The Executive Director for Operations shall be responsible for overall review of NRC NEPA compliance, except for matters under the jurisdiction of a presiding officer, administrative judge, administrative law judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or the Commission acting as a collegial body. [77 FR 46600, Aug. 3, 2012]
Sec. Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51--Format for Presentation of
Material in Environmental Impact Statements 1. General2. Cover sheet3. Summary4. Purpose of and need for action5. Alternatives including the proposed action6. Affected environment7. Environmental consequences and mitigating actions8. List of preparers9. Appendices
1. General.
(a) The Commission will use a format for environmental impact statements which will encourage good analysis and clear presentation of the alternatives including the proposed action. The following standard format for environmental impact statements should be followed unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise:
(1) Cover sheet*
(2) Summary*
(3) Table of Contents
(4) Purpose of and Need for Action*
(5) Alternatives including the proposed action*
(6) Affected Environment*
(7) Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions*
(8) List of Preparers*
(9) List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement are Sent
(10) Substantive Comments Received and NRC Staff Responses
(11) Index
(12) Appendices (if any)*
If a different format is used, it shall include paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (8), (9), (10), and (11) of this section and shall include the substance of paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), and (12) of this section, in any appropriate format.
Additional guidance on the presentation of material under the format headings identified by an asterisk is set out in sections 2.-9. of this appendix.
(b) The techniques of tiering and incorporation by reference described respectively in 40 CFR 1502.20 and 1508.28 and 40 CFR 1502.21 \1\ of CEQ's NEPA regulations may be used as appropriate to aid in the presentation of issues, eliminate repetition or reduce the size of an environmental impact statement. In appropriate circumstances, draft or final environmental impact statements prepared by other Federal agencies may be adopted in whole or in part in accordance with the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 1506.3 \2\ of CEQ's NEPA regulations. In final environmental impact statements, material under the following format headings will normally be presented in less than 150 pages: Purpose of and Need for Action, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, Affected Environment, and Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions. For proposals of unusual scope or complexity, the material presented under these format headings may extend to 300 pages.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Tiering--40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28; Incorporation by reference--40 CFR 1502.21.
\2\ Adoption--40 CFR 1506.3.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Cover sheet.
The cover sheet will not exceed one page. It will include:
(a) The name of the NRC office responsible for preparing the statement and a list of any cooperating agencies.
(b) The title of the proposed action that is the subject of the statement with a list of the states, counties or municipalities where the facility or other subject of the action is located, as appropriate.
(c) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual in NRC who can supply further information.
(d) A designation of the statement as a draft or final statement, or a draft or final supplement.
(e) A one paragraph abstract of the statement.
(f) For draft environmental impact statements, the date by which comments must be received. This date may be specified in the form of the following or a substantially similar statement:
``Comments should be filed no later than \3\ days after the date on which the Environmental Protection Agency notice stating that the draft environmental impact statement has been filed with EPA is published in the Federal Register. Comments received after the expiration of the comment period will be considered if it is practical to do so but assurance of consideration of late comments cannot be given.''---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The number of days in the comment period should be inserted. The minimum comment period is 45 days (see Sec. 51.73.)---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Summary.
Each environmental impact statement will contain a summary which adequately and accurately summarizes the statement. The summary will stress the major issues considered. The summary will discuss the areas of controversy, will identify any remaining issues to be resolved, and will present the major conclusions and recommendations. The summary will normally not exceed 15 pages.
4. Purpose of and need for action.
The statement will briefly describe and specify the need for the proposed action. The alternative of no action will be discussed. In the case of nuclear power plant construction or siting, consideration will be given to the potential impact of conservation measures in determining the demand for power and consequent need for additional generating capacity.
5. Alternatives including the proposed action.
This section is the heart of the environmental impact statement. It will present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form. Where important to the comparative evaluation of alternatives, appropriate mitigating measures of the alternatives will be discussed. All reasonable alternatives will be identified. The range of alternatives discussed will encompass those proposed to be considered by the ultimate decisionmaker. An otherwise reasonable alternative will not be excluded from discussion solely on the ground that it is not within the jurisdiction of the NRC. \4\ The discussion of alternatives will take into accounts, without duplicating, the environmental information and analyses included in sections, 4., 6. and 7. of this appendix.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ With respect to limitations on NRC's NEPA authority and responsibility imposed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, see Sec. Sec. 51.10(c), 51.22(c)(17) and 51.71(d).---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the draft environmental impact statement, this section will either include a preliminary recommendation on the action to be taken, or identify the alternatives under consideration.
