Download:
pdf |
pdfNUREG-1437, Volume 3
Revision 2
Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants
Appendices
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: Reproduction.Resource@nrc.gov
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-1437, Volume 3
Revision 2
Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants
Appendices
Final Report
Manuscript Completed: August 2024
Date Published: August 2024
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
COVER SHEET
Responsible Agency: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards
Title: Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
(NUREG-1437) Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 2
For additional information or copies of this Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, contact:
Jennifer A. Davis, Senior Environmental Project Manager
Kevin T. Folk, Senior Environmental Project Manager
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Mail Stop T-4B72
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 3835 or 6944
Email: Jennifer.Davis@nrc.gov or Kevin.Folk@nrc.gov
ABSTRACT
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations allow for the renewal of commercial
nuclear power plant operating licenses. There are no specific limitations in the Atomic Energy
Act or the NRC’s regulations restricting the number of times a license may be renewed. To
support license renewal environmental reviews, the NRC published the first Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS) in 1996. Per
NRC regulations, a review and update of the LR GEIS is conducted every 10 years, if
necessary. The proposed action is the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses.
Since publication of the 1996 LR GEIS, 59 nuclear power plants (96 reactor units) have
undergone license renewal environmental reviews and have received renewed licenses (either
an initial license renewal [initial LR] or subsequent license renewal [SLR]), the results of which
were published as supplements to the LR GEIS. This revision evaluates the issues and findings
of the 2013 LR GEIS (Revision 1). Lessons learned and knowledge gained from initial LR and
SLR environmental reviews provide an important source of new information for this assessment.
In addition, new research, findings, public comments, changes in applicable laws and
regulations, and other information were considered in evaluating the environmental impacts
associated with license renewal. Additionally, this revision fully considers and evaluates the
environmental impacts of initial LR and one term of SLR.
The purpose of the LR GEIS is to identify and evaluate environmental issues for license renewal
and determine which could result in the same or similar impact at all nuclear power plants or a
specific subset of plants (i.e., generic issues) and which issues could result in different levels of
impact.
iii
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
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
(T6A10M), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or by email to
Infocollects.Resource@nrc.gov, and to the OMB reviewer at: OMB Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (3150-0021). Attn: Desk Officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503; email: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
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.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... xv
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE .................... xxi
SHORTENED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NAMES USED IN THIS REPORT ....... xxvii
CONVERSION TABLE .............................................................................................. xxix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... xxxi
ES.1
ES.2
ES.3
ES.4
ES.5
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...................................................... xxxiii
Development of the Revised Generic Environmental Impact Statement ........... xxxiv
Impact Definitions and Categories .....................................................................xxxv
Affected Environment ....................................................................................... xxxvi
Impacts from Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities
Associated with License Renewal (Initial or Subsequent) ................................. xxxvi
ES.6 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................. xxxvii
1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Purpose of the LR GEIS ......................................................................................1-2
Description of the Proposed Action ......................................................................1-3
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action .........................................................1-3
Alternatives to the Proposed Action .....................................................................1-4
Analytical Approach Used in the LR GEIS ...........................................................1-4
1.5.1
Objectives .............................................................................................1-4
1.5.2
Methodology .........................................................................................1-4
1.5.2.1
Defining Environmental Issues ...........................................1-5
1.5.2.2
Collecting Information .........................................................1-5
1.5.2.3
Impact Definitions and Categories ......................................1-5
Scope of the LR GEIS Revision ...........................................................................1-7
Decisions to Be Supported by the LR GEIS .........................................................1-9
1.7.1
Changes to Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Systems .............................1-10
1.7.2
Disposition of Spent Nuclear Fuel .......................................................1-10
1.7.3
Emergency Preparedness ...................................................................1-12
1.7.4
Safeguards and Security .....................................................................1-14
1.7.5
Need for Power ...................................................................................1-14
1.7.6
Seismicity, Flooding, and Other Natural Hazards ................................1-15
Implementation of the Rule (10 CFR Part 51) ....................................................1-15
v
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table of Contents
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................ 2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3
1.8.1
General Requirements ........................................................................1-15
1.8.2
Applicant’s Environmental Report .......................................................1-15
1.8.3
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ..................................1-16
1.8.4
Public Scoping and Public Comments .................................................1-16
1.8.5
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement .........................1-16
1.8.6
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement .........................1-17
1.8.7
Consultations ......................................................................................1-17
Public Scoping Comments on the LR GEIS Update ...........................................1-18
Public Comments on the Draft LR GEIS ............................................................1-19
Lessons Learned ...............................................................................................1-21
Organization of the LR GEIS .............................................................................1-22
Proposed Action ..................................................................................................2-2
2.1.1
Nuclear Plant Operations during the License Renewal Term.................2-2
2.1.2
Refurbishment and Other Activities Associated with License
Renewal ................................................................................................2-3
2.1.3
Termination of Nuclear Plant Operations and Decommissioning
after License Renewal ...........................................................................2-4
2.1.4
Impacts of the Proposed Action.............................................................2-4
No Action Alternative .........................................................................................2-16
Alternative Energy Sources ...............................................................................2-16
Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................2-17
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................. 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
Description of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities and Operations ..............................3-1
3.1.1
External Appearance and Settings ........................................................3-1
3.1.2
Nuclear Reactor Systems ......................................................................3-2
3.1.3
Cooling Water Systems .........................................................................3-9
3.1.4
Radioactive Waste Management Systems ..........................................3-14
3.1.4.1
Liquid Radioactive Waste .................................................3-14
3.1.4.2
Gaseous Radioactive Waste ............................................3-15
3.1.4.3
Solid Radioactive Waste ...................................................3-16
3.1.5
Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems .....................................3-17
3.1.6
Utility and Transportation Infrastructure ...............................................3-18
3.1.7
Power Transmission Systems .............................................................3-18
3.1.8
Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Maintenance .............................3-18
Land Use and Visual Resources ........................................................................3-19
3.2.1
Land Use.............................................................................................3-19
3.2.2
Visual Resources ................................................................................3-21
Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise ...................................................................3-21
3.3.1
Meteorology and Climatology ..............................................................3-21
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
vi
Table of Contents
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.3.2
Air Quality ...........................................................................................3-23
3.3.3
Noise...................................................................................................3-28
Geologic Environment .......................................................................................3-29
Water Resources ...............................................................................................3-33
3.5.1
Surface Water Resources ...................................................................3-35
3.5.1.1
Surface Water Use ...........................................................3-35
3.5.1.2
Surface Water Quality ......................................................3-38
3.5.1.3
Hydrologic Changes and Flooding ....................................3-41
3.5.2
Groundwater Resources .....................................................................3-42
3.5.2.1
Groundwater Use .............................................................3-42
3.5.2.2
Groundwater Quality.........................................................3-43
Ecological Resources ........................................................................................3-46
3.6.1
Terrestrial Resources ..........................................................................3-46
3.6.1.1
Upland Vegetation and Habitats .......................................3-46
3.6.1.2
Floodplain and Wetland Vegetation and Habitats .............3-47
3.6.1.3
Wildlife..............................................................................3-49
3.6.2
Aquatic Resources ..............................................................................3-50
3.6.2.1
Aquatic Habitats ...............................................................3-50
3.6.2.2
Aquatic Organisms ...........................................................3-52
3.6.2.3
Effects of Existing Nuclear Plant Operations on
Aquatic Resources ...........................................................3-53
3.6.3
Federally Protected Ecological Resources ..........................................3-55
3.6.3.1
Endangered Species Act ..................................................3-56
3.6.3.2
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act ..............................................................3-72
3.6.3.3
National Marine Sanctuaries Act.......................................3-77
Historic and Cultural Resources.........................................................................3-79
3.7.1
Scope of Review .................................................................................3-79
3.7.2
NEPA and NHPA ................................................................................3-80
3.7.3
Historic and Cultural Resources at Nuclear Power Plant Sites ............3-81
Socioeconomics ................................................................................................3-82
3.8.1
Power Plant Employment and Expenditures........................................3-82
3.8.2
Regional Economic Characteristics .....................................................3-83
3.8.2.1
