe accident mitigation design alternatives
(SAMDAs) (prior term for SAMAs) through policy statements, not rule making, did not satisfy
NEPA, where policy statements did not represent requisite careful consideration of
environmental consequences, excluded consideration of design alternatives without making
any conclusions about effectiveness of any particular alternative, and issues were not
generic in that impact of SAMDAs on environment would differ with a particular plant’s
design, construction and locations.” NRC considers the evaluation of SAMAs in the
environmental impact review that is performed as part of every application for a license
renewal if SAMAs have not been considered for the plant.
5.3.3
Review Procedures
Evaluate the significance of new information of which the applicant for renewal of a nuclear
power reactor operating license or extension of a combined license is aware that relates to
either (1) the SAMDA analysis or SAMA analysis documented in the NRC’s FES, final SEIS, or
EA that supported issuance pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 (or Part 54) of the reactor’s initial (or
renewed) operating license or (2) the SAMDA analysis documented in the NRC’s FES,
final SEIS, or EA that supported issuance pursuant to 10 CFR Part 52 of the reactor’s combined
license and the design certification incorporated therein by reference, if any.
Suggested steps for the review process are as follows:
1. Review the discussion of the issue in the LR GEIS to identify the information considered and
the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluation of information
identified by the applicant, the public, and the NRC staff.
2. Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following
sources of information should be included in the search for new information:
–
The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new
and significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is
5-7
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering
new information related to environmental impacts of postulated accidents and evaluating
the significance of any new information discovered.
–
Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare
information presented by the public with information considered in the LR GEIS.
–
Environmental standards and regulations. Have the applicable environmental quality
standards and regulations changed since the analysis leading to the LR GEIS? If so,
do the changes affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal?
–
If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, then continue with Step 3.
Otherwise, prepare the section for SEIS describing the search for new information,
stating the conclusion that there is none, and adopting conclusions from the LR GEIS.
3. Evaluate the significance of new information.
4. Prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing
new information found, and presenting results of evaluation of significance.
5.3.4
Evaluation Findings
The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the review of new and
significant information required to reach a conclusion related to the applicant’s prior SAMA
analysis. The review of new and significant information that should be included in the SEIS
is described in the review procedures.
5.4
References
5.4.1
Areas of Review
This ESRP provides guidance for listing references in this chapter of the SEIS.
5.4.2
Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the following
requirements:
•
10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning preparation of a draft EIS that is concise, clear, analytic, and
written in plain language
5.4.3
Review Procedures
The reviewer should contact reviewers for ESRP Sections 5.1 through 5.3 and compile a list of
references cited in the SEIS sections that the reviewers have prepared. The citations should be
checked for completeness and accuracy and prepared for inclusion in the SEIS.
5.4.4
Evaluation Findings
The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare the SEIS section that lists
references cited in the SEIS sections covering changes in the environmental impacts of
postulated accidents during the license renewal term. The completed reference list constitutes
the findings for this ESRP.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
5-8
6.0
6.1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Areas of Review
This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance on preparing these
chapters and supporting discussions of the supplemental environmental impact statement
(SEIS) that integrates the conclusions for issues designated Category 1 or resolved Category 2
in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
(LR GEIS; NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024a); information developed for those open
Category 2 issues applicable to the plant; and new and significant information. The chapter
discussions must conclude 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 scope includes (1) review of the impact analyses prepared for the SEIS, (2) evaluation of
the cumulative impacts associated with continued nuclear power plant operations during the
license renewal term (initial license renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]) and any
refurbishment, (3) review of discussions of the environmental impacts of alternatives,
(4) comparison of the environmental impacts of license renewal with the environmental impacts
of the alternatives, and (5) preparation of input to the SEIS.
The SEIS input should (1) identify adverse environmental impacts that are unavoidable,
(2) identify commitments of resources that are irreversible and irretrievable, and (3) discuss
the effects of short-term use on maintenance and long-term productivity of the environment.
Data and Information Needs
The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and
plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
•
the discussion of environmental impacts of license renewal (initial LR or SLR) in the
LR GEIS
•
the discussion of plant-specific environmental impacts of license renewal (initial LR or SLR)
in the applicant’s environmental report
•
the summary of environmental impact analyses conducted for the SEIS
6.2
Acceptance Criteria
Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the summary and conclusions are based on the
following requirements:
•
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 51.70(b) (10 CFR 51.70(b)), concerning a
concise, clear, analytic EIS written in plain language.
•
10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a
preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed
action; the environmental impacts of replacement power alternatives; and alternatives
available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects, among other things.
6-1
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
•
10 CFR 51.71(f), concerning including a preliminary recommendation by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff respecting the proposed action reached after
considering the environmental effects of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives.
•
10 CFR 51.95(c)(4), concerning the NRC staff recommendation regarding the environmental
acceptability of the license renewal action that integrates the conclusions, as amplified by
the supporting information in the generic EIS, for issues designated Category 1 or resolved
Category 2, information developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant,
and any new and significant information. Given this information, the NRC staff, adjudicatory
officers, and Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts
of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy
planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
Technical Rationale
The SEIS must include the NRC staff recommendations regarding the environmental
acceptability of the proposed action. In making these recommendations, the NRC staff is
required to integrate the conclusions from the LR GEIS, plant-specific impact analyses, and any
significant new information. This ESRP summarizes the environmental impacts of the proposed
action, comparison of the environmental impacts of the proposed action with the impact of the
alternatives, and the staff recommendations.
6.3
Review Procedures
The environmental project manager (EPM) is responsible for the preparation of the SEIS
summary and conclusion chapters. The summary and conclusion discussions should be
sufficiently complete that a person reading this section would understand:
•
the purpose of and need for the proposed action
•
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process and NRC’s environmental review
leading to the preparation of the SEIS
•
the environmental impacts of renewing the operating license (initial LR or SLR)
•
the environmental impacts of alternatives to renewing the operating license
•
staff conclusions and recommendations
Suggested steps for the preparation of the summary and conclusion chapters of the SEIS are as
follows:
1. Prepare introductory paragraphs for the summary and conclusion chapters.
2. Prepare a table that summarizes the findings of the environmental impacts presented in the
SEIS and based on the reviews conducted under ESRP Sections 4.2 through 4.14. The
summary and conclusions table should list the environmental impacts of license renewal
and alternatives to license renewal (including no-action) and state the level of significance of
each impact. This table should be organized by area of environmental concern.
The EPM should also consider the list of unavoidable adverse impacts and the list of
irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments, and draw conclusions related to effects
of short-term commitments on maintenance and long-term productivity of the environment.
The final lists of unavoidable adverse impacts and irreversible and irretrievable resource
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
6-2
commitments and a discussion of the effects of short-term use on maintenance and
long-term productivity of the environment should also be included in the SEIS.
3. Prepare input to the SEIS summary and conclusion chapters.
6.4
Evaluation Findings
The EPM prepares the SEIS sections that present (1) the overall summary of the environmental
impacts of license renewal (initial LR or SLR) and alternatives to license renewal (including
no-action) and (2) the NRC staff recommendations regarding license renewal. The overall
summary should be presented in tabular form. The contents of the table are described in the
“Review Procedures” section. The NRC staff recommendation should be stated in terms
consistent with the wording of 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4).
6-3
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
7.0
REFERENCES
10 CFR Part 2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 2, “Agency Rules of Practice
and Procedure.”
10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for
Protection Against Radiation.”
10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities.”
10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”
10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Licenses,
Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.”
10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for
Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”
15 CFR Part 930. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade,
Part 930, “Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs.”
33 CFR Part 330. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters,
Part 330, “Nationwide Permit Program.”
36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,
Part 60, “National Register of Historic Places.”
36 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,
Part 63, “Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.”
36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,
Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”
40 CFR Part 6. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 6,
“Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the
Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions.”
40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50,
“National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.”
40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51,
“Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.”
40 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 52,
“Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.”
7-1
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81,
“Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.”
40 CFR Part 93. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 93,
“Determining Conformity of Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans.”
40 CFR Part 98. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 98,
“Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting.”
40 CFR Part 121. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 121,
“State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit.”
40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122,
“EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.”
40 CFR Part 123. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 123,
“State Program Requirements.”
40 CFR Part 124. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 124,
“Procedures for Decisionmaking.”
40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125,
“Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.”
40 CFR Part 127. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 127,
“NPDES Electronic Reporting.”
40 CFR Part 129. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 129,
“Toxic Pollutant Effluent Standards.”
40 CFR Part 130. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 130,
“Water Quality Planning and Management.”
40 CFR Part 131. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 131,
“Water Quality Standards.”
40 CFR Part 132. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 132,
“Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System.”
40 CFR Part 133. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 133,
“Secondary Treatment Regulation.”
40 CFR Part 141. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 141,
“National Primary Drinking Water Standards.”
40 CFR Part 147. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 147,
“State, Tribal, and EPA-Administered Underground Injection Control Programs.”
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
7-2
40 CFR Part 149. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 149,
“Sole Source Aquifers.”
40 CFR Part 165. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 165,
“Pesticide Management and Disposal.”
40 CFR Part 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,
“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”
40 CFR Part 403. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 403,
“General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution.”
40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 423,
“Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.”
40 CFR Part 700. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,
Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 700, “General.”
40 CFR Part 702. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,
Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 702, “General Practices and Procedures.”
40 CFR Part 704. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,
Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 704, “Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements.”
40 CFR Part 707. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,
Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 707, “Chemical Imports and Exports.”
40 CFR Part 710. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,
Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 710, “Compilation of the TSCA Chemical
Substance Inventory.”
40 CFR Part 711. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,
Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 711, “TSCA Chemical Data Reporting
Requirements.”
40 CFR Part 712. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,
Subchapter R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 712, “Chemical Information Rules.”
40 CFR Part 713. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 713,
“Reporting Requirements for the TSCA Inventory of Mercury Supply, Use, and Trade.”
40 CFR Part 716. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Subchapter
R, Toxic Substances Control Act, Part 716, “Health and Safety Data Reporting.”
40 CFR Part 1501. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1501,
“NEPA and Agency Planning.”
7-3
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 1508,
“Definitions.”
50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402,
“Interagency Cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.”
50 CFR Part 600. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 600,
“Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions.”
59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. “Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.”
Federal Register, Office of the President.
61 FR 66537. December 18, 1996. “Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses.” Final Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
65 FR 67249. November 9, 2000. “Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000—Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
69 FR 52040. August 24, 2004. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice
Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
74 FR 66496. December 15, 2009. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” Federal Register,
Environmental Protection Agency.
79 FR 48300. August 15, 2014. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System—Final
Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Existing Facilities
and Amend Requirements at Phase I Facilities.” Federal Register, Environmental Protection
Agency.
82 FR 2402. January 9, 2017. “Tribal Policy Statement.” Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
89 FR 35442. May 1, 2024. “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations
Revisions Phase 2. Final Rule, Federal Register, Council on Environmental Quality.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 1996 et seq.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 470aa-470mm.
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, as amended. 54 U.S.C. § 312501 et seq.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 16 U.S.C. § 668-668d et seq.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
7-4
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2017. “Waterborne Disease Outbreaks
Associated With Environmental and Undetermined Exposures to Water - United States,
2013-2014.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 66:1222-1225, Atlanta, GA. Accessed
May 12, 2023, at http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6644a4.
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1993. Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations Into
Environmental Impact Analysis Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C.
Accessed July 25, 2023, at https://ceq.doe.gov/docs/Incorporating_Biodiversity_1993.pdf.
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the
National Environmental Policy Act. Washington D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML103430030.
CEQ and ACHP (Council on Environmental Quality and Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation). 2013. NEPA and NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14172A044.
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.
Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P.R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P.A. Matson, H.A. Mooney,
S. Postel, S.H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G.M. Woodwell. 1997. “Ecosystem Services: Benefits
Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems.” Issues in Ecology 2:1-18, Washington,
D.C. Accessed July 25, 2023 at https://www.esa.org/esa/issue2.pdf.
EJ IWG (Federal Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice). 2016. Promising
Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews. Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12, 2023,
at https://www.epa.gov/sites/nepa_promising_practices_document_2016.pdf.
Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment.
EPA/630/R-95/002F, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 19, 2023 at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/eco_risk_assessment1998.pdf.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act).
33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. § 479a et seq.
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. Public Law No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10.
FWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998.
Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting Section 7
Consultation and Conference. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14171A801.
7-5
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
IEEE SA (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association). 2017. 2017
National Electrical Safety Code. IEEE C2-2017. Piscataway, NJ. Available at
https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/C2/6681/.
IEEE SA (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association). 2023. 2023
National Electrical Safety Code. IEEE C2-2023. Piscataway, NJ. Available at
https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/communication%20cables.
Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1989. “Federal
Reporter, Second Series, Volume 869, P 719 [3rd Circuit].” Available at
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Federal_Reporter/Second_series/Volume_869.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.
Menzie, C., M.H. Henning, J. Cura, K. Finkelstein, J. Gentile, J. Maughan, D. Mitchell,
S. Petron, B. Potocki, S. Svirsky, and P. Tyler. 1996. “Special Report of the Massachusetts
Weight‐of‐Evidence Workgroup A Weight‐of‐Evidence Approach for Evaluating Ecological
Risks, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment.” An International Journal 2(2):277-304.
Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039609383609.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2005. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis
Guidance Document. NEI-05-01, Revision A, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML060530203.
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2019. Model SLR New and Significant Assessment Approach for
SAMA. NEI 17-04, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19318D216.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004a. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
Guidance. Version 1.1, Silver Spring, MD. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4187.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004b. Preparing Essential Fish Habitat
Assessments: A Guide for Federal Action Agencies. Version 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML14309A276.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
7-6
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. Overview of Conducting
Consultation Pursuant to Section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. September
2009. Silver Spring, MD. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/pdfs/304d.pdf.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2020. “Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern within Essential Fish Habitat.” Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/habitat-areas-particular-concern-within-essential-fish-habitat.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from
Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML003740384.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1994. Letter from I. Selin to The President dated
March 31, 1994. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML033210526.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2000. Environmental Standard Review Plan—
Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. Sections 2.3–2.4;
2.6–2.8; 3.3–3.4; 4.2–4.3; 5.2, 5.3, and 5.10; 6.3; 6.5; 10.1; and 10.2 from NUREG-1555.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12178A236.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2001. Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste
Management Systems, Structures, and Components Installed in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear
Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.143, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML013100305.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1: Regarding the Decommissioning of
Nuclear Power Reactors, Main Report - Final Report. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volume 1
and 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML023470304, ML023470323,
ML023500187, ML023500211, ML023500223.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007a. Meteorological Monitoring Programs for
Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.23, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML070350028.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007b. Quality Assurance for Radiological
Monitoring Programs (Inception through Normal Operations to License Termination)—Effluent
Streams and the Environment. Regulatory Guide 4.15, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML071790506.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009a. “Memorandum and Order in the Matter of
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and Tennessee Valley Authority.” CLI-09-21, Rockville, MD.
ADAMS Accession No. ML093070690.
7-7
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009b. Radiological Environmental Monitoring for
Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 4.1, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML091310141.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Memorandum from J. Cushing and J. Davis,
to S. Flanders, L. Camper, and B. Holian, dated June 7, 2011, regarding “Staff Guidance for
Withholding Sensitive Information about Historic Resources in Accordance with the National
Historic Preservation Act.” Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML111080735.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012a. Memorandum from A.L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary, NRC, to R.W. Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations, and B. Poole, Director,
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication dated December 6, 2012, regarding
“SECY-12-0063 – Final Rule: Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power
Plant Operating Licenses (10 CFR Part 51; RIN 3150–AI42).” Washington D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML12341A134.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012b. Terrestrial Environmental Studies for
Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.11, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML113350385.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Standard Review Plans for Environmental
Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. Final Report,
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML13106A246.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017a. Aquatic Environmental Studies for Nuclear
Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.24, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML15309A219.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017b. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 5, Draft Report for Comment,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML17101A355.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018a. An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk
Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis.
Regulatory Guide 1.174, Revision 3, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML17317A256.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018b. Preparation of Environmental Reports for
Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 3, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML18071A400.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018c. Tribal Protocol Manual. NUREG-2173,
Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18214A663.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020a. Acceptability of Probabilistic Risk
Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities. Regulatory Guide 1.200, Revision 3,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20238B871.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
7-8
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 10, Second Renewal, Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Final
Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML20023A937.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020c. Procedural Guidance for Preparing
Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, and Considering Environmental Issues.
LIC-203, Revision 4, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20016A379.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021. Regulatory Guide 1.21, Revision 3,
Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactive Material in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents and
Solid Waste. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21139A224.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022a. Occupational Radiation Exposure at
Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2020: Fifty-Third Annual Report.
NUREG-0713, Volume 42, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML22276A69.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022b. Reassessment of NRC’s Dollar Per
Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy, Final Report. NUREG-1530, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML22053A025.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Revision 2, Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Package Accession No. ML24087A133.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024b. Regulatory Guide 4.2 - Supplement 1,
Revision 2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal
Applications. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML23201A144.
PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 511 U.S.
700 (1994). United States Supreme Court Decision May 31, 1994, Washington, D.C.
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. 33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. 16 U.S.C. § 1801 Note. Public Law 104-297, October 11,
1996, 110 Stat. 3559.
Suter, G.W. and L.W. Barnthouse. 1993. “Retrospective Risk Assessment.” Chapter 10 in
Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. Available at
https://www.worldcat.org/title/ecological-risk-assessment/oclc/26158379.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2019. “NLCD 2019 Land Cover (CONUS).” Multi-Resolution
Land Characteristics Consortium Project. Sioux Falls, SD. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2019-land-cover-conus.
7-9
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
APPENDIX A
INTERAGENCY CONSULTATIONS FOR ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must consider the effects of its actions on
ecological resources protected under several Federal statutes and must consult with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) prior to acting in cases where an agency action may affect those resources. These
statutes include the following:
•
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.)
•
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA, 16 U.S.C. § 1801
et seq.), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267)
•
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA, 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.)
This appendix describes consultation requirements and processes under these statutes.
A.1
A.1.1
Endangered Species Act
Overview of the Act and Consultation Responsibilities
Congress enacted the ESA in 1973 to protect and recover imperiled species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA provides a program for the conservation of
endangered and threatened plants and animals (collectively, “listed species”) and the habitats in
which they are found, and it prohibits any person from the take of listed species, as defined in
the Act, without a permit. The FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively
known as “the Services”) are the lead Federal agencies for implementing the ESA and are
charged with determining species that warrant listing. The Services divide responsibility for
listing and managing species: the FWS is responsible for terrestrial and freshwater species, and
NMFS is responsible for marine and anadromous species.
Section 7 of the ESA establishes interagency consultation requirements for actions by
Federal agencies. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA charges Federal agencies to aid in the
conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that Federal agencies consult
with the Services for actions that “may affect” federally listed species and critical habitats and to
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of those species or destroy
or adversely modify those habitats. Private actions with a Federal nexus, such as construction
and operation of facilities that involve Federal licensing or approval, are also subject to
consultation. Therefore, the NRC’s issuance of initial or subsequent renewed licenses may
trigger consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant to ESA Section 7(a)(2) is commonly
referred to as “Section 7 consultation.”
The Services maintain joint regulations that implement ESA Section 7 at Title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402, “Interagency Cooperation—Endangered Species Act of
1973, as Amended.” Subpart B prescribes the Section 7 interagency consultation requirements.
The NRC also relies upon the Services’ detailed procedural guidance for conducting Section 7
consultation in Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting
Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (FWS
and NMFS 1998).
A-1
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Section 7 consultation may be informal or formal. Generally, the appropriate type of consultation
relates to the effect determinations made by the Federal agency, as described below. For
proposed species and proposed critical habitats (those species or habitats for which the
Services have issued proposed listing or designation rules, but for which final rules have yet to
be issued or adopted), the regulations prescribe a process called a conference. Informal
consultation, formal consultation, and conference are described below. The Services’
regulations also allow for early, special, and emergency consultations. Because instances that
would necessitate these types of consultation rarely arise for NRC actions, this guidance does
not specifically address early, special, and emergency consultation.
A.1.2
A.1.2.1
Types of ESA Section 7 Consultation
Formal Consultation
Formal Section 7 consultation is appropriate when a Federal agency determines that an action
“may affect and is likely to adversely affect” listed species or critical habitats. For any action in
which take of listed species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat may occur,
formal consultation is required.
As the Federal action agency, the NRC is responsible for initiating formal consultation if it is
required. The NRC staff must provide the Services with relevant information to support its
request for formal consultation, including a biological assessment, if required. The staff must
provide the Services with the best scientific and commercial data available, and the Services
may request additional information during the consultation process.
Formal consultation takes place over a 135-day timeline (50 CFR 402.14(e)). However,
consultation may be extended through agreement between the Federal action agency, the
Services, and any applicant.
The outcome of formal consultation is the Services’ formulation of a biological opinion. A
biological opinion evaluates the nature and extent of effects of the action on listed species and
critical habitats. It is prepared by the FWS or NMFS and documents the Services’ assessment
of effects to listed species and critical habitat and whether the Federal action is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of those species or result in destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. Biological opinions may include an incidental take statement (ITS)
consisting of the level of anticipated take, reasonable and prudent measures, and terms and
conditions. Any take that is subject to and in compliance with an ITS is not prohibited under the
ESA. Biological opinions may also include discretionary conservation recommendations.
For consultations resulting in the Services’ issuance of a biological opinion, the NRC requires its
licensees to comply with the ITS of the biological opinion by incorporating environmental
conditions into the relevant NRC facility license(s). As conditions of NRC-issued licenses, the
NRC has a continuing duty to monitor compliance at facilities with valid biological opinions. This
role is performed by the NRC’s Interagency Consultation Coordinator. The NRC may exclude
specific ITS requirements from its license(s) if another Federal agency will require those actions
be taken.
A.1.2.2
Informal Consultation
Informal Section 7 consultation is appropriate when a Federal agency determines that an action
“may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” listed species or critical habitats. This type of
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-2
consultation is a less-structured approach to meeting Section 7 requirements. It includes
discussions, correspondence, and meetings between the NRC staff and representatives of the
Services. It can also include exploring ways to modify the action to reduce or remove adverse
effects and can help the agencies determine the need to engage in formal consultation.
As part of informal consultation, the NRC staff submits ESA effect determination(s) or a
biological assessment (if one is required) to the Services, along with supporting information, and
requests the Services’ concurrence with its determination(s) that the action is not likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical habitats. The Services review the supporting
information and respond that either (1) the Services concur that the action is not likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical habitats, which concludes consultation, or (2) that
formal consultation is required.
Informal consultation takes place over a 60-day timeline (50 CFR 402.13(c)(2)). However,
consultation may be extended through agreement between the Federal action agency, the
Services, and any applicant.
A.1.2.3
Conference
Conference is required for Federal actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical
habitat. A proposed species is a species for which the Services have issued a proposed rule to
list as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Proposed critical habitat is habitat for which
the Services have issued a proposed rule to designate as critical under the ESA. For actions
requiring conference, the Federal agency typically makes ESA effect determinations of “may
affect and is likely to adversely affect” for proposed species and “may destroy or adversely
modify” for proposed critical habitat. Notably, the threshold for a conference is higher than the
threshold for consultation; the regulations only require conference if an action may jeopardize
the continued existence of a proposed species.
In practice, conferences are conducted similarly to consultations. The outcome of a conference
is either the Services’ issuance of a conference opinion or the Services’ written documentation
of the conclusions reached during the conference, along with any recommendations, in a
conference report. The Services’ recommendations are discretionary because the NRC is not
prohibited from jeopardizing the continued existence of a proposed species or from adversely
modifying proposed critical habitat. However, as soon as a listing action is finalized, the
prohibition against jeopardy or adverse modification applies regardless of the stage of the
action.
A conference does not fulfill a Federal agency’s duty to consult under ESA Section 7(a)(2) if
the Services subsequently list the proposed species or designate the proposed critical habitat.
Upon listing or designation, the Federal agency must initiate consultation with the Services as
appropriate and as described previously. However, information developed during the
conference can help streamline the subsequent consultation process such that the Federal
agency and the Services can focus the consultation on significant new information developed
during the listing process and significant changes to the Federal action that would alter the
content of the Services’ conference opinion or written conclusion. Additionally, the Services may
adopt its conference opinion as the biological opinion after the species is listed or critical habitat
is designated.
A-3
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A.1.2.4
No Consultation
Section 7 consultation is not required when the Federal agency determines that an action would
have “no effect” on listed or proposed species or on proposed or designated critical habitats.
“No effect” determinations are made at the Federal agency’s discretion and do not require
concurrence from the Services.
A.1.3
ESA Section 7 Consultation Process
This section describes each step in determining whether ESA consultation is necessary and
within the consultation process itself. Figure A-1 illustrates the ESA pre-consultation and
consultation process.
1. Determine the action area.
The first step in the consultation process is to determine the action area of the proposed
action. The action area includes all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal
action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The
action area is not limited to the footprint of the action nor is it limited by the Federal action
agency's authority; rather, it is a biological determination of the reach of the proposed action
on the listed species (FWS 2022). The action area determination should be made by a
qualified subject matter expert (SME) because subsequent steps in the consultation, as well
as the effects analyses, are predicated on defining a complete and accurate action area.