In the final environmental impact statement, this section will include a final recommendation on the action to be taken.
6. 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.
7. Environmental consequences and mitigating actions.
This section discusses 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.
The discussion will include any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the alternative be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the alternative should it be implemented. This section will include discussions of:
(a) Direct effects and their significance.
(b) Indirect effects and their significance.
(c) Possible conflicts between the alternative and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned.
(d) Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.
8. List of preparers.
The environmental impact statement will list the names and qualifications (expertise, experience, professional disciplines), of the persons who were primarily responsible for preparing the environmental impact statement or significant background papers. Persons responsible for making an independent evaluation of information submitted by the applicant or petitioner for rulemaking or others will be included in the list. Where possible, the persons who are responsible for a particular analysis, including analyses in background papers, will be identified.
9. Appendices.
An appendix to an environmental impact statement will:
(a) Consist of material prepared in connection with an environmental impact statement (as distinct from material which is not so prepared and which is incorporated by reference (40 CFR 1502.21)).
(b) Normally consist of material which substantiates any analysis fundamental to the impact statement. Discussion of methodology used may be placed in an appendix.
(c) Normally be analytic.
(d) Be relevant to the decision to be made.
(e) Be circulated with the environmental impact statement or be readily available on request.
Discussion of Footnotes
1. Tiering.
40 CFR 1502.20 states:
``Agencies are encouraged to tier their environmental impact statements to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review (Sec. 1508.28). Whenever a broad environmental impact statement has been prepared (such as a program or policy statement) and a subsequent statement or environmental assessment is then prepared on an action included within the entire program or policy (such as a site specific action) the subsequent statement or environmental assessment need only summarize the issues discussed in the broader statement and incorporate discussions from the broader statement by reference and shall concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent action. The subsequent document shall state where the earlier document is available. Tiering may also be appropriate for different stages of actions. (Sec. 1508.28).''
40 CFR 1508.28 states:
`` `Tiering' refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements (such as national program or policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as regional or basinwide program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of statements or analyses is:
``(a) From a program, plan, or policy environmental impact statement to a program, plan, or policy statement or analysis of lesser scope or to a site-specific statement or analysis.
``(b) From an environmental impact statement on a specific action at an early stage (such as need and site selection) to a supplement (which is preferred) or a subsequent statement or analysis at a later stage (such as environmental mitigation). Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the lead agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe.''
Incorporation by reference. 40 CFR 1502.21 states:
``Agencies shall incorporate material into an environmental impact statement by reference when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action. The incorporated material shall be cited in the statement and its content briefly described. No material may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed for comment. Material based on proprietary data which is itself not available for review and comment shall not be incorporated by reference.''
2. Adoption.
40 CFR 1506.3 states:
``(a) An agency may adopt a Federal draft or final environmental impact statement or portion thereof provided that the statement or portion thereof meets the standards for an adequate statement under these regulations.
``(b) If the actions covered by the original environmental impact statement and the proposed action are substantially the same, the agency adopting another agency's statement is not required to recirculate it except as a final statement. Otherwise the adopting agency shall treat the statement as a draft and recirculate it (except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section).
``(c) A cooperating agency may adopt without recirculating the environmental impact statement of a lead agency when, after an independent review of the statement, the cooperating agency concludes that its comments and suggestions have been satisfied.
``(d) When an agency adopts a statement which is not final within the agency that prepared it, or when the action it assesses is the subject of a referral under part 1504, or when the statement's adequacy is the subject of a judicial action which is not final, the agency shall so specify.'' [49 FR 9381, Mar. 12, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 28490, June 5, 1996; 61 FR 66546, Dec. 18, 1996]
Sec. Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51--Environmental Effect of
Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant
The Commission has assessed the environmental impacts associated with granting a renewed operating license for a nuclear power plant to a licensee who holds either an operating license or construction permit as of June 30, 1995. Table B-1 summarizes the Commission's findings on the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts of renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant as required by section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Table B-1, subject to an evaluation of those issues identified in Category 2 as requiring further analysis and possible significant new information, represents the analysis of the environmental impacts associated with renewal of any operating license and is to be used in accordance with Sec. 51.95(c). On a 10-year cycle, the Commission intends to review the material in this appendix and update it if necessary. A scoping notice must be published in the Federal Register indicating the results of the NRC's review and inviting public comments and proposals for other areas that should be updated.