Rural Economies ..............................................................3-84
3.8.2.2
Urban Economies .............................................................3-84
3.8.3
Demographic Characteristics ..............................................................3-84
3.8.4
Housing and Community Services ......................................................3-85
3.8.5
Tax Revenue.......................................................................................3-86
3.8.6
Local Transportation ...........................................................................3-87
Human Health....................................................................................................3-87
3.9.1
Radiological Exposure and Risk ..........................................................3-87
vii
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table of Contents
3.10
3.11
3.12
4
3.9.1.1
Regulatory Requirements .................................................3-87
3.9.1.2
Occupational Radiological Exposures ..............................3-90
3.9.1.3
Public Radiological Exposures .......................................3-111
3.9.1.4
Radiation Health Effects Studies ....................................3-119
3.9.2
Nonradiological Hazards ...................................................................3-120
3.9.2.1
Chemical Hazards ..........................................................3-121
3.9.2.2
Microbiological Hazards .................................................3-122
3.9.2.3
Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) .......................................3-125
3.9.2.4
Physical Hazards ............................................................3-126
Environmental Justice......................................................................................3-129
Waste Management and Pollution Prevention .................................................3-131
3.11.1 Radioactive Waste ............................................................................3-132
3.11.1.1
Low-Level Radioactive Waste ........................................3-132
3.11.1.2
Spent Nuclear Fuel .........................................................3-135
3.11.2 Hazardous Waste..............................................................................3-138
3.11.3 Mixed Waste .....................................................................................3-138
3.11.4 Nonhazardous Waste ........................................................................3-139
3.11.5 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization ....................................3-139
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ...........................................3-139
3.12.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..............................................................3-139
3.12.2 Observed Changes in Climate...........................................................3-144
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS .............. 4-1
4.1
4.2
4.3
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions ..........................................4-2
4.1.1
Introduction ...........................................................................................4-2
4.1.2
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ..........................4-2
4.1.3
Environmental Consequences of Continued Operations and
Refurbishment Activities During the License Renewal Term (Initial
or Subsequent) .....................................................................................4-3
4.1.4
Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...................4-4
4.1.5
Environmental Consequences of Alternative Energy Sources ...............4-4
4.1.6
Environmental Consequences of Terminating Nuclear Power Plant
Operations and Decommissioning .........................................................4-5
Land Use and Visual Resources ..........................................................................4-5
4.2.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued
Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...............................................4-5
4.2.1.1
Land Use ............................................................................4-5
4.2.1.2
Visual Resources ...............................................................4-7
Air Quality and Noise ...........................................................................................4-8
4.3.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued
Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...............................................4-8
4.3.1.1
Air Quality...........................................................................4-8
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
viii
Table of Contents
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.3.1.2
Noise ................................................................................4-13
Geologic Environment .......................................................................................4-14
4.4.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued
Operations and Refurbishment Activities .............................................4-14
4.4.1.1
Geology and Soils ............................................................4-14
Water Resources ...............................................................................................4-16
4.5.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued
Operations and Refurbishment Activities .............................................4-16
4.5.1.1
Surface Water Resources.................................................4-16
4.5.1.2
Groundwater Resources ...................................................4-27
Ecological Resources ........................................................................................4-44
4.6.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued
Operations and Refurbishment Activities .............................................4-44
4.6.1.1
Terrestrial Resources .......................................................4-45
4.6.1.2
Aquatic Resources ...........................................................4-64
4.6.1.3
Federally Protected Ecological Resources .....................4-102
Historic and Cultural Resources.......................................................................4-113
4.7.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued
Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...........................................4-113
Socioeconomics ..............................................................................................4-114
4.8.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued
Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...........................................4-114
4.8.1.1
Employment and Income, Recreation, and Tourism .......4-115
4.8.1.2
Tax Revenue ..................................................................4-116
4.8.1.3
Community Services and Education ...............................4-117
4.8.1.4
Population and Housing .................................................4-117
4.8.1.5
Transportation ................................................................4-118
Human Health..................................................................................................4-118
4.9.1
Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued
Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...........................................4-118
4.9.1.1
Environmental Consequences of Normal Operating
Conditions ......................................................................4-119
4.9.1.2
Environmental Consequences of Postulated
Accidents........................................................................4-129
Environmental Justice......................................................................................4-132
4.10.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued
Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...........................................4-132
4.10.1.1
Impacts on Minority Populations, Low-Income
Populations, and Indian Tribes .......................................4-133
Waste Management and Pollution Prevention .................................................4-134
4.11.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action – Continued
Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...........................................4-134
4.11.1.1
Low-Level Waste Storage and Disposal .........................4-135
ix
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table of Contents
4.11.1.2
4.11.1.3
4.12
4.13
4.14
4.15
5
Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ............................4-136
Offsite Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel
and High-Level Waste Disposal ......................................4-137
4.11.1.4
Mixed Waste Storage and Disposal ................................4-141
4.11.1.5
Nonradioactive Waste Storage and Disposal ..................4-142
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ...........................................4-142
4.12.1 Greenhouse Gas Impacts on Climate Change ..................................4-143
4.12.2 Climate Change Impacts on Environmental Resources .....................4-144
Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action ......................................................4-146
4.13.1 Air Quality .........................................................................................4-148
4.13.2 Surface Water Resources .................................................................4-148
4.13.3 Groundwater Resources ...................................................................4-148
4.13.4 Ecological Resources ........................................................................4-148
4.13.5 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................4-149
4.13.6 Socioeconomics ................................................................................4-149
4.13.7 Human Health ...................................................................................4-149
4.13.8 Environmental Justice .......................................................................4-150
4.13.9 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention ...................................4-150
Impacts Common to All Alternatives ................................................................4-150
4.14.1 Environmental Consequences of the Uranium Fuel Cycle .................4-150
4.14.1.1
Background on Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities.................4-151
4.14.1.2
Environmental Impacts ...................................................4-152
4.14.1.3
Consideration of Environmental Justice ..........................4-158
4.14.1.4
Transportation Impacts ...................................................4-158
4.14.1.5
Environmental Impact Issues of the Uranium Fuel
Cycle ..............................................................................4-161
4.14.2 Environmental Consequences of Terminating Operations and
Decommissioning ..............................................................................4-164
4.14.2.1
Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and
Decommissioning ...........................................................4-164
Resource Commitments Associated with the Proposed Action ........................4-171
4.15.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ...................................4-171
4.15.2 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and
Long-Term Productivity .....................................................................4-173
4.15.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ...................4-174
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 5-1
APPENDIX A – COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .... A-1
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
x
Table of Contents
APPENDIX B – COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND
FINDINGS IN THIS LR GEIS REVISION TO THE ISSUES AND
FINDINGS IN TABLE B-1 OF 10 CFR PART 51 (1996, 2013,
AND 2024 REVISIONS) ................................................................... B-1
APPENDIX C – GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SETTINGS OF OPERATING DOMESTIC NUCLEAR POWER
PLANTS ........................................................................................... C-1
APPENDIX D – ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
CONSIDERED IN THE LR GEIS...................................................... D-1
APPENDIX E – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS .......E-1
APPENDIX F – LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS ............... F-1
APPENDIX G – TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR LR GEIS ANALYSES ...................... G-1
APPENDIX H – LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................... H-1
APPENDIX I – DISTRIBUTION LIST ......................................................................... I-1
APPENDIX J – GLOSSARY ...................................................................................... J-1
xi
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1-1
Figure 3.1-2
Figure 3.1-3
Figure 3.1-4
Figure 3.3-1
Figure 3.4-1
Figure 3.4-2
Figure 3.6-1
Figure 3.9-1
Figure 3.9-2
Figure 3.9-3
Figure 3.11-1
Figure 3.11-2
Figure 3.12-1
Figure D.3-1
Figure D.3-2
Figure D.3-3
Figure D.3-4
Figure D.3-5
Figure D.3-6
Figure D.3-7
Figure D.3-8
Figure D.3-9
Figure D.3-10
Figure D.3-11
Figure D.3-12
Figure D.3-13
Figure E.3-1
Figure E.3-2
Figure E.3-3
Figure E.3-4
Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States ..............3-3
Pressurized Water Reactor .........................................................................3-8