The SME should be able to describe the extent of the action area in writing and pictorially on
a map.
2. Determine protected species and critical habitats that may be present in the action area.
Once the action area is established, the SME determines what protected species and critical
habitats may be present in the action area.
For protected species and critical habitats under FWS jurisdiction, the SME should query the
FWS’s Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Information Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) tool (available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/). The IPaC tool allows users
to generate official species lists by entering project-specific information. However, the
usefulness of this tool directly relates to the accuracy of the information entered into the
system. Prior to initiating this step, the SME should be familiar enough with the potential
effects of the proposed action to be able to fully define the action area and to input the
action area into IPaC’s mapping tool. Notably, while the IPaC tool may list species that are
jointly under both Services’ jurisdiction (e.g., sea turtles) or that are wholly under NMFS’s
jurisdiction (e.g., whales), IPaC only fulfills the 50 CFR 402.12 requirement to obtain an
official species list for consultations with the FWS.1
1
By regulation, the NRC is only required to obtain an official species list in cases where the NRC is required to
develop a biological assessment. In such cases, the NRC also must verify the accuracy of the species list if the NRC
does not begin preparation of the biological assessment within 90 days of receipt of (or concurrence with) the species
list (50 CFR 402.12(e)). Nonetheless, obtaining an official species list is a best practice for all projects because it
establishes communications between the NRC and the Services early in the review and ensures that the NRC
considers all possible protected species and critical habitats that may be affected.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-4
Figure A-1 Endangered Species Act Consultation Process Flowchart
A-5
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
For protected species and critical habitats under NMFS jurisdiction, the SME should reach
out to the Protected Resources Division of the relevant NMFS regional office. While many of
the NMFS regional offices maintain species lists and critical habitat mapping tools on their
websites, unlike the FWS’s IPaC tool, these resources do not fulfill the 50 CFR 402.12(c)
requirement to obtain an official species list. A best practice is for the SME to define the
action area, generate a list of protected species and critical habitats using NMFS’s available
online resources, and request NMFS’s concurrence with that list as is allowable under
50 CFR 402.12(d). This method streamlines NMFS’s review and response and can foster a
positive and collaborative working relationship between the agencies.
If protected species or critical habitats may be present in the action area, the SME should
proceed to the next step (determining potential effects) to determine whether consultation is
required. If no protected species or critical habitats are present, consultation is not required.
The SME should document this determination in the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) document associated with the proposed action (e.g., environmental impact
statement [EIS], supplemental environmental impact statement [SEIS], environmental
assessment [EA]), in correspondence to the Services, or in a memorandum to file.
Notably, separate consultation determinations could be made for each agency in the
Services. For instance, a proposed action could involve in-water work during the
construction phase that could affect federally protected marine fish, but no construction
activities or other components of the proposed action would affect any terrestrial species
because none are present in the action area. In such a case, the NRC would be required to
consult with NMFS but not the FWS.
3. Engage with the Services and initiate informal consultation.
If the NRC has not yet engaged directly with the Services during the previous step(s), the
SME should reach out to the Services to establish points of contact and to orient Services
staff regarding the proposed action. This is particularly important in cases where formal
consultation may be required so that the Services can plan and designate staff resources for
the development of the biological opinion. This step is also an opportunity for the SME to
gather more information on the relevant protected species and critical habitats. Service staff
may be able to point the SME to surveys, studies, and other available species data or
connect the SME with local researchers and species experts. Because informal consultation
includes all discussions and correspondence between the Services and the NRC (50 CFR
402.13), this step functionally initiates informal consultation. Therefore, the SME should
document substantive discussions with the Services, researchers, or species experts in
meeting summaries and should add any related correspondence to the NRC’s Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS).
4. Determine and document potential effects on protected species and critical habitats.
The next step in the consultation process is to determine the potential effects of the
proposed action on the identified protected species and critical habitats. The SME typically
performs this analysis concurrently with the NEPA review. The SME should rely on the
application; available ecological surveys, monitoring, and studies; views of recognized
species experts; scientific literature; and other relevant information to perform the ESA
analysis. Based on the analysis, the SME makes an effect determination for each protected
species and critical habitat as identified below in Table A-1.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-6
Table A-1
Possible Endangered Species Act Effect Determinations Made by the Federal
Action Agency
Listed Species
“may affect and is likely
to adversely affect”
“may affect but is not
likely to adversely affect”
“no effect”
Designated or Proposed
Critical Habitat
Proposed Species
“may affect and is likely to adversely
affect”
“may affect but is not likely to adversely
affect”
“no effect”
“is likely to destroy or adversely
modify”
“is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify”
“no effect”
The SME documents the ESA analysis and effect determination(s) in a biological
assessment, biological evaluation, or directly within the NEPA document.
The SME prepares a biological assessment only for those actions that meet certain
regulatory criteria. Biological assessments are required under 50 CFR 402.12(b) for
proposed actions involving major construction activities, which are those actions that have
construction-type impacts and that meet the definition of a major Federal action requiring an
EIS under NEPA.2 The contents of a biological assessment are at the discretion of the
Federal agency and will depend on the nature of the proposed action. The ESA regulations
at 50 CFR 402.12(f) suggest that Federal agencies consider including the following
information in the biological assessment:
•
results of site surveys, studies, and inspections of the action area to determine if listed or
proposed species are present or occur seasonally
•
views of recognized experts on the species at issue
•
review of pertinent scientific literature and related information
•
analysis of the effects of the action on the species and habitat, including cumulative
effects, and the results of any related studies
•
analysis of alternate actions considered by the Federal agency.
Biological assessments must be completed within 180 days after the NRC’s receipt of (or
the Services’ concurrence with) the species list unless the NRC and the Services agree to a
different timeline (50 CFR 402.12(i)). If an applicant or licensee is involved, the 180-day
period may not be extended unless the NRC provides the applicant or licensee with a
written statement setting forth the estimated length of the proposed extension and the
reasons why such an extension is necessary before the close of the initial 180-day period.
If the proposed action does not require a biological assessment, the SME prepares a
biological evaluation or prepares written input to be incorporated directly into the NEPA
document. If the ESA analysis is complex, lengthy, or will likely require formal consultation,
the SME prepares a biological evaluation. A biological evaluation is a stand-alone document
that is similar in format and content to a biological assessment, and it should contain the
elements described above. The primary distinction is that a biological evaluation is prepared
for a proposed action that does not meet the regulatory criteria for a biological assessment.
The 180-day preparation timeline does not apply to biological evaluations.
2
See 50 CFR 402.02 for the complete regulatory definition of this term.
A-7
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
If the ESA analysis is relatively straightforward, will only require informal consultation, or will
not require consultation, the SME documents the ESA analysis directly in the NEPA
document. The NEPA document should clearly identify the ESA analysis with appropriate
headings and subheadings and include the SME’s effect determinations for each protected
species and critical habitat as identified in Table A-1.
For proposed actions involving formal consultation, Federal agencies must submit certain
information to the Services with the consultation request. If a biological assessment or
biological evaluation is being prepared to support formal consultation, the SME should
include the following information in accordance with 50 CFR 402.14(c) and summarized as
follows:
•
description of the proposed action and any mitigation measures in sufficient detail to
assess the effects of the action on protected species and critical habitat, including
–
the purpose, duration, timing, and location of the action
–
the specific components of the action and how they will be carried out
–
maps, drawings, blueprints, or similar schematics of the action
–
any other available information related to the nature and scope of the proposed
action relevant to its effects on protected species or critical habitat
•
map or description of the action area
•
available information on the presence, abundance, density, or periodic occurrence of
listed species and the condition and location of the species' habitat, including any critical
habitat
•
description of the effects of the action and an analysis of any cumulative effects
•
summary of any relevant information provided by the applicant or licensee
•
any other relevant available information on the effects of the proposed action, including
any EISs, EAs, or other relevant reports
If protected species or critical habitats under the jurisdiction of both agencies of the Services
may be affected by the proposed action, the SME should prepare two separate biological
assessments or biological evaluations—one for each of the Services.
A best practice is for the SME to provide the applicant or licensee an opportunity to review
and comment on the draft biological assessment or biological evaluation. The applicant or
licensee may have more in-depth knowledge of the proposed action and the potential
adverse effects of that action. The applicant or licensee will also have a better
understanding of what potential strategies could feasibly be implemented to reduce
incidental take or to mitigate or offset adverse effects. Engaging the applicant or licensee at
this stage is especially important when the NRC is reinitiating consultation for an
NRC-licensed facility that already has a biological opinion in place.
The SME may also share a draft of part or all of the biological assessment or biological
evaluation with the Services for the purpose of ensuring that the NRC has included all
relevant information required by the Services to initiate the consultation. This step is
particularly helpful if the Services intend to adopt part or all of the NRC’s initiation package
in its biological opinion through the optional collaborative process described at
50 CFR 402.14(h)(3).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-8
The NRC typically issues biological assessments and biological evaluations as stand-alone
documents. However, the NRC also may opt to incorporate the biological assessment or
biological evaluation into the NEPA document associated with the proposed action under
50 CFR 402.06. The SME, along with the project manager and NRC management, should
carefully weigh the benefits and risks of this option. Incorporating the biological assessment
or biological evaluation into the NEPA document can delay the progression of consultation
because the NRC must wait until the NEPA document is issued to initiate consultation.
Typically, this option should be reserved for simple informal consultations that involve few
protected species or critical habitats.
5. Determine the appropriate type of consultation.
The SME’s effect determination(s) dictate whether consultation is required and the type of
consultation that is appropriate (e.g., formal, informal, conference, or no consultation).
Table A-2 summarizes the appropriate type of consultation or conference for each possible
effect determination.
Table A-2
Appropriate Type of Consultation by Endangered Species Act Effect
Determination
Type of
Consultation
Listed Species
“may affect and is
likely to adversely
affect”
Informal Consultation “may affect but is
not likely to
adversely affect”
Conference
N/A
Formal Consultation
No Consultation or
Conference
“no effect”
Proposed Species
N/A
N/A
“may affect and is
likely to adversely
affect”
“may affect but is
not likely to
adversely affect”(a)
or “no effect”
Designated
Critical Habitats
Proposed Critical
Habitats
“is likely to destroy
N/A
or adversely
modify”
“is not likely to
N/A
destroy or
adversely modify”
N/A
“is likely to destroy
or adversely
modify”
“no effect”
“is not likely to
destroy or
adversely modify”
or “no effect”
N/A = not applicable
(a) Although not required, it is a best practice to confer with the Services when a proposed action may affect but is
not likely to adversely affect proposed species.
For a given project, effect determinations among the protected species and critical habitats
may vary. For instance, a proposed action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect sea
turtles but would have no effect on the Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus). In this case,
informal consultation with NMFS would be appropriate for sea turtles, but the NRC would not
be required to consult with NMFS for the Nassau grouper. For another proposed action, the
NRC might determine that a proposed action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the
rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) and northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) but
that the action is not likely to adversely affect several species of freshwater mussels. In this
case, formal consultation with the FWS would be appropriate. The formal consultation could
address all involved species even though the effect determinations for the freshwater
mussels alone would only rise to the informal consultation level.
A-9
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Notably, the threshold for a conference is higher than the threshold for consultation. The
NRC is only required to confer with the Services if a proposed action is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of proposed species or is likely to destroy or adversely modify
proposed critical habitat. However, the Services, and not Federal action agencies, make
jeopardy determinations. Effectively, this means that the NRC should confer with the
Services in most circumstances in which a proposed action may affect and is likely to
adversely affect a proposed species to determine whether adverse effects could result in
jeopardy. However, it is a best practice for the NRC to confer with the Services if a proposed
action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect proposed species or may affect but is
not likely to adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat because the NRC will be
required to consult with the Services if the species or habitat are subsequently listed or
designated. For proposed actions that require the NRC to develop a biological assessment,
the biological assessment must consider proposed species and proposed critical habitats in
addition to listed species and designated critical habitats (50 CFR 402.12(a)).
If both consultation and a conference are required for a given project, the NRC and the
Services typically conduct the two processes concurrently.
6. Request the Services’ concurrence, formal consultation, or conference.
When the document containing the NRC’s ESA analysis is ready for issuance (e.g.,
biological assessment, biological evaluation, or NEPA document), the SME prepares a
request for the Services’ concurrence as part of informal consultation, a request for formal
consultation, or a request for conference, as described in the subsections below.