Table B-1--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants \1\----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category
Issue \2\ Finding \3\----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Onsite land use............................ 1 SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal would be a small fraction of the nuclear
power plant site and would involve only land that is
controlled by the licensee.Offsite land use........................... 1 SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected by
continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal.Offsite land use in transmission line right- 1 SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs from continued
of-ways (ROWs) \4\. 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 (all plants)........... 1 SMALL. Air quality impacts from continued operations
and refurbishment associated with license renewal are
expected to be small at all plants. 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 refurbishment 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.
Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire
pumps and routine operations of boilers used for
space heating would not be a concern, even for plants
located in or adjacent to nonattainment areas.
Impacts from cooling tower particulate emissions even
under the worst-case situations have been small.Air quality effects of transmission lines 1 SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is
\4\. insignificant and does not contribute measurably to
ambient levels of these gases.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noise----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Noise impacts.............................. 1 SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory
guidelines for offsite receptors during continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geologic Environment----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Geology and soils.......................... 1 SMALL. The effect of geologic and soil conditions on
plant operations and the impact of continued
operations and refurbishment activities on geology
and soils would be small for all nuclear power plants
and would not change appreciably during the license
renewal term.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Water Resources----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Surface water use and quality (non-cooling 1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be small if best
system impacts). management practices are employed to control soil
erosion and spills. Surface water use associated with
continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal would not increase significantly
or would be reduced if refurbishment occurs during a
plant outage.Altered current patterns at intake and 1 SMALL. Altered current patterns would be limited to
discharge structures. the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge
structures. These impacts have been small at
operating nuclear power plants.Altered salinity gradients................. 1 SMALL. Effects on salinity gradients would be limited
to the area in the vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures. These impacts have been small
at operating nuclear power plants.Altered thermal stratification of lakes.... 1 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.Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 1 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.
Discharge of metals in cooling system 1 SMALL. Discharges of metals have not been found to be
effluent. a problem at operating nuclear power plants with
cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have
been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants.
Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit process.Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, and 1 SMALL. The effects of these discharges are regulated
minor chemical spills. by Federal and State environmental agencies.
Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of
the NPDES permit process. These impacts have been
small at operating nuclear power plants.Surface water use conflicts (plants with 1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a
once-through cooling systems). problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-
through heat dissipation systems.Surface water use conflicts (plants with 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts could be of small or
cooling ponds or cooling towers using moderate significance, depending on makeup water
makeup water from a river). requirements, water availability, and competing water
demands.Effects of dredging on surface water 1 SMALL. Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the
quality. vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to
maintain barge shipping has not been found to be a
problem for surface water quality. Dredging is
performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and possibly, from other State or local
agencies.Temperature effects on sediment transport 1 SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a
capacity. problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not
expected to be a problem.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Groundwater Resources----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Groundwater contamination and use (non- 1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from
cooling system impacts). 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 Environmental Protection Agency
regulated cleanup and monitoring programs. The
application of best management practices for handling
any materials produced or used during these
activities would reduce impacts.Groundwater use conflicts (plants that 1 SMALL. Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not
withdraw less than 100 gallons per minute expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts.
[gpm]).Groundwater use conflicts (plants that 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Plants that withdraw more
withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute than 100 gpm could cause groundwater use conflicts
[gpm]). with nearby groundwater users.Groundwater use conflicts (plants with 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Water use conflicts could
closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-
makeup water from a river). flow conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge.