Boiling Water Reactor .................................................................................3-9
Schematic Diagrams of Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Systems.................3-13
Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Nonattainment Areas Revoked 1-hour and 8-hour
Ozone are Excluded. .................................................................................3-25
Occurrence of Prime Farmland and Other Farmland of Importance,
with Nuclear Power Plant Locations Shown ..............................................3-31
2018 National Seismic Hazard Model Peak Horizontal Acceleration
with a 2 Percent Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years with Nuclear
Power Plant Locations Shown ...................................................................3-32
National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments .................3-77
Average, Median, and Extreme Values of the Collective Dose per
Boiling Water Reactor from 1994 through 2020 .........................................3-96
Average, Median, and Extreme Values of the Collective Dose per
Pressurized Water Reactor from 1994 through 2020 .................................3-97
Dose Distribution for All Commercial U.S. Reactors by Dose Range,
2016 through 2020 ..................................................................................3-110
Typical Dry Cask Storage Systems .........................................................3-136
Locations of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations Licensed
by the NRC .............................................................................................3-137
Locations of Operating Nuclear Power Plants Relative to National
Climate Assessment Geographic Regions ..............................................3-145
Schematic of a Natural Gas-Fired Plant ..................................................... D-4
Schematic of a Coal-Fired Power Plant ...................................................... D-5
Schematic of a Large Light Water Reactor. ................................................ D-7
Schematic of a Light Water Small Modular Nuclear Reactor ...................... D-8
Schematic of Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant ........................................... D-10
Schematic of Concentrated Solar Power Plant ......................................... D-11
Components of a Modern Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine .......................... D-12
Major Offshore Wind Power Plant and Transmission Elements ................ D-13
Cross Section of a Large Hydroelectric Plant ........................................... D-14
Schematic of a Biomass/Waste-to-Energy Plant ...................................... D-15
Schematic of a Hydrothermal Binary Power Plant .................................... D-16
Primary Types of Wave Energy Devices .................................................. D-17
Components of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell....................................................... D-18
Comparison of Recent and Past Estimates for Total Core Damage
Frequency ................................................................................................ E-25
Iodine Release to the Environment for SOARCA Unmitigated
Scenarios and the 1982 Siting Study SST1 Case..................................... E-41
Cesium Release to the Environment for SOARCA Unmitigated
Scenarios and the 1982 Siting Study SST1 Case..................................... E-41
Percentages of Cesium and Iodine Released to the Environment for
SOARCA Unmitigated Scenarios, the 1982 Siting Study SST1 Case,
and Historical Accidents ........................................................................... E-42
xiii
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
List of Figures
Figure E.3-5
Figure E.3-6
Figure E.3-7
Figure E.3-8
Figure G.3-1
Figure G.3-2
Figure G.3-3
Figure G.6-1
Comparison of Population-Weighted Average Individual Latent
Cancer Fatality Risk Results from NUREG-2161 to the NRC Safety
Goal ......................................................................................................... E-63
Uncertainty in Average Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk in the
2015 Containment Protection and Release Reduction Regulatory
Analysis ................................................................................................... E-71
Complementary Cumulative Distribution Functions of Conditional
Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk within Five Annular Areas
Centered on the Sequoyah Plant ............................................................. E-80
Complementary Cumulative Distribution Functions of Conditional
Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk within Five Annular Areas
Centered on the Surry Plant ..................................................................... E-80
Average Annual Maximum Temperatures across the Continental
United States ............................................................................................. G-7
Average Annual Minimum Temperatures across the Continental
United States ............................................................................................. G-8
Average Annual Precipitation across the Continental United States ........... G-9
Level I Ecoregions of the United States .................................................... G-15
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1-1
Table 2.4-1
Table 2.4-2
Table 2.4-3
Table 2.4-4
Table 2.4-5
Table 3.1-1
Table 3.1-2
Table 3.1-3
Table 3.1-4
Table 3.2-1
Table 3.3-1
Table 3.3-2
Table 3.5-1
Table 3.6-1
Table 3.6-2
Table 3.6-3
Table 3.6-4
Table 3.6-5
Table 3.6-6
Table 3.6-7
Table 3.8-1
Table 3.8-2
Table 3.9-1
Table 3.9-2
Table 3.9-3
Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues under the
Proposed Action ..........................................................................................2-5
Construction under the Proposed Action and Alternatives –
Assessment Basis and Nature of Impacts .................................................2-19
Operations under the Proposed Action and Alternatives – Assessment
Basis and Nature of Impacts .....................................................................2-20
Postulated Accidents under the Proposed Action and Alternatives –
Assessment Basis and Impact Magnitude .................................................2-21
Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning
under the Proposed Action and Alternatives – Assessment Basis and
Nature of Impacts ......................................................................................2-22
Fuel Cycle under the Proposed Action and Alternatives – Assessment
Basis and Nature of Impacts .....................................................................2-23
Characteristics of Operating U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants .........3-4
Cooling Water System Source – Coastal or Estuarine Environment ..........3-10
Cooling Water System Source – Great Lakes Environment ......................3-10
Cooling Water System Source – Freshwater Riverine or Impoundment
Environment ..............................................................................................3-10
Percent of Land Cover Types within a 5-Mile Radius of Nuclear Power
Plants ........................................................................................................3-21
Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale ...................................................................3-23
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Six Criteria Pollutants .............3-24
Comparison of Cooling Water System Attributes for Operating
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants ............................................................3-37
Factors That Influence the Impacts of Nuclear Power Plant Operation
on Aquatic Organisms ...............................................................................3-54
Critical Habitats Evaluated in License Renewal Reviews,
2013–Present............................................................................................3-57
National Marine Fisheries Service-Issued Biological Opinions for
Nuclear Power Plant Operation .................................................................3-59
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Issued Biological Opinions for Nuclear
Power Plant Operation ..............................................................................3-60
Endangered Species Act Listed Species Evaluated in License
Renewal Reviews, 2013–Present ..............................................................3-64
Essential Fish Habitat Evaluated in License Renewal Reviews,
2013–Present............................................................................................3-75
National Marine Sanctuaries Near Operating Nuclear Power Plants .........3-78
Local Employment and Tax Revenues at 15 Nuclear Plants from 2014
through 2020 .............................................................................................3-83
Population Classification of Regions around Selected Nuclear Power
Plants ........................................................................................................3-85
Occupational Dose Limits for Adults Established by 10 CFR Part 20 ........3-88
Design Objectives and Annual Standards on Doses to the General
Public from Nuclear Power Plants from Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 .............3-89
Design Objectives and Annual Standards on Doses to the General
Public from Nuclear Power Plants from 40 CFR 190, Subpart B ...............3-90
xv
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
List of Tables
Table 3.9-4
Table 3.9-5
Table 3.9-6
Table 3.9-7
Table 3.9-8
Table 3.9-9
Table 3.9-10
Table 3.9-11
Table 3.9-12
Table 3.9-13
Table 3.9-14
Table 3.9-15
Table 3.9-16
Table 3.9-17
Table 3.9-18
Table 3.9-19
Table 3.9-20
Table 3.9-21
Table 3.9-22
Table 3.9-23
Table 3.9-24
Occupational Whole-Body Dose Data at U.S. Commercial Nuclear
Power Plants .............................................................................................3-91
Annual Average Measurable Occupational Dose per Individual for
U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in rem .........................................3-92
Annual Average Collective Occupational Dose for U.S. Commercial
Nuclear Power Plants in Person-rem.........................................................3-93
Collective and Individual Worker Doses at Boiling Water Reactors
from 2018 through 2020 ............................................................................3-93
Collective and Individual Worker Doses at Pressurized Water
Reactors from 2018 through 2020 .............................................................3-94
Annual Collective Dose and Annual Occupational Dose for
Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants from 2006
through 2020 .............................................................................................3-98
Annual Collective Dose and Annual Occupational Dose for Boiling
Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants from 2006 through 2020 .................3-99
Annual Collective Dose for Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power
Plants from 2006 through 2020 ...............................................................3-101
Annual Collective Dose for Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power
Plants from 2006 through 2020 ...............................................................3-103
Annual Average Measurable Occupational Doses at Pressurized
Water Reactor Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Sites from 2006
through 2020 ...........................................................................................3-104
Annual Average Measurable Occupational Doses at Boiling Water
Reactor Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Sites from 2006
through 2020 ...........................................................................................3-106
Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Collective Occupational
Dose per Plant for Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants
in Person-rem .........................................................................................3-108
Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Collective Occupational
Dose per Plant for Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants in
Person-rem .............................................................................................3-108
Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Individual Occupational
Whole-Body Dose for Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear
Power Plants in rem ................................................................................3-108
Average, Maximum, and Minimum Annual Individual Occupational
Whole-Body Dose for Boiling Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants in
rem..........................................................................................................3-109
Number of Workers at Boiling Water Reactors and Pressurized Water
Reactors Who Received Whole-Body Doses within Specified Ranges
during 2020 .............................................................................................3-109
Collective and Average Committed Effective Dose Equivalent for
Commercial U.S. Nuclear Power Plant Sites in 2020 ..............................3-110
Doses from Gaseous Effluent Releases by Select Pressurized Water
Reactors from 2019 through 2021 ...........................................................3-114
Doses from Gaseous Effluent Releases by Select Boiling Water
Reactors from 2019 through 2021 ...........................................................3-115