In cases where the SME coordinated with the Services during its review, but the SME
ultimately determined that the proposed action would have no effect on protected species or
critical habitats, the NRC does not need to engage with the Services any further. However,
in such instances, a best practice is to notify the relevant Service(s) of the NRC’s “no effect”
determination(s). For instance, the SME can send the Services an email or letter upon
issuance of the NEPA document that explains the NRC’s “no effect” determination(s),
provides information on the availability of the NEPA document, and gives details on how the
Services can submit public comments (in the case of a draft SEIS, draft EIS, or draft EA).
The SME should be sure to add any such correspondence to ADAMS as part of fully
documenting the consultation.
a. Request the Services’ concurrence.
For “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” listed species and “is not likely to
destroy or adversely modify” designated critical habitat determinations, the SME
prepares a written request for the Services to concur with the NRC’s determinations. The
request should include a copy of the NRC’s ESA analysis. By regulation, the request
must also include sufficient information for the Services to determine if it concurs
(50 CFR 402.13(c)(1)).
The Services provides its written concurrence or non-concurrence within 60 days of
receipt of the NRC’s request (50 CFR 402.13(c)(2)). However, consultation may be
extended through agreement between the Federal action agency, the Services, and any
applicant.
Notably, if the nature of the proposed action requires the NRC to develop a biological
assessment, the ESA regulations afford the Services 30 days, rather than 60 days, to
review and provide written concurrence or non-concurrence. In such cases, the SME
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-10
should coordinate with the Services prior to submitting the biological assessment and
concurrence request to establish the most appropriate timeline based on a combination
of the potential effects on listed species and critical habitats, NRC review timeline, staff
availability from the Services, and other relevant factors.
If after its review, the Services concur with the NRC’s ESA effect determination(s), the
informal consultation is concluded, and NRC’s ESA Section 7(a)(2) obligations for the
proposed action are fulfilled. The SME should add the Services’ written concurrence to
ADAMS and should prepare input for the final NEPA document that reports the results of
the consultation.
If the Services do not concur, the SME and staff from the Services should discuss the
reasons for the non-concurrence. In some cases, the NRC or applicant can submit
additional information to support the Services’ subsequent concurrence. In other cases,
the Services may determine that the proposed action involves potential for take and
requires the Services to formulate a biological opinion and ITS. The appropriate next
step in such a case would be for the NRC to prepare a request for formal consultation,
as described below.
b. Request and engage in formal consultation.
For “may affect and is likely to adversely affect” listed species and “is likely to destroy or
adversely modify” designated critical habitat determinations, the SME prepares a written
request for formal consultation with the relevant Service(s). The request must include all
information specified at 50 CFR 402.14(c), as summarized previously under Review
Procedure Step 4.
Formal consultation takes places over a 135-day timeline (50 CFR 402.14(e)). During
the initial 90 days, the NRC and the Services exchange information and engage in
discussions concerning the potential effects of the proposed action. The Services may
request that the NRC submit additional information to support its review of the proposed
action in a process that is like the NRC’s request for additional information (RAI)
process.
The regulations allow for applicants or licensees to be a party to the consultation, and
the SME should seek to include the applicant or licensee in the consultation to the extent
possible. It also is a best practice to engage the applicant or licensee when responding
to any inquiries from the Services to ensure that the NRC’s responses are accurate and
complete.
Following the initial 90 days, the Services have 45 days thereafter to complete the
biological opinion and deliver it to the Federal agency and applicant or licensee. The
biological opinion evaluates the nature and extent of effects of the action on listed
species and critical habitats and must include the information specified at 50 CFR
402.14(h)(1) and 50 CFR 402.14(h)(2). The biological opinion may include an ITS
consisting of the:
•
level of anticipated take of listed species
•
reasonable and prudent measures necessary or appropriate to minimize adverse
impacts
•
terms and conditions that implement reasonable and prudent measures, such as
reporting requirements
A-11
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Biological opinions may also include conservation recommendations, which are
discretionary measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects on listed species or critical
habitats. Conservation recommendations can also address the development of
information on listed species or critical habitats, such as further study or research that
would enhance the understanding of a listed species within the action area. The NRC
and the applicant or licensee may, but are not required to, implement conservation
recommendations.
The ESA regulations allow Federal action agencies to request a copy of and to comment
on a draft of the biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(g)(5)). Applicants or licensees may
also comment on the draft biological opinion through this provision. The Services cannot
issue its biological opinion prior to the end of the 45-day period (or extended timeline, as
previously agreed upon and as described below) while the draft is under review by the
NRC. However, if the Federal action agency submits comments to the Services
regarding the draft biological opinion within 10 days of the deadline for issuing the
opinion, the Services are entitled to an automatic 10-day extension. The NRC’s standard
practice is to always request to review a draft of the biological opinion and to share that
draft with the applicant or licensee for its review and comment. This step is especially
important to ensure that the draft reasonable and prudent measures and terms and
conditions are feasible and implementable.
The Services may adopt all or part of the NRC’s formal consultation initiation package,
including the biological assessment or biological evaluation, within its biological opinion
(50 CFR 402.14(h)(3)). The ESA regulations also allow for the NRC and the Services to
collaborate during the NRC’s development of the biological assessment or biological
evaluation and the associated initiation package such that the Services can more fully
adopt the NRC’s analysis as its biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(h)(4)). In such a case,
the Services would formulate any supplementary analyses it deems necessary as well
as the ITS.
Compliance with the ITSs of biological opinions protects both the NRC and the applicant
or licensee from penalties and other enforcement action under ESA Section 11 because
any take that is subject to and in compliance with an ITS is not prohibited under the
ESA. For consultations resulting in the Services’ issuance of a biological opinion, the
NRC requires its licensees to comply with the ITS of the biological opinion by
incorporating environmental conditions into power reactor license(s). Therefore, the SME
should closely coordinate with the project manager, management, and project attorneys
for consultations that will result in a biological opinion to ensure that the appropriate
conditions are incorporated into the new, renewed, or amended license. The NRC’s
Interagency Consultation Coordinator should also be involved in all formal consultations
involving the formulation of a biological opinion.
Formal consultation may be extended through agreement between the Federal action
agency, the Services, and any applicant or licensee. If an applicant or licensee is
involved and the Services requires additional time to complete the consultation, within
the initial 90-day period, the Services must submit to the applicant or licensee a written
statement specifying the reasons why a longer period is required, the information that is
required to complete the consultation, and the estimated date on which the consultation
will be completed (50 CFR 402.14(e)). One reason that consultation may be extended is
if the Services determine that additional data would provide a better information base
from which to formulate a biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(f)).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-12
A best practice is for the SME to discuss the timeline of the consultation with the
Services prior to initiating the consultation. Section 7 consultation, when it is required,
should be completed prior to the NRC deciding on a proposed action. Early coordination
on a mutually agreeable timeline is the best way to ensure that consultation will conclude
in a timely manner.
c. Request and engage in conference.
For “may affect and is likely to adversely affect” proposed species and “may destroy or
adversely modify” proposed critical habitat determinations, the SME prepares a written
request for conference with the Services. Conferences are conducted in a similar
manner to consultations, and the applicant or licensee should be involved to the extent
practicable. The regulations do not specify a particular timeline for conferences.
Therefore, it is particularly important for the SME to establish a timeline with the Services
at the outset of the conference.
During the conference, the Services make advisory recommendations on ways to
minimize or avoid adverse effects to the proposed species or proposed critical habitat.
The outcome of a conference is either a conference report or a conference opinion. A
conference report includes the Services’ written documentation of the conclusions
reached during the conference, along with any discretionary recommendations. A
conference opinion may include an ITS. However, that ITS would not become effective
unless the Services adopt the conference opinion as its biological opinion once the
listing action is final.
If during the conference or prior to completion of the proposed action, the Services list
the proposed species or designate the proposed critical habitat, the Federal agency
must review the action to determine whether formal consultation is required. If formal
consultation is required, the SME should prepare a request to initiate formal consultation
as described in Review Procedure Step 6.b. If formal consultation is not required but the
proposed action could still result in effects on the newly listed species or newly
designated critical habitat, the NRC must seek the Services’ concurrence with its “may
affect but is not likely to adversely affect” or “may affect but is not likely to destroy or
adversely modify” critical habitat determinations. In past NRC experiences of such
circumstances, the Services have written a brief letter confirming that the information in
its conference report remains valid and that the conclusions reached in that report
constitute the Services’ concurrence pursuant to ESA Section 7(a)(2).
If both consultation and conference are required for a given project, the NRC and
Services typically conduct the two processes concurrently, and the Services may issue
one document (e.g., concurrence letter or biological opinion) that concludes both
processes.
Although the NRC is only required to consult with the Services if a proposed action is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of proposed species or is likely to destroy or
adversely modify proposed critical habitat, it is a best practice for the NRC to confer with
the Services if effects on proposed species or proposed critical habitats are possible
because the NRC will be required to consult with the Services if the species or habitats
are subsequently listed or designated.
A-13
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
7. Document conclusion of consultation or conference.
Completion of the consultation or conference is documented by the Services’ letter of
concurrence, biological opinion, conference report, or conference opinion. The SME ensures
that these documents are added to ADAMS as part of the consultation record. The SME
also documents the outcome of consultation in the NEPA document associated with the
proposed action in accordance with 50 CFR 402.06(b). In cases where a final EIS or SEIS is
issued prior to the conclusion of consultation, the SME prepares input to the record of
decision documenting the outcome of the consultation. In cases where the final EA and
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are issued prior to the conclusion of consultation,
the NRC can consider issuing a Federal Register notice that corrects or addends the EA
and FONSI.
8. Reinitiate consultation.
The ESA regulations specify four conditions under which Federal agencies must reinitiate
consultation. These conditions are (50 CFR 402.16)
• the level of allowable take specified in the incidental take is exceeded
• new information reveals effects not previously considered
• the action is modified in a manner that causes new effects
• a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected
Reinitiated consultation is conducted in a similar manner as the initial consultation. The
outcome of reinitiated consultation is a letter of concurrence from the Services or a new or
amended biological opinion.
A.2
A.2.1
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Overview of the Act and Consultation Responsibilities
Congress enacted the MSA in 1976 to foster long-term biological and economic sustainability of
the Nation’s marine fisheries. The MSA is a comprehensive, multi-purposed statute. Its key
objectives include preventing overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, increasing long-term
economic and social benefits, and ensuring a safe and sustainable supply of seafood. NOAA,
together with eight regional Fishery Management Councils established under the MSA,
implement the provisions of the MSA.
The MSA directs the Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NMFS, to designate
areas of essential fish habitat (EFH) and to manage marine resources within those areas. EFH
is defined as the coastal and marine waters and substrate necessary for fish to spawn, breed,
feed, or grow to maturity (50 CFR 600.10). NMFS further defines “waters,” “substrate,” and
“necessary” at 50 CFR 600.10. EFH applies to federally managed finfish and shellfish (herein
referred to as “EFH species”). As of 2022, the Councils and NMFS have designated EFH for
nearly 1,000 species at multiple life stages.
The Fishery Management Councils may also designate some EFH as habitat areas of particular
concern (HAPC) if that habitat exhibits one or more of the following traits: rare, stressed by
development, possessing important ecological functions for EFH species, or especially
vulnerable to anthropogenic degradation. HAPC can cover a specific location (e.g., an estuary
bank or a single spawning location) or cover habitat type that is found at many locations
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-14
(e.g., coral, nearshore nursery areas, or pupping grounds). HAPC designation does not convey
additional restrictions or protections on an area. The designation simply focuses increased
scrutiny, study, or mitigation planning compared to surrounding areas because HAPC represent
high-priority areas for conservation, management, or research and are necessary for healthy
ecosystems and sustainable fisheries. The Fishery Management Councils may, however,
restrict the use or possession of fishing gear types within HAPC. The geographic boundaries of
HAPC are subject to refinement through amendments, as research better informs management
decisions (NOAA 2020).
Section 305(b) of the MSA contains interagency consultation requirements pertaining to Federal
agencies and their actions. Under MSA Section 305(b)(2), Federal agencies must consult with
NMFS for actions that may adversely affect EFH. Private actions with a Federal nexus, such as
construction and operation of facilities that involve Federal licensing or approval, also are
subject to consultation. Therefore, the NRC’s issuance of initial or subsequent renewed licenses
may trigger consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant to MSA Section 305(b) is
commonly referred to as “EFH consultation.”
NMFS maintains regulations that implement MSA Section 305 at 50 CFR Part 600, “Magnuson–
Stevens Act Provisions.” Subpart K of these regulations prescribes the EFH interagency
consultation requirements. Subpart J includes definitions and other information relevant to EFH.
The NRC also relies upon NMFS’s detailed procedural guidance for conducting EFH
consultation in Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance (NMFS 2004a) and Preparing
Essential Fish Habitat Assessments: A Guide for Federal Action Agencies (NMFS 2004b).