The significance of impacts would depend on makeup
water requirements, water availability, and competing
water demands.Groundwater quality degradation resulting 1 SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear
from water withdrawals. power plants would not contribute significantly to
groundwater quality degradation.Groundwater quality degradation (plants 1 SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could
with cooling ponds in salt marshes). degrade groundwater quality. However, groundwater in
salt marshes is naturally brackish and thus, not
potable. Consequently, the human use of such
groundwater is limited to industrial purposes.Groundwater quality degradation (plants 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Inland sites with closed-
with cooling ponds at inland sites). cycle cooling ponds could degrade groundwater
quality. The significance of the impact would depend
on cooling pond water quality, site hydrogeologic
conditions (including the interaction of surface
water and groundwater), and the location, depth, and
pump rate of water wells.Radionuclides released to groundwater...... 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----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Effects on terrestrial resources (non- 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Impacts resulting from
cooling system impacts). continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal may affect terrestrial
communities. Application of best management practices
would reduce the potential for impacts. The magnitude
of impacts would depend on the nature of the
activity, the status of the resources that could be
affected, and the effectiveness of mitigation.
Exposure of terrestrial organisms to 1 SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms from continued
radionuclides. operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal are expected to be well below exposure
guidelines developed to protect these organisms.Cooling system impacts on terrestrial 1 SMALL. No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or
resources (plants with once-through animals have been reported as a result of increased
cooling systems or cooling ponds). water temperatures, fogging, humidity, or reduced
habitat quality. Due to the low concentrations of
contaminants in cooling system effluents, uptake and
accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of
wildlife exposed to the contaminated water or aquatic
food sources are not expected to be significant
issues.Cooling tower impacts on vegetation (plants 1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or
with cooling towers). increased humidity associated with cooling tower
operation have the potential to affect adjacent
vegetation, but these impacts have been small at
operating nuclear power plants and are not expected
to change over the license renewal term.Bird collisions with plant structures and 1 SMALL. Bird collisions with cooling towers and other
transmission lines \4\. plant structures and transmission lines occur at
rates that are unlikely to affect local or migratory
populations and the rates are not expected to change.Water use conflicts with terrestrial 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on terrestrial resources in
resources (plants with cooling ponds or riparian communities affected by water use conflicts
cooling towers using makeup water from a could be of moderate significance.
river).Transmission line right-of-way (ROW) 1 SMALL. Continued ROW management during the license
management impacts on terrestrial renewal term is expected to keep terrestrial
resources \4\. communities in their current condition. Application
of best management practices would reduce the
potential for impacts.Electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna 1 SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic
(plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have been
wildlife, livestock) \4\. identified. Such effects are not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic Resources----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Impingement and entrainment of aquatic 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impacts of impingement
organisms (plants with once-through and entrainment are small at many plants but may be
cooling systems or cooling ponds). moderate or even large at a few plants with once-
through and cooling-pond cooling systems, depending
on cooling system withdrawal rates and volumes and
the aquatic resources at the site.Impingement and entrainment of aquatic 1 SMALL. Impingement and entrainment rates are lower at
organisms (plants with cooling towers). plants that use closed-cycle cooling with cooling
towers because the rates and volumes of water
withdrawal needed for makeup are minimized.Entrainment of phytoplankton and 1 SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton
zooplankton (all plants). has not been found to be a problem at operating
nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a
problem during the license renewal term.Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Most of the effects
(plants with once-through cooling systems associated with thermal discharges are localized and
or cooling ponds). are not expected to affect overall stability of
populations or resources. The magnitude of impacts,
however, would depend on site-specific thermal plume
characteristics and the nature of aquatic resources
in the area.Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms 1 SMALL. Thermal effects associated with plants that use
(plants with cooling towers). cooling towers are expected to be small because of
the reduced amount of heated discharge.Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all 1 SMALL. Continued operations during the license renewal
plants). term are expected to have small thermal impacts with
respect to the following:
Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at
operating nuclear plants with once-through cooling
systems, has not endangered fish populations or been
found to be a problem at operating nuclear power
plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds, and is
not expected to be a problem.
Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants and are not expected
to be a problem.
Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is
not expected to affect the larger geographical
distribution of aquatic organisms.
Premature emergence has been found to be a localized
effect at some operating nuclear power plants but has
not been a problem and is not expected to be a
problem.
Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been
satisfactorily mitigated at the single nuclear power
plant with a once-through cooling system where
previously it was a problem. It has not been found to
be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with
cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected
to be a problem.