Dose from Liquid Effluent Releases by Select Pressurized Water
Reactor Nuclear Power Plants for 2019 through 2021 .............................3-116
Dose from Liquid Effluent Releases from Select Boiling Water Reactor
Nuclear Power Plants for 2019 through 2021 ..........................................3-117
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xvi
List of Tables
Table 3.9-25
Table 3.9-26
Table 3.9-27
Table 3.9-28
Table 3.9-29
Table 3.11-1
Table 3.11-2
Table 3.12-1
Table 3.12-2
Table 4.6-1
Table 4.6-2
Table 4.6-3
Table 4.6-4
Table 4.6-5
Table 4.6-6
Table 4.6-7
Table 4.6-8
Table 4.6-9
Table 4.6-10
Table 4.6-11
Table 4.9-1
Table 4.14-1
Table 4.14-2
Table 4.14-3
Table A.2-1
Table A.2-2
Table B.1-1
Average Annual Effective Dose Equivalent of Ionizing Radiation to
a Member of the U.S. Population for 2016...............................................3-118
Nominal Probability Coefficients Used in ICRP .......................................3-119
Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries by Industry Sector
in 2021 ....................................................................................................3-127
Incidence Rate of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in
Different Utilities in 2021 .........................................................................3-127
Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries for Selected
Occupations in 2021 ...............................................................................3-128
Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shipped Offsite per Reactor from
Select Pressurized Water Reactor Power Plant Sites in 2021 .................3-134
Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shipped Offsite per Reactor from
Select Boiling Water Reactor Power Plant Sites in 2021 .........................3-134
Greenhouse Gas Emissions by State, 2021 ............................................3-140
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Operations at Nuclear
Power Plants ...........................................................................................3-143
Estimated Radiation Dose Rates to Terrestrial Ecological Receptors
from Radionuclides in Water, Sediment, and Soils at U.S. Nuclear
Power Plants .............................................................................................4-51
Estimated Annual Bird Collision Mortality in the United States ..................4-57
Commonly Impinged and Entrained Taxa at Nuclear Power Plants by
Ecosystem Type........................................................................................4-68
Results of NRC Impingement and Entrainment Analyses at Nuclear
Power Plants, 2013–Present .....................................................................4-72
Results of NRC Thermal Analyses at Nuclear Power Plants,
2013–Present............................................................................................4-77
Possible Endangered Species Act Effect Determinations ........................4-104
Appropriate Type of Consultation by Endangered Species Act Effect
Determination ..........................................................................................4-105
Possible Essential Fish Habitat Effect Determinations ............................4-109
Appropriate Type of Consultation by Type of Proposed Action and
Essential Fish Habitat Effect Determination.............................................4-109
Types of Sanctuary Resources ...............................................................4-111
Possible National Marine Sanctuaries Act Effect Determinations ............4-112
Additional Collective Occupational Dose for Different Actions under
Typical and Conservative Scenarios during the License Renewal
Term .......................................................................................................4-120
Table S-3 Taken from 10 CFR 51.51 on Uranium Fuel Cycle
Environmental Data.................................................................................4-155
Table S-4 Taken from 10 CFR 51.52 on the Environmental Impact of
Transporting Fuel and Waste to and from One Light Water-Cooled
Nuclear Power Reactor ...........................................................................4-159
Population Doses from Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities Normalized to
One Reference Reactor Year ..................................................................4-163
Individuals Providing Comments on the Proposed Rule Package .............. A-4
Commenter Categories .............................................................................. A-7
Comparison of Land Use-Related Environmental Issues and Findings
in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51 .......................................................................................... B-2
xvii
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
List of Tables
Table B.1-2
Table B.1-3
Table B.1-4
Table B.1-5
Table B.1-6
Table B.1-7
Table B.1-8
Table B.1-9
Table B.1-10
Table B.1-11
Table B.1-12
Table B.1-13
Table B.1-14
Table B.1-15
Table B.1-16
Table B.1-17
Table B.1-18
Comparison of Visual Resource-Related Environmental Issues and
Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51 .......................................................................................... B-4
Comparison of Air Quality-Related Environmental Issues and Findings
in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51 .......................................................................................... B-5
Comparison of Noise-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in
This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51 .......................................................................................... B-7
Comparison of Geologic Environment-Related Environmental Issues
and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51 ...................................................................................... B-8
Comparison of Surface Water Resources-Related Environmental
Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of
Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 ...................................................................... B-9
Comparison of Groundwater Resources-Related Environmental
Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of
Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 .................................................................... B-13
Comparison of Terrestrial Resources-Related Environmental Issues
and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51 .................................................................................... B-17
Comparison of Aquatic Resources-Related Environmental Issues and
Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51 ........................................................................................ B-23
Comparison of Federally Protected Ecological Resources-Related
Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior
Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 ................................................. B-34
Comparison of Historic and Cultural Resources-Related
Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior
Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 ................................................. B-37
Comparison of Socioeconomics-Related Environmental Issues and
Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51 ........................................................................................ B-38
Comparison of Human Health-Related Environmental Issues and
Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51 ........................................................................................ B-42
Comparison of Postulated Accidents-Related Environmental Issues
and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51 .................................................................................... B-47
Comparison of Environmental Justice-Related Environmental Issues
and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51 .................................................................................... B-48
Comparison of Waste Management-Related Environmental Issues
and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51 .................................................................................... B-49
Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate ChangeRelated Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision
to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 ..................................... B-55
Comparison of Cumulative Effects-Related Environmental Issues and
Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51 ........................................................................................ B-57
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xviii
List of Tables
Table B.1-19
Table B.1-20
Table D.3-1
Table D.4-1
Table D.4-2
Table D.4-3
Table E.3-1
Table E.3-2
Table E.3-3
Table E.3-4
Table E.3-5
Table E.3-6
Table E.3-7
Table E.3-8
Table E.3-9
Table E.3-10
Table E.3-11
Table E.3-12
Table E.3-13
Table E.3-14
Table E.3-15
Table E.3-16
Table E.3-17
Table E.3-18
Table E.3-19
Table E.3-20
Table E.3-21
Table E.3-22
Comparison of Uranium Fuel Cycle-Related Environmental Issues
and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1
of 10 CFR Part 51 .................................................................................... B-58
Comparison of Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and
Decommissioning-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This
LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51........ B-61
Net Generation at Utility-Scale Facilities .................................................... D-3
Emission Factors of Representative Fossil Fuel Plants ............................ D-24
Water Withdrawal and Consumptive Use Factors for Select Electric
Power Technologies ................................................................................. D-28
Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors for Representative Fossil Fuel
Plants ....................................................................................................... D-40
Comparison of 1996 LR GEIS-Predicted Risks to License Renewal
Estimated Risks ......................................................................................... E-9
Pressurized Water Reactor Internal Event Core Damage Frequency
Comparison.............................................................................................. E-18
Boiling Water Reactor Internal Event Core Damage Frequency
Comparison.............................................................................................. E-19
Pressurized Water Reactor Internal Event Population Dose Risk
Comparison.............................................................................................. E-20
Boiling Water Reactor Internal Event Population Dose Risk
Comparison.............................................................................................. E-21
Pressurized Water Reactor All Hazards Core Damage Frequency
Comparison.............................................................................................. E-24
Boiling Water Reactor All Hazards Core Damage Frequency
Comparison.............................................................................................. E-25
Pressurized Water Reactor All Hazards Population Dose Risk
Comparison.............................................................................................. E-27
Boiling Water Reactors All Hazards Population Dose Risk
Comparison.............................................................................................. E-28
Fire Core Damage Frequency Comparison .............................................. E-29
Seismic Core Damage Frequency Comparison ........................................ E-33
Pressurized Water Reactor and Boiling Water Reactor All Hazards
Core Damage Frequency Comparison ..................................................... E-36
Brief Source Term Description for Unmitigated Peach Bottom
Accident Scenarios and the SST1 from the 1982 Siting Study ................. E-40
Brief Source Term Description for Unmitigated Surry Accident
Scenarios and the SST1 from the 1982 Siting Study ............................... E-40
SOARCA Results: Long-Term Cancer Fatality Risk ................................. E-43
Changes in Large Early Release Frequencies for Extended Power
Uprates .................................................................................................... E-47
Loss-of-Coolant Accident Consequences as a Function of Fuel
Burnup ..................................................................................................... E-51
Airborne Impacts of Low Power and Shutdown Accidents ........................ E-55
Impacts of Accidents at Spent Fuel Pools from NUREG-1738.................. E-60
Uncertainty Analysis Inputs ...................................................................... E-71
Ratio of Consequence Results for Population Density Sensitivity
Cases in the 2015 Containment Protection and Release Reduction
Regulatory Analysis ................................................................................. E-73
Uncertain MELCOR Parameters Chosen for the SOARCA
Unmitigated Station Blackout Uncertainty Analyses ................................. E-76
xix
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
List of Tables
Table E.3-23
Table E.3-24
Table E.3-25
Table E.5-1
Table F.5-1
Table F.5-2
Table F.5-3
Table F.5-4
Table F.5-5
Table F.5-6
Table F.6-1
Table F.6-2
Table F.6-3
Table F.6-4
Table F.6-5
Table F.6-6
Table G.3-1
Table G.6-1
Table G.6-2
Table G.6-3
Table G.8-1
Uncertain MACCS Parameter Groups Used in the SOARCA