Consultation may be abbreviated, expanded, or programmatic. Generally, the appropriate type
of consultation relates to effect determinations made by the Federal agency, as described
below. NMFS regulations also allow for general concurrences concerning EFH. Because
situations are rare in which a general concurrence would apply to an NRC action, this guidance
does not specifically address this provision of the EFH regulations.
A.2.2
A.2.2.1
Types of EFH Consultation
Abbreviated and Expanded Consultation
Abbreviated consultation is appropriate when a Federal agency determines that an action would
involve “minimal adverse effects” on EFH. Abbreviated consultation allows NMFS to determine
quickly whether, and to what degree, a Federal action may adversely affect EFH. This type of
consultation is used when the adverse effects of an action can be alleviated through minor
modifications to the action.
Expanded consultation is appropriate when a Federal agency determines that an action may
result in “substantial adverse effects.” Substantial adverse effects are effects that may pose a
relatively serious threat to EFH and typically could not be alleviated through minor modifications
to a proposed action. Expanded consultation allows more opportunity for the Federal agency
and NMFS to work together to review the action’s impacts on EFH and for NMFS to develop
measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects.
A Federal agency may also determine that an action would involve “more than minimal but less
than substantial adverse effects.” In such cases, the NRC should work with NMFS to determine
which type of consultation (abbreviated or expanded) is most appropriate for the given action.
The processes for abbreviated and expanded consultations are nearly identical. The primary
difference is the time frame for each step. For both abbreviated and expanded consultations,
A-15
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
the NRC staff submits an EFH assessment to NMFS and requests to initiate EFH consultation.
If the action will adversely affect EFH, NMFS formulates EFH Conservation Recommendations,
which may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects. If
NMFS determines that the action would not adversely affect EFH or that no EFH Conservation
Recommendations are needed, NMFS notifies the NRC informally or in writing.
If NMFS provides the NRC with EFH Conservation Recommendations, the NRC must prepare a
detailed written response within 30 days of receiving the recommendations. This 30-day time
frame applies to both abbreviated and expanded consultation. In the response, the NRC staff
must include a description of measures proposed for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the
impact of the activity on EFH. If the NRC’s response is inconsistent with any of the NMFS’s EFH
Conservation Recommendations, the response must be provided at least 10 days prior to the
final agency decision and must explain the NRC’s reasons for not following the
recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS. The
NRC’s response completes consultation.
A.2.2.2
Programmatic Consultation
Programmatic consultation is appropriate when a Federal action is a funding program, largescale planning effort, or other project where enough information is available to address all
reasonably foreseeable adverse effects on EFH of an entire program, parts of a program, or
several similar individual actions occurring within a given geographic area. Programmatic
consultation allows the Federal agency and NMFS to address many individual actions that may
adversely affect EFH at one time and for NMFS to develop programmatic EFH Conservation
Recommendations. For instance, the Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers undertake programmatic consultation with NMFS for multi-part, multi-year
development projects. Within NRC, the types of agency actions that may be appropriate for
programmatic consultation include rulemakings or proposed actions that involve development of
a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS).
The process for programmatic consultation is like the process described above for abbreviated
and expanded consultations. However, a wider variety of outcomes are possible (see Review
Procedure Step 6 below). NMFS may formulate programmatic EFH Conservation
Recommendations. Such recommendations may cover all individual actions, or NMFS could
require individual consultations for some or all actions or components of the project.
If NMFS provides the NRC with EFH Conservation Recommendations as part of a
programmatic consultation, the NRC must prepare a detailed written response within 30 days of
receiving the recommendations. The NRC’s response completes consultation.
A.2.2.3
No Consultation
EFH consultation is not required when the Federal agency determines that an action would
have “no adverse effects” on EFH.
A.2.3
EFH Consultation Process
This section describes each step in determining whether EFH consultation is necessary and
within the consultation process itself. Figure A-2 illustrates the EFH pre-consultation and
consultation process.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-16
Figure A-2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Process Flowchart
A-17
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
1. Determine the affected area.
The first step in the consultation process is to determine the area that would be affected by
the proposed action. This step is like determining the ESA action area (see Section 4.6.10.3,
Review Procedure Step 1). Unlike the ESA, however, the MSA and its regulations do not
specifically prescribe or define terminology for the affected area. For projects involving both
an ESA analysis and EFH analysis, the ESA action area and the EFH affected area are
likely similar; both should account for all areas over which direct or indirect impacts to
ecological receptors could occur. A primary difference between the two could be that an
ESA action area may involve large areas of land that do not apply to the EFH affected area
if that land does not contain any aquatic habitat or features.
The affected area determination should be made by a qualified SME because subsequent
steps in the consultation, as well as the effects analyses, are predicated on defining a
complete and accurate affected area. The SME should be able to describe the extent of the
affected area in writing and pictorially on a map.
2. Determine the EFH that may be present in the affected area.
Once the affected area is established, the SME determines what EFH may be present in
that area. The Fishery Management Councils and NMFS designate EFH by species and life
stage.
To determine EFH, the SME should query the NMFS’s Essential Fish Habitat Mapper tool
(available at: https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/). This tool allows users to view
spatial representations of fish species, their life stages, and important habitats. The mapper
displays data layers for EFH, HAPC, and EFH areas protected from fishing. It also includes
links to supporting materials, such as fishery management plans, which contain the official
regulatory EFH descriptions. Prior to initiating this step, the SME should be familiar enough
with the potential effects of the proposed action to be able to fully define the affected area
and to input that area into the mapping tool.
The SME should compare EFH mapper results with habitat characteristics documented in
scientific literature and the descriptions of EFH in relevant fishery management plans and
other regulatory documents to ultimately determine the relevant EFH species and life
stages.
Although it is not required by regulation, it is a best practice to reach out to the Habitat
Conservation Division of the relevant NMFS regional office to confirm the accuracy and
completeness of the EFH mapper results and the SME’s determination of relevant EFH
species and life stages. This is particularly valuable in determining whether the NRC should
consider any prey of EFH species in its EFH analysis. For instance, if a given species with
designated EFH downstream of an NRC-licensed facility consumes diadromous fish that
occur upriver of the facility, effects of the proposed action on those prey fish would be
relevant to the NRC staff’s EFH analysis. NMFS can help identify such cases that may not
appear within EFH mapper results. NMFS may also be able to assist the SME in ruling out,
streamlining, or grouping EFH species and life stages in cases where the EFH mapper
results are numerous.
If EFH, HAPC, or EFH prey are present in the affected area, the SME should proceed to the
next step (determining potential effects) to determine whether consultation is required. If no
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-18
EFH, HAPC, or EFH prey are present, consultation is not required. The SME should
document this determination in the NEPA document associated with the proposed action
(e.g., EIS, SEIS, or EA), in correspondence to NMFS, or in a memo to file.
3. Engage with NMFS.
If the NRC has not yet engaged directly with NMFS during the previous step(s), the SME
should reach out to the Habitat Conservation Division of the relevant regional office to
establish points of contact and to orient NMFS staff to the proposed action. This also helps
NMFS plan and designate staff resources so that both agencies (NRC and NMFS) can meet
the consultation timelines prescribed in the regulations. This step is also an opportunity for
the SME to gather more information on the EFH species, their life stages, habitat
characteristics, and HAPC. NMFS staff may be able to point the SME to surveys, studies,
and other available species data or connect the SME with local researchers and species
experts. The SME should document any substantive discussions with the Services,
researchers, or species experts in meeting summaries and should add any related
correspondence to ADAMS.
4. Determine and document potential effects on EFH.
The next step in the consultation process is to determine the potential effects of the
proposed action on the EFH of the identified EFH species, life stages, and their prey and on
HAPC, if applicable. The SME typically performs this analysis concurrently with the NEPA
review. The SME should rely on the application; available ecological surveys, monitoring,
and studies; views of recognized species experts; scientific literature; and other relevant
information to perform the EFH analysis. Based on the analysis, the SME makes an effect
determination for the EFH of each EFH species, life stage, and their prey and each HAPC
as identified below in Table A-3.
Table A-3
Possible Essential Fish Habitat Effect Determinations Made by the Federal
Action Agency
Essential Fish Habitat Effect
Determinations
“substantial adverse effects”
“more than minimal but less than
substantial adverse effects”
“minimal adverse effects”
Spatial Extent
surface area, depth, and
seasonality described in writing
with explicit measurements, to the
extent possible, or pictorially on a
map
Duration
temporary v. permanent
short-term v. long-term
“no adverse effects”
Importantly, EFH effect determinations characterize the effects on the habitat of the EFH
species and their life stages. They do not characterize the effects on the species or the life
stages themselves. Similarly, effect determinations for EFH prey characterize the effects on
the prey as a food resource rather than the effects on the prey species themselves. For
instance, a proposed action that involves water withdrawal from a river for cooling purposes
could cause habitat loss (i.e., temporary or permanent physical loss of a portion of the water
column). Associated effluent discharge could cause chemical or biological (i.e., temperature
and dissolved oxygen content) alterations to the habitat. With respect to prey species, water
withdrawals could impinge or entrain prey organisms, which would represent a reduction in
available food resources for EFH species within that habitat.
A-19
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
HAPC are subsets of EFH that merit special considerations to conserve the habitat. The
Fishery Management Councils and NMFS identify HAPC within designated EFH based on
the importance of the habitat’s ecological function; the extent to which the habitat is
sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation; whether, and to what extent,
development activities are, or will be, stressing the habitat type; and the rarity of the habitat
type (50 CFR 600.815(a)(8)). If an HAPC is present, the SME should make separate effect
determinations for the EFH and the HAPC within that EFH. Actions that occur in HAPC may
receive more scrutiny by NMFS when developing conservation recommendations.
In addition to each EFH effect determination, NMFS recommends that Federal agencies
characterize effects in terms of spatial extent and duration (NMFS 2004b). To the
extent possible, the SME should describe these aspects of the impacts. Spatial extent can
be characterized in terms of surface area, depth, and seasonality. Duration includes whether
the effects are temporary or permanent and short-term or long-term.
The SME documents the EFH analysis and effect determination(s) in an EFH assessment or
directly within the NEPA document. EFH assessments are required for any proposed action
that may adversely affect EFH (50 CFR 600.920(e)(1)). This includes the following effect
determinations identified in Table A-3: “substantial adverse effects,” “more than minimal but
less than substantial adverse effects,” and “minimal adverse effects.” The level of detail in
an EFH assessment should be commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the
potential adverse effects of the action (50 CFR 600.920(e)(2)). The EFH assessment must
contain the following (50 CFR 600.920(e)(3)):
•
a description of the action
•
an analysis of the potential adverse effects on EFH and EFH species
•
the Federal agency’s conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH
•
proposed mitigation, if applicable
If appropriate, the EFH assessment should also include the following
(50 CFR 600.920(e)(4)):
•
the results of site surveys, studies, and inspections that evaluate the habitat and the sitespecific effects of the project
•
the views of recognized experts on the habitat or species that may be affected
•
a review of pertinent scientific literature and related information
•
an analysis of alternate actions considered by the Federal agency
•
any other relevant information
If a Federal agency has previously completed an EFH assessment for a similar action, the
EFH regulations allow for the agency to incorporate by reference the previous assessment,
supplemented with any relevant new project-specific information (50 CFR 600.920(e)(4)).
The NRC typically issues EFH assessments as stand-alone documents. However, the NRC
also may opt to incorporate the EFH assessment into the NEPA document associated with
the proposed action under 50 CFR 600.920(f)(ii). In such cases, the NRC must clearly
identify the relevant section of the document as the EFH assessment. The SME, along with
the project manager and NRC management, should carefully weigh the benefits and risks of
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-20
this option. Incorporating the EFH assessment into the NEPA document can delay the
progression of consultation because the NRC must wait until the NEPA document is issued
to initiate consultation. Typically, this option should be reserved for abbreviated
consultations that involve few EFH species, life stages, or prey and that do not involve any
HAPC.
If the proposed action would result in “no adverse effects,” consultation is not required, and
the SME documents the EFH analysis directly in the NEPA document. The NEPA document
should clearly identify the EFH analysis with appropriate headings and subheadings and
include the SME’s effect determinations for the EFH of each EFH species, life stage, and
their prey and each HAPC as identified in Table A-3.
5. Determine the appropriate type of consultation.
The SME’s effect determination(s) dictate whether consultation is required and the type of
consultation that is appropriate (e.g., abbreviated, expanded, programmatic, or no
consultation). Table A-4 summarizes the appropriate type of consultation for each possible
effect determination.