Effects of cooling water discharge on 1 SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small
dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and number of operating nuclear power plants with once-
eutrophication. through cooling systems but has been mitigated. Low
dissolved oxygen was a concern at one nuclear power
plant with a once-through cooling system but has been
mitigated. Eutrophication (nutrient loading) and
resulting effects on chemical and biological oxygen
demands have not been found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power plants.Effects of non-radiological contaminants on 1 SMALL. Best management practices and discharge
aquatic organisms. limitations of NPDES permits are expected to minimize
the potential for impacts to aquatic resources during
continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal. Accumulation of metal
contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear
power plants but has been satisfactorily mitigated by
replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with those of
another metal.Exposure of aquatic organisms to 1 SMALL. Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to be
radionuclides. well below exposure guidelines developed to protect
these aquatic organisms.Effects of dredging on aquatic organisms... 1 SMALL. Dredging at nuclear power plants is expected to
occur infrequently, would be of relatively short
duration, and would affect relatively small areas.
Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other State or
local agencies.Water use conflicts with aquatic resources 2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on aquatic resources in
(plants with cooling ponds or cooling stream communities affected by water use conflicts
towers using makeup water from a river). could be of moderate significance in some situations.Effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling 1 SMALL. Licensee application of appropriate mitigation
system impacts). measures is expected to result in no more than small
changes to aquatic communities from their current
condition.Impacts of transmission line right-of-way 1 SMALL. Licensee application of best management
(ROW) management on aquatic resources \4\. practices to ROW maintenance is expected to result in
no more than small impacts to aquatic resources.Losses from predation, parasitism, and 1 SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be
disease among organisms exposed to a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are
sublethal stresses. not expected to be a problem during the license
renewal term.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Status Species and Habitats----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Threatened, endangered, and protected 2 The magnitude of impacts on threatened, endangered,
species and essential fish habitat. and protected species, critical habitat, and
essential fish habitat would depend on the occurrence
of listed species and habitats and the effects of
power plant systems on them. Consultation with
appropriate agencies would be needed to determine
whether special status species or habitats are
present and whether they would be adversely affected
by continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic and Cultural Resources----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Historic and cultural resources \4\........ 2 Continued operations and refurbishment associated with
license renewal are expected to have no more than
small impacts on historic and cultural resources
located onsite and in the transmission line ROW
because most impacts could be mitigated by avoiding
those resources. The National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) requires the Federal agency to consult
with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
and appropriate Native American Tribes to determine
the potential effects on historic properties and
mitigation, if necessary.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socioeconomics----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Employment and income, recreation and 1 SMALL. Although most nuclear plants have large numbers
tourism. of employees with higher than average wages and
salaries, employment, income, recreation, and tourism
impacts from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected to be
small.Tax revenues............................... 1 SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local
jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments,
payments in lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on
energy production. The amount of tax revenue paid
during the license renewal term as a result of
continued operations and refurbishment associated
with license renewal is not expected to change.
Community services and education........... 1 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.Population and housing..................... 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal to
regional population and housing availability and
value would be small. With little or no change in
employment at the licensee's plant expected during
the license renewal term, population and housing
availability and values would not be affected by
continued power plant operations.Transportation............................. 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal to
traffic volumes would be small.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Radiation exposures to the public.......... 1 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.Radiation exposures to plant workers....... 1 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.Human health impact from chemicals......... 1 SMALL. Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting
from continued operations and refurbishment
associated with license renewal are expected to be
minimized by the licensee implementing good
industrial hygiene practices as required by permits
and Federal and State regulations. Chemical releases
to the environment and the potential for impacts to
the public are expected to be minimized by adherence
to discharge limitations of NPDES and other permits.Microbiological hazards to the public 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These organisms are not
(plants with cooling ponds or canals or expected to be a problem at most operating plants
cooling towers that discharge to a river). except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes,
or canals, or that discharge into rivers. Impacts
would depend on site-specific characteristics.Microbiological hazards to plant workers... 1 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.Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields N/A \5\ Uncertain impact. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not
(EMFs) \4 6\. uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects
with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents
that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and
ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects
cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real,
are subtle. Because the state of the science is
currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human
health impacts is possible.Physical occupational hazards.............. 1 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.Electric shock hazards \4\................. 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.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postulated Accidents----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Design-basis accidents..................... 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the
environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are
of small significance for all plants.Severe accidents........................... 2 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. However, alternatives to mitigate severe
accidents must be considered for all plants that have
not considered such alternatives.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Justice----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Minority and low-income populations........ 2 Impacts to minority and low-income populations and
subsistence consumption resulting from continued
operations and refurbishment associated with license
renewal will be addressed in plant-specific reviews.