Unmitigated Station Blackout Uncertainty Analyses ................................. E-78
Population-weighted Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk Statistics
Conditional on the Occurrence of a Long-Term Station Blackout for
Five Circular Areas Centered on the Peach Bottom Plant ........................ E-79
Individual Early Fatality Risk Statistics Conditional on the Occurrence
of a Long-Term Station Blackout for Five Circular Areas with Specified
Radii Centered on the Peach Bottom Plant .............................................. E-81
Summary of Conclusions ......................................................................... E-94
State Environmental Requirements for Air Quality Protection ................... F-14
State Environmental Requirements for Water Resources Protection ........ F-14
State Environmental Requirements for Waste Management and
Pollution Prevention ................................................................................. F-15
State Environmental Requirements for Emergency Planning and
Response ................................................................................................. F-16
State Environmental Requirements for Ecological Resources
Protection ................................................................................................. F-16
State Environmental Requirements for Historic and Cultural
Resources Protection ............................................................................... F-16
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Air
Quality Protection ..................................................................................... F-17
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Water
Resource Protection ................................................................................. F-17
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Waste
Management and Pollution Prevention ..................................................... F-19
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for
Emergency Planning and Response ........................................................ F-19
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for
Ecological Resource Protection................................................................ F-20
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for
Historic and Cultural Resource Protection ................................................ F-21
Common Sources of Noise and Decibels Levels ........................................ G-6
Level I Ecoregions and Corresponding Level III Ecoregions That
Occur in the Vicinity of Operating U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power
Plants ....................................................................................................... G-13
Ecoregions in the Vicinity of Operating U.S. Commercial Nuclear
Power Plants ............................................................................................ G-16
Percent of Area Occupied by Wetland and Deepwater Habitats within
5 Miles of Operating Nuclear Power Plants .............................................. G-20
Definition of Regions of Influence at 12 Nuclear Plants ............................ G-26
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xx
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE
ADAMS
AEA
AEC
ALARA
APE
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
Atomic Energy Act
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
as low as is reasonably achievable
area of potential effects
BCG
BEIR
BMP
BTA
Btu
BWR
Biota Concentration Guide
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (National Research Council
Committee)
best management practice
best technology available
British thermal unit(s)
boiling water reactor
CAA
CCS
CDC
CDF
CEQ
CFR
CH4
CO
CO2
CO2e
CWA
Clean Air Act
cooling canal system
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
core damage frequency
Council on Environmental Quality
Code of Federal Regulations
methane
carbon monoxide
carbon dioxide
carbon dioxide equivalent
Clean Water Act
dB
dBA
DOE
DPS
DSM
decibel(s)
A-weighted decibel(s)
U.S. Department of Energy
distinct population segment
demand-side management
EFH
EI
EIA
EIS
EMF
EPA
EPRI
EPU
ESA
essential fish habitat
exposure index
Energy Information Administration
environmental impact statement
electromagnetic field
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Electric Power Research Institute
extended power uprate
Endangered Species Act
xxi
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Nomenclature
FLEX
FPRA
FR
FWS
flexible coping strategies
fire probabilistic risk assessment
Federal Register
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GEIS
GHG
gpm
GTCC
GWd
GWd/MT
generic environmental impact statement
greenhouse gas
gallon(s) per minute
greater-than-Class C
gigawatt day(s)
gigawatt-days (units of energy) per metric tonne
H2O
HAPCs
HLW
hr
Hz
water; water vapor
habitat areas of particular concern
high-level waste
hour(s)
hertz
ICRP
IM&E
initial LR
IPE
IPEEE
ISFSI
International Commission on Radiological Protection
impingement mortality and entrainment
initial license renewal
Individual Plant Examination
Individual Plant Examination of External Events
independent spent fuel storage installation
km
kV
kW
kWh
kilometer(s)
kilovolt(s)
kilowatt(s)
kilowatt-hour(s)
L
LAR
lb
LCF
LERF
LLW
Ln
LOOP
lpm
LR GEIS
LWR
liter(s)
license amendment request
pound(s)
latent cancer fatality
large early release frequency
low-level (radioactive) waste
statistical sound level
loss of offsite power
liter(s) per minute
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants
light water reactor
m
m2
m3
meter(s)
square meter(s)
cubic meter(s)
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxii
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Nomenclature
m3/s
mA
MACCS
MCR
MEI
mG
mg
mg/L
Mgd
mGy
MHz
mi
min
mL
MLd
MMBtu
MPa
mph
mrad
mrem
MSA
mSv
MT
MTHM
MTU
MW
MWe
MWt
MWh
cubic meter(s) per second
milliampere(s)
MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System
main cooling reservoir
maximally exposed individual
milligauss
milligram(s)
milligram(s) per liter
million gallons per day
milligray(s)
megahertz
mile(s)
minute(s)
milliliter(s)
million liters per day
million Btu
megapascal(s)
mile(s) per hour
millirad(s)
millirem(s)
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
millisievert(s)
metric ton/tonne(s)
metric tonne(s) of heavy metal
metric tonne(s) of uranium
megawatt(s)
megawatt(s) electric
megawatt(s) thermal
megawatt-hour(s)
NAAQS
NEPA
NGCC
NHPA
NMFS
NMSA
NO
NO2
NOAA
NOx
NPDES
NRC
NREL
NRHP
NTTF
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
natural gas combined cycle
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Marine Sanctuaries Act
nitrogen oxide
nitrogen dioxide
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
nitrogen oxides
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
National Register of Historic Places
Near-Term Task Force
xxiii
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Nomenclature
ONMS
OSHA
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
pCi
pCi/L
PDR
PM
PM10
PM2.5
ppm
ppmv
ppt
PSHA
PRA
PSD
psi
PWR
picocurie(s)
picocuries per liter
population dose risk
particulate matter
particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less
particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less
part(s) per million
parts per million by volume
part(s) per thousand
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment
probabilistic risk assessment
prevention of significant deterioration
pound(s) per square inch
pressurized water reactor
QHO
quantitative health objective
RCRA
rem
REMP
ROW
RY
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
roentgen-equivalent-man
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program
right-of-way
reactor year
s
SAMA
SAMDA
SAMG
SBO
SCDF
scf
SEIS
SFP
SLR
SO2
SOARCA
SPRA
SRM
SST
Sv
second(s)
severe accident mitigation alternative
severe accident mitigation design alternative
severe accident management guideline
station blackout
seismic core damage frequency
standard cubic foot (feet)
supplemental environmental impact statement
spent fuel pool
subsequent license renewal
sulfur dioxide
state-of-the-art reactor consequence analysis
seismic probabilistic risk assessment
Staff Requirements Memorandum
siting source term
sievert(s)
T
TDS
TEDE
ton(s)
total dissolved solids
total effective dose equivalent
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxiv
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Nomenclature
T/yr
ton(s) per year
UA
UCB
UF6
U.S.
USACE
uncertainty analysis
upper confidence bound
uranium hexafluoride
United States
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
VOC
volatile organic compound
yr
year(s)
μCi
μGy
microcurie(s)
microgray(s)
xxv
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
SHORTENED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NAMES
USED IN THIS REPORT
Arkansas
Beaver Valley
Braidwood
Browns Ferry
Brunswick
Byron
Callaway
Calvert Cliffs
Catawba
Clinton
Columbia
Comanche Peak
Cooper
Crystal River
Davis-Besse
Diablo Canyon
D.C. Cook
Dresden
Duane Arnold
Farley
Fermi
FitzPatrick
Fort Calhoun
Ginna
Grand Gulf
Harris
Hatch
Hope Creek
Indian Point
Kewaunee
LaSalle
Limerick
McGuire
Millstone
Monticello
Nine Mile Point
North Anna
Oconee
Oyster Creek
Palisades
Palo Verde
Peach Bottom
Arkansas Nuclear One
Beaver Valley Power Station
Braidwood Station
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
Byron Station
Callaway Plant
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant
Catawba Nuclear Station
Clinton Power Station
Columbia Generating Station
Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant
Cooper Nuclear Station
Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
Diablo Canyon Power Plant
Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant
Dresden Nuclear Power Station
Duane Arnold Energy Center
Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant
Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
Fort Calhoun Station
R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station
Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant
Hope Creek Generating Station
Indian Point Energy Center
Kewaunee Power Station
LaSalle County Station
Limerick Generating Station
McGuire Nuclear Station
Millstone Power Station
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station
North Anna Power Station
Oconee Nuclear Station
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
Palisades Nuclear Plant
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
xxvii
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Shortened Nuclear Power Plant Names Used in This Report
Perry
Pilgrim
Point Beach
Prairie Island
Quad Cities
River Bend
Robinson
St. Lucie
Salem
San Onofre
Seabrook
Sequoyah
South Texas
Summer
Surry
Susquehanna
Three Mile Island
Turkey Point
Vermont Yankee
Vogtle
Waterford
Watts Bar
Wolf Creek
Perry Nuclear Power Plant
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
Point Beach Nuclear Plant
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station
River Bend Station
H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant
Salem Nuclear Generating Station
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
Seabrook Station
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
South Texas Project Electric Generating Station
Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station
Surry Power Station
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station
Three Mile Island, Unit 1
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
Waterford Steam Electric Station
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant
Wolf Creek Generating Station
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxviii
CONVERSION TABLE
Multiply
By
To Obtain
To Convert English to Metric Equivalents
acres (ac)
cubic feet (ft3)
cubic yards (yd3)
curies (Ci)
degrees Fahrenheit (F) -32
feet (ft)
gallons (gal)
gallons (gal)
inches (in.)
miles (mi)
pounds (lb)
rads
rems
short tons (tons)
short tons (tons)
square feet (ft2)
square yards (yd2)
square miles (mi2)
yards (yd)
0.4047
0.02832
0.7646
3.7 1010
0.5555
0.3048
3.785
0.003785
2.540
1.609
0.4536
0.01
0.01
907.2
0.9072
0.09290
0.8361
2.590
0.9144
hectares (ha)
cubic meters (m3)
cubic meters (m3)
becquerels (Bq)
degrees Celsius (C)
meters (m)
liters (L)
cubic meters (m3)
centimeters (cm)
kilometers (km)
kilograms (kg)
grays (Gy)
sieverts (Sv)
kilograms (kg)
metric tons/tonnes (MT)
square meters (m2)
square meters (m2)
square kilometers (km2)
meters (m)
To Convert Metric to English Equivalents
becquerels (Bq)
centimeters (cm)
cubic meters (m3)
cubic meters (m3)
cubic meters (m3)
degrees Celsius (C) +17.78
grays (Gy)
hectares (ha)
kilograms (kg)
kilograms (kg)
kilometers (km)
liters (L)
meters (m)
meters (m)
metric tons/tonnes (MT)
sieverts (Sv)
square kilometers (km2)
square meters (m2)
square meters (m2)
2.7 10-11
0.3937
35.31
1.308
264.2
1.8
100
2.471
2.205
0.001102
0.6214
0.2642
3.281
1.094
1.102
100
0.3861
10.76
1.196
curies (Ci)
inches (in.)
cubic feet (ft3)
cubic yards (yd3)
gallons (gal)
degrees Fahrenheit (F)
rads
acres
pounds (lb)
short tons (tons)
miles (mi)
gallons (gal)
feet (ft)
yards (yd)
short tons (tons)
rems
square miles (mi2)
square feet (ft2)
square yards (yd2)
xxix
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 authorizes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to
issue licenses to operate commercial nuclear power plants for up to 40 years and permits the
renewal of these licenses. By regulation, the NRC is allowed to renew these licenses for up to
an additional 20 years, depending on the outcome of safety and environmental reviews. There
are no specific limitations in the Atomic Energy Act or the NRC’s regulations restricting the
number of times a license may be renewed.
NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 54.17(c) (10 CFR
54.17(c)) allow a license renewal application to be submitted within 20 years of license
expiration, and NRC regulations at 10 CFR 54.31(b) specify that a renewed license will be for a
term of up to 20 years plus the length of time remaining on the current license. As a result,
renewed licenses may be for a term of up to 40 years.
The license renewal process is designed to ensure safe operation of the nuclear power plant
and protection of the environment during the license renewal term. Under the NRC’s
environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, which implements Section 102(2) of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating
license requires an analysis of the environmental effects (impacts) of the action and the
preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).
To support the preparation of license renewal EISs, the NRC conducted a comprehensive
review to identify the environmental effects of license renewal. The review determined which
environmental effects could result in the same or similar (generic) impact at all nuclear power
plants or a specific subset of plants, and which effects could result in different levels of impact,
requiring nuclear power plant-specific analyses for an impact determination. The review
culminated in the issuance of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal
of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS), NUREG-1437, in May 1996, followed by the publication of the final
rule that codified the LR GEIS findings on June 5, 1996 (61 Federal Register [FR] 28467).1
The 1996 LR GEIS2 improved the efficiency of the license renewal environmental review
process by (1) identifying and evaluating all of the environmental effects that may occur when
renewing commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses, (2) identifying and evaluating the
environmental effects that are expected to be generic (the same or similar) at all nuclear plants
or a specific subset of plants, and (3) defining the number and scope of the environmental
effects that need to be addressed in nuclear power plant-specific EISs. For the issues that
cannot be evaluated generically, the NRC conducts nuclear power plant-specific (hereafter
called plant-specific) environmental reviews and prepares plant-specific supplemental EISs
(SEISs) to the LR GEIS. The generic environmental findings in the LR GEIS are applicable to
the 20-year license renewal increment plus the number of years remaining on the current
license, up to a maximum of 40 years.
The 1996 final rule codified the findings of the 1996 LR GEIS into regulations at 10 CFR
Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of
1
Final rules were also issued on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537), and September 3, 1999
(64 FR 48496).
2
Any reference to the 1996 LR GEIS includes the two-volume set published in May 1996 and
Addendum 1 to the LR GEIS published in August 1999.
xxxi
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
a Nuclear Power Plant,” and Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” (61 FR 28467, June 5, 1996). As stated in the final rule, the
Commission recognized that environmental issues might change over time and that additional
issues may need to be considered. Based on this recognition, and as further stated in the rule
and in the introductory paragraph to Appendix B to Subpart A in Part 51 of the regulations, the
Commission intends to review the material in Appendix B, including Table B-1 and the
underlying LR GEIS, on a 10-year basis, and update it if necessary.
Subsequently, the NRC completed its first 10-year review of the 1996 LR GEIS and Table B-1
on June 20, 2013. That review of the LR GEIS considered lessons learned and knowledge
gained from completed license renewal environmental reviews since 1996. The updated
LR GEIS, Revision 1, and final rule (78 FR 37282), including Table B-1, redefined the number
and scope of the NEPA issues that must be addressed in license renewal environmental
reviews.
The NRC began the second 10-year review on August 4, 2020, by publishing a notice of intent
to review and potentially update the LR GEIS approximately 7 years after the last revision cycle
(see 85 FR 47252). For further information regarding the review and update of this LR GEIS see
Section 1.6. As part of this review and update, the following activities occurred:
•
NRC staff conducted a series of public scoping meetings in August 2020 (see 85 FR 47252
for more details). The scoping period concluded on November 2, 2020.
•
NRC staff submitted a rulemaking plan in July 2021 requesting Commission approval to
initiate a rulemaking to amend Table B-1 and update the LR GEIS and associated guidance.
•
In February 2022, the Commission directed the NRC staff to develop a new rulemaking plan
that would update the LR GEIS to fully account for subsequent license renewal (SLR) in light
of recent Commission adjudicatory decisions.
•
NRC staff submitted a revised rulemaking plan in March 2022.
•
In April 2022, the Commission approved the staff’s recommendation to proceed with the
rulemaking.
•
NRC staff submitted the proposed rule package and draft revised LR GEIS to the
Commission for its review on December 6, 2022.
•
On January 23, 2023, the Commission approved publication of the proposed rule in the
Federal Register for a 60-day comment period.
•
NRC staff published the proposed rule, draft LR GEIS, and associated guidance for public
comment in the Federal Register on March 3, 2023 (88 FR 13329).
•
NRC staff conducted a series of public meetings in March and April 2023 to take comment
on the proposed rule package.
The revisions to the LR GEIS are based on the consideration of (1) comments received from the
public during the public scoping period, (2) a review of comments received on plant-specific
SEISs, (3) lessons learned and knowledge gained from previously completed and ongoing initial
license renewal (initial LR) and SLR environmental reviews, (4) Commission direction, and
(5) comments received from the public and other stakeholders on the draft LR GEIS and
proposed rule. In addition, new scientific research, public comments, changes in environmental
regulations and impacts methodology, and other new information were considered in evaluating
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxxii
Executive Summary
the potential impacts associated with nuclear power plant continued operations and
refurbishment during the initial LR term or SLR.
Changes made in response to comments in this final LR GEIS, as well as changes made to
include updated information, corrections, and substantial editorial revisions, are marked with a
change bar (vertical line) on the side margin of the page where the changes or additions were
made. Minor editorial revisions and those limited to formatting are not marked. The NRC also
made several targeted text changes that are not marked, which included the removal of
duplicative text and organizational changes to this LR GEIS to address changes to NEPA from
the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
The purpose of the review for this LR GEIS was to determine if the findings presented in the
2013 LR GEIS remain valid for initial LR and support the scope of license renewal, consider
whether those findings also apply to SLR, and to update or revise those findings as appropriate.
When conducting a thorough update to the LR GEIS that reflects the “hard look” that is required
for a NEPA document, the NRC considered changes in applicable laws and regulations, new
data in its possession from scientific literature and nuclear power plant operations, collective
experience, and lessons learned and knowledge gained from conducting initial LR and SLR
environmental reviews since development of the 2013 LR GEIS. The NRC also considered
comments received on the draft LR GEIS and proposed rule (see Section 1.10) in finalizing this
LR GEIS. As a result of the NRC’s review and update, the NRC identified 80 environmental
issues for inclusion in revised Table B-1. They include 59 issues which were determined to be
same or similar impact at all nuclear power plants or a specific subset of plants (i.e., generic
issues, Category 1); 20 issues which require a plant-specific analysis (Category 2); and one
issue that remains uncategorized.
ES.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is the renewal of commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses. A
renewed license is just one of a number of conditions that licensees must meet to be allowed to
continue to operate the nuclear power plant during the renewal term.
The purpose and need for the proposed action (license renewal) 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, as such needs may be
determined by State, utility, system, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC)
decisionmakers. Except to the extent that findings in the safety review required by the Atomic
Energy Act or in the environmental review could lead the NRC to not renew the operating
license, the NRC has no role in the energy-planning decisions of power plant owners, State
regulators, system operators, and, in some cases, other Federal agencies as to whether the
nuclear power plant should continue to operate.
In addition, the NRC has no authority or regulatory control over the ultimate selection of
replacement energy alternatives. The NRC also cannot ensure the selection of environmentally
preferable replacement power alternatives. While a range of reasonable replacement energy
alternatives are discussed in the LR GEIS, and evaluated in detail in plant-specific supplements
to the LR GEIS, the only alternative to license renewal within NRC’s decisionmaking authority is
to not renew the operating license. The environmental impacts of not renewing the operating
license are addressed under the no action alternative.
xxxiii
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
At some point, all nuclear power plants will terminate reactor operations and begin the
decommissioning process. Under the no action alternative, reactor operations would be
terminated at or before the end of the current operating license. The no action alternative, unlike
the other alternatives, does not expressly meet the purpose and need of the proposed action
(license renewal), because it does not provide an option for energy-planning decisionmakers in
meeting future electric power system needs. No action, on its own, would likely create a need
for replacement power, energy conservation and efficiency (demand-side management),
purchasing power from outside the region, or some combination of these options. Thus, a range
of reasonable replacement energy alternatives is described in the LR GEIS, including fossil fuel,
new nuclear, and renewable energy sources. Conservation and power purchasing are also
considered as replacement energy alternatives to license renewal because they represent other
options for electric power system planners.