Table A-4
Appropriate Type of Consultation by Type of Proposed Action and Essential
Fish Habitat Effect Determination
Types of Consultation
Type of Proposed Action
EFH Effect Determination
Abbreviated Consultation
individual proposed action
Expanded Consultation
individual proposed action
“minimal adverse effects”
or
“more than minimal, but less
than adverse effects”(a)
“substantial adverse effects”
or
“more than minimal, but less
than adverse effects”(a)
no more than “minimal adverse
effects” either individually or
cumulatively
Programmatic Consultation
No Consultation
proposed actions with a large number
of individual actions, such as
rulemakings or those involving
development of a GEIS
any
“no adverse effects”
EFH = essential fish habitat; GEIS = generic environmental impact statement.
(a) For this finding, the NRC should work with NMFS to determine whether abbreviated or expanded consultation is
most appropriate.
For a given project, EFH effect determinations among the affected EFH species and life
stages may vary. For instance, a proposed action may result in no more than minimal
adverse effects on EFH of summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) (larvae, juveniles, and
adults), Atlantic butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) (juveniles and adults), and bluefish
(Pomatomus saltatrix) (juveniles), but may have no adverse effects on the EFH of any life
stages of black sea bass (Centropristis striata) or Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). In this
case, abbreviated consultation would be appropriate to address the minimal adverse effects
on summer flounder, Atlantic butterfish, and bluefish, but the consultation would not be
required to address either black sea bass or Atlantic herring unless NMFS disagrees with
the NRC’s “no adverse effect” findings. For another proposed action, the NRC might
determine that a proposed action would have substantial adverse effects on the larvae and
juveniles of summer flounder and windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus) but would
A-21
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
have no adverse effects on the EFH of juveniles and adults of these species. In this case,
expanded consultation would be appropriate to address the larvae and juvenile life stages.
6. Initiate and engage in consultation.
When the EFH assessment or NEPA document containing the EFH assessment is ready for
issuance, the SME prepares a request to initiate consultation with NMFS. The request
should specify the type of consultation being requested (i.e., abbreviated, expanded, or
programmatic) and why the action meets the criteria for that type of consultation. The NRC
staff must submit the EFH assessment at least 60 days prior to the final agency decision on
the action for abbreviated consultation and at least 90 days prior to the final agency decision
for expanded consultation.
Both abbreviated and expanded consultations begin when NMFS receives the EFH
assessment and written request for consultation. Programmatic consultations also begin
in this manner, although the EFH regulations allow for NMFS to also initiate programmatic
consultations by requesting pertinent information from the Federal agency
(50 CFR 600.920(j)(2)).
During consultation, the NRC and NMFS exchange information and engage in discussions
concerning the potential effects of the proposed action. The agencies may work together to
develop measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects. NMFS
may request that the NRC submit additional information to support its review of the
proposed action in a process that is like the NRC’s RAI process.
Although the EFH regulations do not specifically describe the role of Federal applicants or
licensees, in practice, the NRC usually requests to involve the applicant or licensee to the
extent possible, and NMFS is typically amenable to this request. It is also a best practice to
engage the applicant or licensee when responding to any inquiries from NMFS to ensure
that the NRC’s responses are accurate and complete.
If the proposed action will adversely affect EFH, NMFS formulates EFH Conservation
Recommendations, which may include measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise
offset adverse effects. NMFS must provide such recommendations to the NRC within
30 days for abbreviated consultation or within 60 days for expanded consultation. If NMFS
determines that the action would not adversely affect EFH or that no EFH Conservation
Recommendations are needed, NMFS notifies the NRC informally or in writing, and such
notification concludes consultation.
If NMFS provides the NRC with EFH Conservation Recommendations, the NRC must
prepare a detailed written response within 30 days of receiving the recommendations. This
30-day time frame applies to both abbreviated and expanded consultation. In the response,
the NRC staff must include a description of measures proposed for avoiding, mitigating, or
offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. If the NRC’s response is inconsistent with any of
the NMFS’s EFH Conservation Recommendations, the response must be provided at least
10 days prior to the final agency decision and must explain the NRC’s reasons for not
following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements
with NMFS. The NRC’s response completes consultation.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-22
The process for programmatic consultation is similar. However, five outcomes are possible.
NMFS may:
1. Formulate programmatic EFH Conservation Recommendations that cover all individual
actions of the program.
2. Formulate programmatic recommendations that cover individual actions, but that require
individual consultations for some or all actions.
3. Determine that no programmatic recommendations can be developed and that all
individual actions will require individual consultation.
4. Determine that all individual actions qualify for a General Concurrence, as defined in the
MSA.
5. Determine that there are no adverse effects and that no recommendations are needed.
If NMFS provides the NRC with EFH Conservation Recommendations as part of a
programmatic consultation, the NRC must prepare a detailed written response within
30 days of receiving the recommendations. The NRC’s response completes consultation.
7. Document the conclusion of consultation.
Completion of the consultation is documented by the NRC’s response to NMFS’s EFH
Conservation Recommendations or, in cases where the action would not adversely affect
EFH, NMFS’s notification to NRC that no EFH Conservation Recommendations are needed.
The SME ensures that these documents are added to ADAMS as part of the consultation
record. The SME also documents the outcome of consultation in the NEPA document
associated with the proposed action. In cases where a final EIS or SEIS is issued prior to
the conclusion of consultation, the SME prepares input to the record of decision that
documents the outcome of the consultation. In cases where the final EA and FONSI are
issued prior to the conclusion of consultation, the NRC can consider issuing a
Federal Register notice that corrects or addends the EA and FONSI.
8. Perform supplemental consultation.
The EFH regulations specify two conditions under which Federal agencies must reinitiate
consultation. These conditions are (50 CFR 600.920(l))
•
if the Federal agency substantially revises its plans for an action in a manner that may
adversely affect EFH, or
•
if new information becomes available that affects the basis for NMFS EFH Conservation
Recommendations
Supplemental consultation is conducted in a similar manner as initial consultation. The
outcome of supplemental consultation is NMFS’s formulation of new or revised EFH
Conservation Recommendations. The NRC has the same regulatory responsibility to reply
to such recommendations within 30 days as during the initial consultation.
A-23
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A.3
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
A.3.1
Overview of the Act and Consultation Responsibilities
Congress enacted the NMSA in 1972 to protect areas of the marine environment that have
special national significance. The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to establish the
National Marine Sanctuary System and designate sanctuaries within that system. The Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) is charged with comprehensively managing this system,
which includes 15 sanctuaries and the Papahānaumokuākea and Rose Atoll marine national
monuments, encompassing more than 600,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes waters
from Washington State to the Florida Keys, and from Lake Huron to American Samoa. Within
these areas, sanctuary resources include any living or nonliving resource of a national marine
sanctuary that contributes to the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, educational,
cultural, archaeological, scientific, or aesthetic value of the sanctuary. As of 2023, five additional
sanctuaries are proposed for designation. Maps of designated and proposed sanctuaries are
available at: https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/about/maps.html.
In 1992, Congress amended the NMSA to require interagency coordination. Pursuant to
Section 304(d) of the NMSA, Federal agencies must consult with ONMS when their proposed
actions are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource. Private actions
with a Federal nexus, such as construction and operation of facilities that involve Federal
licensing or approval, are also subject to consultation. Therefore, the NRC’s issuance of initial or
subsequent renewed licenses may trigger consultation requirements. Consultation pursuant to
NMSA Section 304(d) is commonly referred to as “NMSA consultation.”
NOAA has not promulgated regulations concerning NMSA Section 304(d). In 2008, NOAA
issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register soliciting comments
on whether development of regulations implementing certain aspects of the NMSA
Section 304(d) consultation provisions is appropriate (73 FR 50259). NOAA later withdrew its
proposal in 2011. However, the ONMS has issued guidance for conducting NMSA consultation,
which the NRC relies upon, in Overview of Conducting Consultation Pursuant to Section 304(d)
of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NOAA 2009).
A.3.2
A.3.2.1
NMSA Consultation
NMSA Consultation
Unlike ESA Section 7 or EFH consultation, for which there are each several possible types of
consultation depending on the specific circumstances, the ONMS’s guidance prescribes only a
single process for consultation. NMSA consultation is required when a Federal agency
determines that an action “is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure” a sanctuary resource.
Federal actions subject to consultation may be inside or outside the boundary of a national
marine sanctuary.
NMSA consultation begins when a Federal agency submits a sanctuary resource statement to
the ONMS and requests to initiate consultation. If the ONMS determines that sanctuary
resources are not likely to be injured by the proposed action, the ONMS will so notify the action
agency and consultation is concluded. If the ONMS finds that the proposed action will be likely
to injure sanctuary resources, it will, in coordination with the Federal agency, develop
recommended reasonable and prudent alternatives to protect against injury. Upon receipt of the
recommended alternatives, the Federal agency must discuss the alternatives with the ONMS. If
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-24
the Federal agency fully incorporates the recommended alternatives into the proposed action,
no further consultation is necessary prior to conducting the action. If the Federal agency does
not follow the recommended alternatives, the agency must provide a written explanation to the
ONMS that describes the reasons for not following the alternatives.
If the Federal agency does not adopt the recommended alternatives and sanctuary resources
are subsequently injured because of the proposed action, Section 304(d)(4) of the NMSA
requires agencies to promptly prevent further damage and to restore or replace the sanctuary
resources in a manner approved by the ONMS.
A.3.2.2
No Consultation
NMSA consultation is not required when the Federal agency determines that an action “is not
likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure” a sanctuary resource.
A.3.3
NMSA Consultation Process
This section describes each step in determining whether NMSA consultation is necessary and
within the consultation process itself. Figure A-3 illustrates the NMSA pre-consultation and
consultation process.
1. Determine the affected area.
The first step in the consultation process is to determine the area that would be affected by
the proposed action. This step is like determining the ESA action area (see Section 4.6.10.3,
Review Procedure Step 1). Unlike the ESA, however, the NMSA and ONMS’s guidance do
not specifically prescribe or define terminology for the affected area. For projects involving
an ESA analysis, EFH analysis, and/or NMSA analysis, the ESA action area, the EFH
affected area, and/or the NMSA affected area are likely similar; each should account for all
areas over which direct or indirect impacts to ecological receptors could occur. Primary
differences could be that an ESA action area may involve large areas of land that do not
apply to the NMSA affected area. The EFH affected area could include freshwater bodies or
non-marine aquatic habitats or features that do not apply to the NMSA affected area.
Notably, although most national marine sanctuaries are marine, two are within the Great
Lakes (Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary in Lake Huron and Wisconsin Shipwreck
Coast National Marine Sanctuary in Lake Michigan), and one is currently proposed within
Lake Ontario as of 2023.
The affected area determination should be made by a qualified SME because subsequent
steps in the consultation, as well as the effects analyses, are predicated on defining a
complete and accurate affected area. The SME should be able to describe the extent of the
affected area in writing and pictorially on a map.
A-25
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Figure A-3 National Marine Sanctuaries Act Consultation Process Flowchart
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-26
2. Determine the sanctuary resources that may be present in the affected area.
Once the affected area is established, the SME determines what national marine sanctuary
(or sanctuaries) are present in that area and what sanctuary resources are relevant to the
review. The term “sanctuary resource” is very broad and includes virtually every living and
nonliving component of the sanctuary ecosystem.3 Table A-5 includes examples of types of
sanctuary resources. The complete regulatory definition of this term can be found at 15 CFR
922.3.
Table A-5
Types of Sanctuary Resources
Types of Sanctuary Resources
substratum of the area of the sanctuary
submerged features(a) and the surrounding seabed
carbonate rock, corals, and other bottom formations
coralline algae and other marine plants and algae
marine invertebrates
brine-seep biota
phytoplankton and zooplankton
fish
seabirds
sea turtles and other marine reptiles
marine mammals
historic resources(b)
(a) Submerged features may include man-made features, such as artificial coral reef structures and shipwrecks.
(b) Because sanctuary resources include historic resources, this review necessitates coordination with the historic
and cultural resource review to determine whether any historic resources are present that would be relevant to
the NMSA consultation. In such cases, multiple NRC staff may be involved in discussions with the ONMS.
To determine what sanctuaries occur in the affected area, the SME should refer to the
ONMS website, which contains maps, descriptions, and other information on the National
Marine Sanctuary System (available at: https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/). For each sanctuary,
the ONMS maintains a sanctuary management plan that describes in detail the sanctuary
and its living and non-living marine resources. Although it is not required, it is a best practice
to reach out to the local ONMS office to discuss the proposed action and the sanctuary
resources that may be of particular concern.
If a national marine sanctuary is present in the affected area, the SME should proceed to the
next step (determining potential effects) to determine whether consultation is required. If no
national marine sanctuary is present, consultation is not required. For coastal projects and
those near Great Lakes, the SME should document this determination in the NEPA
document associated with the proposed action (e.g., EIS, SEIS, or EA) or in a memo to file.