See NRC Policy Statement on the Treatment of
Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and
Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040; August 24, 2004).----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Low-level waste storage and disposal....... 1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are
in place and the low public doses being achieved at
reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the
environment would remain small during the license
renewal term.Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel....... 1 During the license renewal term, SMALL. The expected
increase in the volume of spent nuclear fuel from an
additional 20 years of operation can be safely
accommodated onsite during the license renewal term
with small environmental impacts through dry or pool
storage at all plants.
........... For the period after the licensed life for reactor
operations, the impacts of onsite storage of spent
nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are
discussed in NUREG-2157 and as stated in Sec.
51.23(b), shall be deemed incorporated into this
issue.Offsite radiological impacts of spent 1 For the high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal
nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal. component of the fuel cycle, the EPA established a
dose limit of 0.15 mSv (15 millirem) per year for the
first 10,000 years and 1.0 mSv (100 millirem) per
year between 10,000 years and 1 million years for
offsite releases of radionuclides at the proposed
repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be
sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion,
for any plant, that the option of extended operation
under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated.
Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a
single level of significance for the impacts of spent
fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue is
considered Category 1.Mixed-waste storage and disposal........... 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.Nonradioactive waste storage and disposal.. 1 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.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Impacts----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cumulative impacts......................... 2 Cumulative impacts of continued operations and
refurbishment associated with license renewal must be
considered on a plant-specific basis. Impacts would
depend on regional resource characteristics, the
resource-specific impacts of license renewal, and the
cumulative significance of other factors affecting
the resource.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uranium Fuel Cycle----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Offsite radiological impacts--individual 1 SMALL. The impacts to the public from radiological
impacts from other than the disposal of exposures have been considered by the Commission in
spent fuel and high-level waste. Table S-3 of this part. Based on information in the
GEIS, impacts to individuals from radioactive gaseous
and liquid releases, including radon-222 and
technetium-99, would remain at or below the NRC's
regulatory limits.Offsite radiological impacts--collective 1 There are no regulatory limits applicable to
impacts from other than the disposal of collective doses to the general public from fuel-
spent fuel and high-level waste. cycle facilities. The practice of estimating health
effects on the basis of collective doses may not be
meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed
and operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits
and standards. The Commission concludes that the
collective impacts are acceptable.
The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be
sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion,
for any plant, that the option of extended operation
under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated.
Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a
single level of significance for the collective
impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this issue is
considered Category 1.Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel 1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts 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 operations and 1 SMALL. License renewal is expected to have a
decommissioning. negligible effect on the impacts of terminating
operations and decommissioning on all resources.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\1\ Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG-1437, Revision 1, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (June 2013).\2\ The numerical entries in this column are based on the following category definitions:Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown:(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or,
for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site
characteristic;(2) A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for
Offsite radiological impacts--collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level
waste); and(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been
determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to
warrant implementation.The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-specific review.Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown that
one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore additional plant-specific review is
required.\3\ The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. Unless the
significance level is identified as beneficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of ``small,'' may be
negligible. The definitions of significance follow:SMALL--For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither
destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing
radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in
the Commission's regulations are considered small as the term is used in this table.MODERATE--For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize,
important attributes of the resource.LARGE--For the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important
attributes of the resource.For issues where probability is a key consideration (i.e., accident consequences), probability was a factor in
determining significance.\4\ 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.\5\ NA (not applicable). The categorization and impact finding definitions do not apply to these issues.\6\ If, in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached
by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the
Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of their
license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit
information on this issue. [61 FR 66546, Dec. 18, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 59276, Nov. 3, 1997; 64 FR 48507, Sept. 3, 1999; 66 FR 39278, July 30, 2001; 78 FR 37317, June 20, 2013; 79 FR 56262, Sept. 19, 2014] Subpart B [Reserved]