ES.2 Development of the Revised Generic Environmental Impact Statement
This LR GEIS documents the results of the systematic approach the NRC used to evaluate the
environmental effects (impacts) of renewing the operating licenses of commercial nuclear power
plants. The environmental consequences of both initial LR and SLR include (1) impacts
associated with continued operations and any refurbishment activities similar to those that have
occurred during the current license term; (2) impacts of various alternatives to the proposed
action; (3) impacts from the termination of nuclear power plant operations and decommissioning
after the license renewal term (with emphasis on the incremental effect caused by an additional
20 years of operation); (4) impacts associated with the uranium fuel cycle; (5) impacts of
postulated accidents; (6) cumulative effects of the proposed action; and (7) resource
commitments associated with the proposed action, including unavoidable adverse impacts,
relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of resources. The LR GEIS also discusses the impacts of various reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action (initial LR or SLR). The environmental consequences of
these activities are discussed in the LR GEIS.
In a notice of intent published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2020 (85 FR 47252), the
NRC notified the public of its preliminary analysis and plan to review and potentially revise the
LR GEIS, including to address SLR, and to provide an opportunity to participate in the
environmental scoping process. The NRC held four public webinars in August 2020 to support
public participation in the LR GEIS revision. The NRC staff issued a scoping summary report in
June 2021.
In evaluating the impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and considering comments
received during the scoping and public comment periods, new and updated technical and
regulatory information, as well as Commission direction, the NRC identified 80 environmental
issues: 72 environmental issues were associated with continued operations, refurbishment, and
other supporting activities; 2 with postulated accidents; 1 with termination of plant operations
and decommissioning; 4 with the uranium fuel cycle; and 1 with cumulative effects (impacts).
For all of these issues, the incremental effect of license renewal was the focus of the evaluation.
For each environmental issue, the revised LR GEIS (1) describes the nuclear power plant
activity or operational aspect during the initial LR or SLR term that could affect the resource;
(2) identifies the resource that is affected; (3) evaluates past license renewal reviews and other
available information, including information related to impacts during a SLR term; (4) assesses
the nature and magnitude of the environmental effect (impact) from initial LR or SLR on the
affected resource; (5) characterizes the significance of the effect; (6) determines whether the
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxxiv
Executive Summary
results of the analysis apply to all or a specific subset of nuclear power plants (i.e., whether the
environmental issue is Category 1, Category 2, or uncategorized); and (7) considers additional
mitigation measures for reducing adverse impacts.
The scope of the revised LR GEIS also discusses a range of alternatives to license renewal,
including replacement power generation (using fossil fuels, new nuclear, and renewables),
energy conservation and efficiency (demand-side management), and purchased power. It also
evaluates the impacts from the no action alternative (not renewing the operating license). This
LR GEIS includes the NRC’s evaluation of construction, operation, postulated accidents,
decommissioning, and fuel cycles for replacement energy alternatives.
Together with publication of the proposed rule, the NRC issued the draft LR GEIS for public
comment. This LR GEIS provides the technical basis for the Commission’s license renewal
regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, including for the 80 identified environmental issues associated
with continued operation and refurbishment of nuclear power plants during a license renewal
term. In the proposed rule, the NRC sought comment on whether the scope of the rule,
including the scope and applicability of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, should be expanded
beyond two license renewal terms. The NRC also issued for public comment associated
guidance documents, including draft Revision 2 (DG-4027) of Regulatory Guide 4.2,
Supplement 1, and draft Revision 2 to NUREG-1555, Supplement 1.
The public comment period ran from March 3, 2023, to May 2, 2023. The NRC received 1,889
comment submissions (i.e., letters, emails, and other documents), which the NRC posted to the
Regulations.gov website. During the public comment period, the NRC held six hybrid public
meetings, which were transcribed. The NRC also conducted an informational meeting with
Federally recognized Tribes on April 19, 2023, to afford Tribal representatives the opportunity to
discuss the rule with the staff. All comment submissions, including those received in writing and
those provided at the public meetings, were considered in preparing this LR GEIS. The NRC’s
responses to all comments are provided in Appendix A.2 of this LR GEIS.
ES.3 Impact Definitions and Categories
The NRC’s environmental impact standard considers Council on Environmental Quality
terminology, including Council on Environmental Quality revisions in Part 1501—NEPA and
Agency Planning (40 CFR Part 1501) and Part 1508—Definitions (40 CFR 1508; 89 FR 35442).
In determining whether the incremental environmental effects (impacts) of the proposed action
(license renewal—either initial LR or SLR) are significant, the NRC analyzes the context (i.e.,
geographic area and resources) and intensity of the effects. The geographic area consists of the
characteristics of the area and its resources, such as proximity to unique or sensitive resources
or communities with environmental justice concerns. For nuclear power plant-specific
environmental issues, significance depends on the effects in the relevant geographic area,
including but not limited to consideration of short- and long-term effects, as well as beneficial
and adverse effects.
Based on this, the NRC has established three significance levels for potential impacts: SMALL,
MODERATE, and LARGE. The three significance levels, presented in a footnote to Table B-1 of
10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, are defined as follows:
•
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
xxxv
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Executive Summary
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.
In addition to evaluating the impacts for each environmental issue, the NRC also determined
whether the analysis in the LR GEIS could be applied to all nuclear power plants or plants with
specified design or site characteristics. Issues were assigned Category 1 (i.e., generic issues
and applicable to all or a specific subset of nuclear plants) or Category 2 (i.e., requiring a plantspecific analysis), as further described in Section 1.5.2.3 of this LR GEIS.
ES.4 Affected Environment
For purposes of the evaluation in this LR GEIS revision, the “affected environment” is the
environment currently existing at and around operating commercial nuclear power plants.
Current conditions in the affected environment are the result of past construction and ongoing
operations at the plants, as well as reasonably foreseeable environmental trends. The NRC has
considered the effects of these past and ongoing impacts and how they have shaped the
environment. The NRC evaluated impacts of license renewal that are incremental to existing
conditions. These existing conditions serve as the baseline for the evaluation and include the
effects of past and present actions at the nuclear power plant sites and vicinity. This existing
affected environment comprises the environmental baseline against which potential
environmental impacts of license renewal are evaluated.
In the LR GEIS, the NRC describes the affected environment in terms of the following resource
areas or subject matter areas: (1) description of nuclear power plant facilities and operations;
(2) land use and visual resources; (3) meteorology, air quality, and noise; (4) geologic
environment; (5) water resources (surface water and groundwater resources); (6) ecological
resources (terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, and federally protected ecological
resources); (7) historic and cultural resources; (8) socioeconomics; (9) human health
(radiological and nonradiological hazards and postulated accidents); (10) environmental justice;
(11) waste management and pollution prevention (radioactive and nonradioactive waste); and
(12) greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The affected environment of the operating
plant sites represents diverse environmental conditions.
ES.5 Impacts from Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities
Associated with License Renewal (Initial or Subsequent)
The NRC identified 80 environmental issues related to continued operations and refurbishment
associated with both initial LR or SLR. Twenty of the issues were identified as Category 2
issues and would require plant-specific evaluations in future SEISs. Fifty-nine issues have been
evaluated and determined to be generic to all nuclear power plants or to a specific subset of
plants, and one issue remains uncategorized. The conclusions for each Category 1 or
Category 2 environmental issue are presented by resource area or subject matter. The
conclusions for each issue are summarized in Table 2.1-1. Chapter 4 provides the NRC’s
detailed analysis of and technical basis for each issue and supports the finding codified in
Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
xxxvi
Executive Summary
ES.6 Comparison of Alternatives
This LR GEIS evaluates the impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and describes a
range of alternatives to license renewal, including the no action alternative (not renewing the
operating license). It also evaluates the impacts of replacement energy alternatives (fossil fuel,
new nuclear, and renewables), energy conservation and efficiency (demand-side management),
and purchased power. The impacts of renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant
are comparable to the impacts of replacement energy alternatives. Replacement energy
alternatives could require the construction of a new power plant and/or modification of the
electric transmission grid. New power plants would also have operational impacts. Conversely,
license renewal does not require new construction and operational impacts beyond what is
already being experienced. Other alternatives not requiring construction or causing operational
impacts include energy conservation and efficiency (demand-side management), delayed
retirement, repowering, and purchased power.
Under NEPA, the NRC has an obligation to consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action (license renewal). The LR GEIS facilitates that analysis by providing NRC review teams
with environmental information related to the range of reasonable replacement energy
alternatives as of the time this LR GEIS was prepared. A plant-specific analysis of replacement
energy alternatives will be performed for each SEIS, taking into account changes in technology
and science since the preparation of this LR GEIS.
xxxvii
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
APPENDIX B
–
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND FINDINGS IN THIS
LR GEIS REVISION TO THE ISSUES AND FINDINGS IN TABLE B-1 OF
10 CFR PART 51 (1996, 2013, AND 2024 REVISIONS)
APPENDIX B
COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND FINDINGS IN THIS
LR GEIS REVISION TO THE ISSUES AND FINDINGS IN TABLE B-1 OF
10 CFR PART 51 (1996, 2013, AND 2024 REVISIONS)
B.1
Comparison of Environmental Issues and Findings
The tables in this appendix provide a resource area comparison of the issues and findings
presented in this revision of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS) with the issues and findings presented in the
1996 and 2013, and this 2024 revision of Table B-1 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51) (61 FR 28467; 61 FR 66537; 64 FR 48496; 66 FR 39278;
78 FR 37282; 79 FR 56262).
B-1
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Comparison of Land Use-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior
Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
B-2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Onsite land use
1996 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue
SMALL (Category 1).