For inland projects and other situations where a national marine sanctuary would not be
affected by the proposed action, no specific documentation is necessary.
3. Engage with ONMS.
If the NRC has not yet engaged directly with the ONMS during the previous step(s), the
SME should reach out to the local ONMS office to establish points of contact and to
orient ONMS staff to the proposed action. This also helps the ONMS plan and designate
staff resources for the consultation. This step is also an opportunity for the SME to
gather more information on the sanctuary resources that may be affected. ONMS staff
may be able to point the SME to surveys, studies, and other available data or connect the
SME with local researchers and experts. The SME should document any
3
Thunder Bay and Hawaiian Island Humpback Whale national marine sanctuaries have a more limited
definition of sanctuary resources. See 15 CFR 922.3 and 15 CFR 922.182, respectively.
A-27
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
substantive discussions with the ONMS, researchers, or other experts in meeting
summaries and should add any related correspondence to ADAMS.
4. Determine and document potential effects on sanctuary resources.
The next step in the consultation process is to determine the potential effects of the
proposed action on sanctuary resources. The SME typically performs this analysis
concurrently with the NEPA review. The SME should rely on the application; available
ecological surveys, monitoring, and studies; views of recognized species experts; scientific
literature; and other relevant information to perform the NMSA analysis. Based on the
analysis, the SME makes an effect determination concerning sanctuary resources as
identified below in Table A-6.
Table A-6
Possible National Marine Sanctuaries Act Effect Determinations Made by the
Federal Action Agency
National Marine Sanctuaries Act Effect Determinations
“may affect and is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure”
“may affect but is not likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure”
“no effect”
The SME documents the NMSA analysis and effect determination(s) in a sanctuary resource
statement or directly within the NEPA document. Sanctuary resource statements are
required for any proposed action that is likely to injure a sanctuary resource. The level of
detail in a sanctuary resource statement should be commensurate with the complexity and
magnitude of the potential adverse effects of the action. Sanctuary resource statements may
include the following, for example (NOAA 2009):
•
purpose or objectives of the proposed action
•
location of the action and any alternative locations
•
methods and means for carrying out the action and any alternative methods available
•
equipment proposed to be used and any alternative equipment
•
documentation that supports the determination of the likelihood of the action causing
injury to sanctuary resources
•
results of site surveys, studies, and inspections that evaluate the affected area of the
project
•
views of recognized experts on the sanctuary resources that may be affected
•
review of pertinent scientific literature and related information
•
analysis of alternate actions considered by the Federal agency
•
copies of any Federal, territory, State, local or Indian Tribe authorizations, permits,
licenses, or other forms of approval (or applications for authorizations, permits, or
licenses, if not yet granted) required for the project or a summary of such approvals that
have been sought
•
copies of pertinent reports, including, but not limited to, any EIS, EA, or biological
assessment prepared, and any other relevant information
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-28
The NRC may also opt to incorporate the sanctuary resource statement into the NEPA
document associated with the proposed action. In such cases, the NRC should clearly
identify the relevant section of the document as the sanctuary resource statement. The
SME, along with the project manager and NRC management, should carefully weigh the
benefits and risks of this option. Incorporating the sanctuary resource statement into the
NEPA document can delay the progression of consultation because the NRC must wait until
the NEPA document is issued to initiate consultation.
Notably, sanctuary resources can include historic resources in addition to ecological
resources. Thus, the ecology SME should coordinate with the historic and cultural resource
SME to determine whether any historic resources are present that would be relevant to the
NMSA consultation. In such cases, both NRC SMEs should be involved in discussions with
the ONMS. It may also be appropriate for the historic and cultural resource SME to prepare
input to the sanctuary resource statement concerning the potential effects of the proposed
action on the historic resources of the sanctuary.
The SME should also be aware as to whether the proposed action will require a special use
permit for activities otherwise prohibited in sanctuaries under 15 CFR Part 922. If a
proposed Federal action requires both NMSA consultation and a special use permit, the
ONMS will conduct both processes simultaneously, to the extent practicable. For example, a
dredging project conducted by a Federal agency within a national marine sanctuary may
require both a permit and trigger NMSA consultation. For most NRC agency actions where
this might apply, the licensee or applicant would be responsible for obtaining the special use
permit, and the NRC would be responsible for conducting NMSA consultation. The SME
should alert the ONMS of this unique situation early in the process so that the ONMS can
coordinate timelines for the two processes.
If the proposed action would result in “no effect,” consultation is not required, and the SME
documents the NMSA analysis directly in the NEPA document. The NEPA document should
clearly identify the NMSA analysis with appropriate headings and subheadings and include
the SME’s effect determination(s) for the sanctuary resources as identified in Table A-6.
5. Determine whether consultation is required.
The SME’s effect determination(s) dictate whether NMSA consultation is required.4
Consultation is required if the proposed action may affect and is likely to destroy, cause the
loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource of a national marine sanctuary. Consultation is not
required for “may affect but is not likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure” and “no
effect” findings. However, in cases where the SME makes a “not likely” finding, it is a best
practice to discuss this determination with the ONMS to confirm that consultation is not
required.
6. Initiate and engage in consultation.
When the sanctuary resource statement or NEPA document containing the
sanctuary resource statement is ready for issuance, the SME prepares a request to
4
For Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, the Oceans Act of 1992 prescribes a lower threshold
for consultation related to this sanctuary. In accordance with Section 2002(e) of this Act, consultation is
required if the proposed action may affect sanctuary resources of Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary.
A-29
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
initiate consultation with the ONMS. The NRC staff must submit the sanctuary resource
statement at least 45 days prior to the final agency decision.
Upon receipt of the NRC’s request, the ONMS performs a completeness evaluation to
determine whether the sanctuary resource statement contains sufficient information to
evaluate the proposed action’s likelihood of injury and to develop any necessary reasonable
prudent alternatives to protect sanctuary resources. The ONMS may request that the NRC
submit additional information to support its review of the proposed action in a process like
the NRC’s RAI process.
Once the ONMS determines that the sanctuary resource statement is complete, consultation
begins, including the ONMS’s 45-day period to recommend alternatives. During
consultation, the NRC and the ONMS exchange information and engage in discussions
concerning the potential effects of the proposed action. The agencies may work together to
develop recommended alternatives to protect against injury to sanctuary resources.
Although the ONMS’s guidance does not specifically describe the role of Federal applicants
or licensees, in practice, the NRC usually requests to involve the applicant or licensee to the
extent possible, and the ONMS is typically amenable to this request. It is also a best
practice to engage the applicant or licensee when responding to any inquiries from the
ONMS to ensure that the NRC’s responses are accurate and complete.
If the proposed action may injure sanctuary resources, the ONMS formulates recommended
reasonable and prudent alternatives. In the context of NMSA Section 304(d), these
alternatives can best be understood as those actions necessary to protect sanctuary
resources. Alternatives generally focus on the location, timing, and methods of the proposed
action. For example, the ONMS may recommend that the proposed action be conducted
•
at an alternate location, including a location outside the sanctuary(ies)
•
during a different season or that it be delayed for a specified period of time
•
with alternative equipment or procedures
•
with some combination of these recommendations
If the ONMS provides the NRC with recommended alternatives, the NRC must discuss the
recommendations with the ONMS. If the NRC (or licensee or applicant) plans to fully
implement the recommended alternatives and fully incorporate them into the proposed
action, the NRC need not take any further action beyond this discussion. If the NRC (or
licensee or applicant) does not follow the recommended alternatives, the NRC must prepare
a written response that describes the reasons for not implementing the alternatives. The
NRC's response completes consultation.
7. Document the conclusion of the consultation.
Completion of the consultation is documented by the NRC’s response to the ONMS’s
recommended alternatives or, where the NRC (or licensee or applicant) adopts the
alternatives, documentation of the NRC’s discussion with the ONMS regarding how such
alternatives will be incorporated into the proposed action. The SME ensures that these
documents are added to ADAMS as part of the consultation record. The SME also
documents the outcome of consultation in the NEPA document associated with the
proposed action. In cases where a final EIS or SEIS is issued prior to the conclusion of
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-30
consultation, the SME prepares input to the record of decision documenting the outcome of
the consultation. In cases where the final EA and FONSI are issued prior to the conclusion
of consultation, the NRC can consider issuing a Federal Register notice that corrects or
addends the EA and FONSI.
8. Conduct post-consultation activities.
Section 304(d)(4) of the NMSA requires Federal agencies that do not adopt ONMS
recommendations to take certain steps if their action results in injury to sanctuary resources.
First, upon injury, the Federal agency must promptly develop and implement measures to
mitigate further damage. Once the injury to sanctuary resources has been stopped, the
NMSA requires Federal agencies to restore or replace the resources in a manner approved
by the ONMS. Restoration or replacement can take many forms depending on the type of
injury caused and the nature of the resource. In such cases, the Federal agency develops a
restoration plan for ONMS approval.
9. Conduct further consultation.
The ONMS’s guidance (NOAA 2009) directs Federal agencies to determine if a new NMSA
consultation is required in cases where the proposed action changes such that the nature or
likelihood of injury to sanctuary resources changes. The new consultation is conducted in a
similar manner as initial consultation. The outcome of new consultation is the ONMS’s
formulation of new or revised recommended reasonable and prudent alternatives. If not fully
adopted, the NRC has the same responsibility to reply to such recommendations as during
the initial consultation.
A.4
References
15 CFR Part 922. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade, Title
922, “National Marine Sanctuary Program Regulations.”
50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402,
“Interagency Cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended.”
50 CFR Part 600. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 600,
“Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions.”
73 FR 50259. August 26, 2008. “Conducting Consultations Pursuant to Section 304(d) of the
National Marine Sanctuaries Act.” Federal Register, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022. NEFO Endangered Species Act Project Review
and Consultation. New England Ecological Services Field Office, Concord, NH. Accessed
May 12, 2023, at https://www.fws.gov/office/new-england-ecological-services/endangeredspecies-project-review.
A-31
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
FWS and NMFS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service). 1998.
Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting Section 7
Consultation and Conference. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14171A801.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.
National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004a. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
Guidance. Version 1.1, Silver Spring, MD. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4187.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004b. Preparing Essential Fish Habitat
Assessments: A Guide for Federal Action Agencies. Version 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML14309A276.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2009. Overview of Conducting
Consultation Pursuant to Section 304(d) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. September
2009. Silver Spring, MD. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/pdfs/304d.pdf.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2020. “Habitat Areas of Particular
Concern within Essential Fish Habitat.” Washington, D.C. Accessed May 13, 2023, at
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/southeast/habitat-conservation/habitat-areas-particular-concernwithin-essential-fish-habitat.
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. 16 U.S.C. § 1801 Note. Public Law 104-297, October 11,
1996, 110 Stat. 3559.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
A-32
APPENDIX B
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT SECTION 106 REVIEW
AND CONSULTATION
As discussed in Section 3.7 of the LR GEIS, historic and cultural resources vary widely from site
to site; there is no generic way of determining their existence or significance. Thus, impacts
must be analyzed on a plant-specific basis, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is required to complete a National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 review
(54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) prior to issuing a renewed license.1 Issuing a renewed license
(initial license renewal [LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]) is a Federal undertaking2 that
requires compliance with the NHPA Section 106.
B.1
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider and evaluate the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP), Indian Tribes, the public, and additional consulting parties with a
demonstrated interest in the undertaking. Additional parties may participate as consulting
parties due to the nature of their legal or economic relation to the undertaking or affected
properties, or their concern with the undertaking's effects on historic properties (e.g., license
renewal applicants, certified local governments, local historical societies, and State-recognized
Tribes). For further information regarding potential consulting parties, see 36 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 800.2(c).
A historic property is a historic and cultural resource that has been determined to be historically
significant within the scope of the NHPA if it has been determined eligible for listing or is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. Per 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1), a historic property is any
prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for
inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by the Secretary of the
Interior. Subpart B of 36 CFR Part 800 prescribes four primary steps within Section 106
consultation:
•
Step 1: Initiate the Section 106 Process (36 CFR 800.3) – This step consists of establishing
the undertaking (initial LR or SLR), identifying consulting parties, and determining the scope
of potential effects from the undertaking by defining the direct and indirect area of potential
effects (APE).
1
The regulations at 36 CFR 800.1(c) allow the Federal agency to authorize nondestructive project
planning activities before completing compliance with Section 106, provided that such actions do not
restrict the subsequent consideration of alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the undertaking’s
adverse effects on historic properties.
2
As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(y), an undertaking “means a project, activity, or program funded in whole
or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on
behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a
Federal permit, license, or approval.” Licensees and license applicants initiate the Federal action by
submitting an application to the NRC. Therefore, there is no Federal undertaking until the NRC receives
an application requesting a licensing action.
B-1
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
•
Step 2: Identify Historic Properties (36 CFR 800.4) – Identify historic properties located
within the APE and determine if these will be affected by license renewal. This step consists
of determining the scope of the identification efforts, executing the identification, determining
the eligibility of the identified historic and cultural resources, and establishing if historic
properties will be affected and, if not, concluding with a finding of no historic properties
affected.
•
Step 3: Assess Adverse Effects (36 CFR 800.5) – Assess adverse effects of license renewal
on identified historic properties. If historic properties will be affected, this step consists of
evaluating whether historic properties will be adversely affected or not.
•
Step 4: Resolve Adverse Effects (36 CFR 800.6) – Resolve adverse effects by avoiding,
minimizing, or mitigating the effects. Mitigation activities are formalized in an NHPA
Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or a Programmatic Agreement (PA).
In addition to Section 106 of the NHPA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their
actions on the “affected human environment,” which includes “aesthetic, historic, and cultural
resources as these terms are commonly understood, including such resources as sacred sites”
(CEQ and ACHP 2013). For NEPA compliance, impacts on cultural resources that are not
eligible for or listed in the NRHP would also need to be considered (CEQ and ACHP 2013).
B.2
Coordination of NHPA Section 106 Review and Consultation with the
National Environmental Policy Act
The NHPA Section 106 regulations at 36 CFR 800.8(c), “Use of the NEPA process for
Section 106 purposes”, allow Federal agencies to conduct the Section 106 consultation through
the NEPA public involvement and review documentation process. This process requires that
during the preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement,
agencies must meet certain procedural requirements set out in 36 CFR § 800.8(c)(1), (2), (3),
and (4) and the four “standards,” set forth in 36 CFR § 800.8(c)(1)(i)-(iv) (CEQ and
ACHP 2013). Figure B-1 illustrates the process allowed by 36 CFR 800.8(c). Consultation
occurs throughout the key steps listed in the Figure B-1.
The supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) serves as the administrative record
and is the main vehicle for consultation when coordinating NHPA Section 106 through the
NEPA process because it contains all of the information necessary to complete the process and
it is sent to all consulting parties for their review and comment.
This appendix describes the steps in conducting the Section 106 process with NEPA for license
renewal applications.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
B-2
Figure B-1 Coordinating National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews
B.2.1
Step 1: Initiate the Section 106 Process
Establish the Undertaking. The NRC has determined that issuance of a renewed license
(initial LR or SLR) is a Federal undertaking that requires compliance with the NHPA
Section 106.
Determine scope of undertaking by defining the APE. For license renewal, the APE includes
lands within the nuclear power plant site boundary and the transmission lines up to the first
substation that may be directly (e.g., physically) affected by land-disturbing or other operational
activities associated with continued plant operations and maintenance and/or refurbishment
activities. The APE may extend beyond the nuclear plant site when these activities may
indirectly (e.g., visual and auditory) affect historic properties. This determination is made
irrespective of land ownership or control.
Identify Consulting Parties. Identify the appropriate SHPO or THPO, Indian Tribes, Native
Hawaiian organizations, local governments, preservation organizations, and individuals who
may be concerned with the possible effects of license renewal on historic properties in a manner
consistent with 36 CFR 800.3(f). In addition to these parties, additional consulting parties can
include certain individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in an undertaking
(e.g., license renewal applicants, State-recognized Tribes, and local historical societies). Tribal
liaisons in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards can support identifying Tribal
contact information and provide programmatic support when requested. Additional resources
that can be helpful in obtaining contact information include the following:
•
SHPO, State, and Tribal government officials
•
U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Leaders Directory
•
National Association of Tribal Preservation Officers
B-3
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
•
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Tribal Directory Assessment Tool
•
U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service Tribal Historic Preservation Officers online
databases
NHPA Section 106 consultation is the responsibility of the Federal agency and should be
conducted in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. While license applicants may have engaged
with the SHPO/THPO and Indian Tribes during the development of its environmental report, the
NRC is required to consult with the SHPO/THPO and Indian Tribes that attach religious and
cultural significance to historic properties that could be affected by the undertaking. Early
coordination with consulting parties is essential to the development of the plant-specific SEIS.
Once the NRC staff has identified the potential consulting parties, the staff initiates NHPA
Section 106 consultation by letter, notifying parties of the scope of the undertaking and inviting
them to participate in the Section 106 process and provide comments and input on historic
properties and other historic and cultural resources. Consultation letters should be sent to the
potential consulting parties in parallel with publication of notice of intent to prepare a SEIS and
conduct scoping in the Federal Register. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the consultation
letters should notify the ACHP, SHPOs/THPOs, and Indian Tribes that the NRC intends to
comply with NHPA Section 106 through the NEPA process. The following information should
also be provided in the consultation letters:
•
location of the undertaking
•
description of the undertaking
•
definition of the APE
•
how comments can be submitted
•
when the scoping period ends
•
details of scoping public meeting (if conducted)
•
any environmental review milestones (e.g., expected issuance of the draft SEIS)
•
an NRC Section 106 point of contact
•
relevant maps of the direct and indirect APE
B.2.2
Step 2: Identify Historic Properties
Identify and evaluate relevant historic properties within the APE. Review existing information
on historic properties within the APE. Use information provided by the applicant’s or licensee’s
environmental report, background research, records searches performed at SHPO’s/THPO’s
office, oral history interviews, ethnographic studies, information gathered through consultation,
field survey results, and site visits to identify historic properties. NHPA regulations require
Federal agencies to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify properties that the
undertaking may affect, and both listed NRHP properties and unlisted properties within the APE
may be relevant to Section 106 consultation.
In consultation with the SHPO/THPO and any Indian Tribe that attaches religious and cultural
significance to identified properties, the NRC should apply the NRHP criteria (36 CFR 60.4) to
properties identified within the APE that have not been previously evaluated for NRHP eligibility.
Indian Tribes possess special expertise in identifying historic properties of religious and cultural
significance to them and assessing their eligibility. If the NRC determines that any of the NRHP
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
B-4
criteria are met and the SHPO/THPO agrees, the property shall be considered eligible for the
NRHP for Section 106 purposes. If the NRC determines the criteria are not met and the
SHPO/THPO agrees, the resource shall be considered not eligible. For historic or cultural
resources that do not meet the criteria to be considered a historic property under the NHPA, the
NRC will assess whether there would or would not be any potential significant impacts on these
resources through the NEPA process.
B.2.3
Step 3: Assess Effects
Determine if adverse effects exist. Once eligibility determinations are complete, the NRC and
consulting parties work to determine whether the license renewal (initial LR or SLR) will have
adverse effects on the identified historic properties. An adverse effect occurs when an
undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that
qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the
property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association (36 CFR
800.5(a)(1)). Adverse effects may include physical destruction or damage to all or part of a
historic property as well as the introduction of visual or audible elements. For additional
examples of adverse effects see 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2). The NRC may propose a finding of no
adverse effect when the undertaking’s (license renewal) effects do not meet the criteria of
paragraph 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1).
No adverse effect. The NRC concludes no adverse effect on historic properties when no historic
properties have been identified in the APE or if historic properties are present, but there will be
no effect consistent with 36 CFR 800.16(i) (e.g., because effects will be avoided). This
determination should be documented in the draft SEIS in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11(e).
NRC staff should also identify and discuss the APE, historic properties and historic and cultural
resources within the APE, consulting parties, and summarize scoping comments received from
consulting parties. The draft SEIS should be provided to the SHPO/THPO, ACHP, Indian Tribes,
and other consulting parties for review when the draft SEIS is issued for public comment. The
draft SEIS is transmitted to all consulting parties with an accompanying cover letter that
summarizes the relevant NHPA Section 106 and NEPA findings.
Resolve comments on the draft SEIS. Based on comments received on the draft SEIS,
additional consultation may be needed. If the SHPO/THPO or any consulting party notifies the
NRC in writing that they disagree and object with the findings in the draft SEIS, proceed with
Step 4 below.
Other responses (e.g., concurrence with findings, comments for consideration, corrections) to
the NRC letters that accompany the draft SEIS are considered in the final SEIS. Based on
comments received on the draft EIS, the historic and cultural resources sections in the final
SEIS would be updated to include responses to consultation letters, SHPO concurrences with
determinations of eligibility and finding of effect, as well as address any additional concerns
raised by consulting parties. The final SEIS would be transmitted to consulting parties with a
cover letter that describes any changes made based on responses and points to those specific
sections of the final SEIS in which changes were made and to formal responses made in the
comment-response section of the final SEIS. The letter should clearly indicate that the NHPA
Section 106 consultation process is closed.
In accordance with 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)(i), if the SHPO/THPO agrees or does not respond by
the close of the 30-day review period, and no other consulting party objects, then the NHPA
Section 106 process is closed, and the NRC may proceed with the action.
B-5
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
Adverse effect. If the NRC determines that license renewal would have an adverse effect on
historic properties, the process discussed under Step 4 should be followed.
B.2.4
Step 4: Resolve Adverse Effects
If the NRC determines that there is an adverse effect to historic properties, the staff would
continue consultation with the SHPO/THPO and other consulting parties to assess measures to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties. Similarly, if a consulting party
disagrees with the NRC’s determination and notifies the NRC in writing that it disagrees with the
finding and specifies the reasons for the disagreement in the notification, the NRC shall
continue to work with the consulting parties to resolve the disagreement or request review by
the ACHP.
As part of the resolution process, the NRC and the consulting parties can develop measures to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects. Such measures are typically documented in an
MOA or a PA. The NRC may invite the ACHP to participate in resolving adverse effects when
(1) the NRC wants the ACHP’s participation, (2) a National Historic Landmark (a historic
property that has been recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as possessing national
significance) will be adversely affected, or (3) a PA will be prepared.
If the NRC enters into an MOA as part of resolving any adverse effects upon historic properties,
then the NRC should reference the MOA in the draft SEIS for public comment, if available. The
MOA or PA signatories typically include the NRC, the applicant, and SHPO(s). The NRC may
also invite other parties to sign or concur with the agreement, such as THPO(s), Indian Tribes,
and the ACHP, if it joined the consultation. The MOA or PA signatories have authority to
execute, amend, or terminate the agreement. Execution of an MOA or a PA completes the
Section 106 consultation and fulfills the NRC’s obligations under NHPA Section 106 for that
undertaking.
It should be noted that at any time during the consultation process, if the SHPO/THPO, Indian
Tribes, or other consulting party objects, the NRC will follow the required steps in 36 CFR
Part 800.4 concerning disagreement with identification of historic properties, assessment of
adverse effects, or resolution of adverse effects.
B.2.5
Record of Decision and Issuance of License
The NRC must provide written communication to Federally recognized Tribes who provided
input on the proposed license renewal, as soon as practical, after the NRC has issued the
record of decision. This written response should inform the Tribe of the NRC’s final decision,
describe how the NRC considered the Tribe’s input, and respond to the Tribe’s comments.
B.3
References
36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,
Part 60, “National Register of Historic Places.”
36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,
Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
B-6
CEQ and ACHP (Council on Environmental Quality and Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation). 2013. NEPA and NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14172A044.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.
B-7
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
NRC FORM 335
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(12-2010)
NRCMD 3.7
1. REPORT NUMBER
(Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev., and
Addendum Numbers, if any.)
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET
(See instructions on the reverse)
2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants
Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal
Final Report
5. AUTHOR(S)
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1,
Revision 2
Final Report
3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED
MONTH
YEAR
August
2024
4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER
6. TYPE OF REPORT
Technical
7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if
contractor, provide name and mailing address.)
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555-0001
9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above", if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U. S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, and mailing address.)
Same as 8 above.
10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)
This document provides guidance to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in implementing the provisions in Title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Functions,” when conducting environmental reviews of applications for the initial and subsequent
renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license(s). This standard review plan guides the staff in preparing a nuclear
power plant-specific supplemental environmental impact statement to NUREG-1437, Revision 2, Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. This document supplements NUREG-1555,
Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, which provides guidance for the
environmental reviews of construction permits, initial operating licenses, early site permits, and combined licenses for
new nuclear power plants.
12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
LR GEIS
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2
National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA
License Renewal
Initial LR
Subsequent License Renewal
SLR
13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
unlimited
14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
(This Page)
unclassified
(This Report)
unclassified
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
16. PRICE
NRC FORM 335 (12-2010)
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1
Revision 2
Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants
Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal
August 2024
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2, Final, August 2024 |
| Subject | Staff guidance, environmental review, nuclear power plants, continued operations, license renewal, initial license renewal, subs |
| Author | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material S |
| File Modified | 2024-06-14 |
| File Created | 2024-06-14 |