Onsite land use
Projected onsite land use
changes required during
refurbishment and the
renewal period would be a
small fraction of any
nuclear power plant site
and would involve land
that is controlled by the
applicant.
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Onsite land use
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
(refurbishment)
SMALL or MODERATE
(Category 2).
Impacts may be of
moderate significance at
plants in low population
areas. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
SMALL (Category 1).
Offsite land use would not
be affected by continued
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal.
Offsite land use
(license renewal
term)
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Significant changes in
land use may be
associated with
population and tax
revenue changes
resulting from license
renewal. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
Offsite land use
Offsite land use
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Changes in onsite land
use from continued
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal
would be a small fraction
of the nuclear power plant
site and would involve
only land that is controlled
by the licensee.
SMALL (Category 1).
Offsite land use would not
be affected by continued
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table B.1-1
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Power line right
of way
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Ongoing use of power line
right of ways would
continue with no change
in restrictions. The effects
of these restrictions are of
small significance.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Offsite land use in
transmission line
right-of-ways
(ROWs)(b)
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1). Use
of transmission line ROWs
from continued operations
and refurbishment
associated with license
renewal would continue
with no change in land use
restrictions.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Offsite land use
in transmission
line right-of-ways
(ROWs)(b)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Use of transmission line
ROWs from continued
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal
would continue with no
change in land use
restrictions.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
(b) 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-3
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Comparison of Visual Resource-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior
Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
B-4
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Aesthetic impacts
(refurbishment)
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1). No
significant impacts are
expected during
refurbishment.
Aesthetic impacts
(license renewal
term)
SMALL (Category 1). No
significant impacts are
expected during the license
renewal term.
Aesthetic impacts
of transmission
lines (license
renewal term)
SMALL (Category 1). No
significant impacts are
expected during the license
renewal term.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Aesthetic impacts
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1). No
important changes to the
visual appearance of plant
structures or transmission
lines are expected from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Aesthetic impacts
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1). No
important changes to the
visual appearance of plant
structures or transmission
lines are expected from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table B.1-2
Table B.1-3
Comparison of Air Quality-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior
Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Air quality during
refurbishment
(non-attainment
and maintenance
areas)
B-5
1996 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue
SMALL, MODERATE, or Air quality impacts
LARGE (Category 2).
(all plants)
Air quality impacts from
plant refurbishment
associated with license
renewal are expected to be
small. However, vehicle
exhaust emissions could
be cause for concern at
locations in or near
nonattainment or
maintenance areas. The
significance of the potential
impact cannot be
determined without
considering the compliance
status of each site and the
numbers of workers
expected to be employed
during the outage. See §
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F).
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1). Air
quality impacts from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal are
expected to be small at all
plants. Emissions from
emergency diesel
generators and fire pumps
and routine operations of
boilers used for space
heating are minor. Impacts
from cooling tower
particulate emissions have
been small.
Emissions resulting from
refurbishment activities at
locations in or near air
quality nonattainment or
maintenance areas would
be short-lived and would
cease after these activities
are completed. Operating
experience has shown that
the scale of refurbishment
activities has not resulted
in exceedance of the de
minimis thresholds for
criteria pollutants, and best
management practices,
including fugitive dust
controls and the imposition
of permit conditions in
State and local air
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue(a)
SMALL (Category 1). Air Air quality impacts
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, 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
Air quality effects
of transmission
lines
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Production of ozone and
oxides of nitrogen is
insignificant and does not
contribute measurably to
ambient levels of these
gases.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Air quality effects
of transmission
lines(b)
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue(a)
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.
SMALL (Category 1).
Air quality effects
Production of ozone and
of transmission
oxides of nitrogen is
lines(b)
insignificant and does not
contribute measurably to
ambient levels of these
gases.
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
emissions permits, would
ensure conformance with
applicable State or Tribal
implementation plans.
B-6
SMALL (Category 1).
Production of ozone and
oxides of nitrogen from
transmission lines is
insignificant and does not
contribute measurably to
ambient levels of these
gases.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
(b) 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.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Table B.1-4
Comparison of Noise-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions
of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Noise
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Noise has not been found
to be a problem at
operating plants and is not
expected to be a problem
at any plant during the
license renewal term.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Noise impacts
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Noise impacts
Noise levels would remain
below regulatory guidelines
for offsite receptors during
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal.
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Noise levels would remain
below regulatory guidelines
for offsite receptors during
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
B-7
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Comparison of Geologic Environment-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision
to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Not addressed
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
Not applicable
2013 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Issue
Finding
Issue(a)
Geology and soils SMALL (Category 1). The Geology and soils
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.
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1). The
impact of continued
operations and
refurbishment activities on
geology and soils would be
small for all nuclear power
plants and would not
change appreciably during
the license renewal term.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table B.1-5
B-8
Table B.1-6
Comparison of Surface Water Resources-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS
Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Impacts of
refurbishment on
surface water
quality
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Impacts are expected to be
negligible during
refurbishment because
best management
practices are expected to
be employed to control soil
erosion and spills.
B-9
Altered salinity
gradients
SMALL (Category 1).
Salinity gradients have not
been found to be a
problem at operating
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Impacts are expected to be
small if best management
practices are employed to
control soil erosion and
spills. Surface water use
associated with continued
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal would
not increase significantly or
would be reduced if
refurbishment occurs
during a plant outage.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Surface water use
and quality (noncooling system
impacts)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Impacts are expected to be
small if best management
practices are employed to
control soil erosion and
spills. Surface water use
associated with continued
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal would
not increase significantly or
would be reduced if
refurbishment occurs
during a plant outage.
Altered current
patterns at intake
and discharge
structures
SMALL (Category 1).
Altered current patterns
would be limited to the
area in the vicinity of the
intake and discharge
structures. These impacts
have been small at
operating nuclear power
plants.
SMALL (Category 1).
Effects on salinity gradients
would be limited to the
area in the vicinity of the
Altered current
patterns at intake
and discharge
structures
SMALL (Category 1).
Altered current patterns
would be limited to the
area in the vicinity of the
intake and discharge
structures. These impacts
have been small at
operating nuclear power
plants.
SMALL (Category 1).
Effects on salinity
gradients would be limited
to the area in the vicinity of
Altered salinity
gradients
Altered salinity
gradients
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Impacts of
SMALL (Category 1).
refurbishment on Water use during
surface water use refurbishment will not
increase appreciably or will
be reduced during plant
outage.
Altered current
SMALL (Category 1).
patterns at intake Altered current patterns
and discharge
have not been found to be
structures
a problem at operating
nuclear power plants and
are not expected to be a
problem during the license
renewal term.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Surface water use
and quality (noncooling system
impacts)
Altered thermal
stratification of
lakes
B-10
Scouring caused
by discharged
cooling water
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
nuclear power plants and
are not expected to be a
problem during the license
renewal term.
SMALL (Category 1).
Generally, lake
stratification 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.
SMALL (Category 1).
Scouring has not been
found to be a problem at
most operating nuclear
power plants and has
caused only localized
effects at a few plants. It is
not expected to be a
problem during the license
renewal term.
Discharge of other SMALL (Category 1).
metals in waste
These discharges have not
water
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.
They are not expected to
be a problem during the
license renewal term.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Altered thermal
stratification of
lakes
Scouring caused
by discharged
cooling water
Discharge of
metals in cooling
system effluent
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
intake and discharge
structures. These impacts
have been small at
operating nuclear power
plants.
SMALL (Category 1).
Effects on thermal
stratification would be
limited to the area in the
vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures.
These impacts have been
small at operating nuclear
power plants.
SMALL (Category 1).
Scouring effects would be
limited to the area in the
vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures.
These impacts have been
small at operating nuclear
power plants.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Altered thermal
stratification of
lakes
Scouring caused
by discharged
cooling water
SMALL (Category 1).
Discharge of
Discharges of metals have metals in cooling
not been found to be a
system effluent
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
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
the intake and discharge
structures. These impacts
have been small at
operating nuclear power
plants.
SMALL (Category 1).
Effects on thermal
stratification would be
limited to the area in the
vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures.
These impacts have been
small at operating nuclear
power plants.
SMALL (Category 1).
Scouring effects would be
limited to the area in the
vicinity of the intake and
discharge structures.
These impacts have been
small at operating nuclear
power plants.
SMALL (Category 1).
Discharges of metals have
not been found to be a
problem at operating
nuclear power plants with
cooling-tower-based heat
dissipation systems and
have been satisfactorily
mitigated at other plants.
Discharges are monitored
and controlled as part of
the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Discharge of
chlorine or other
biocides
B-11
Discharge of
sanitary wastes
and minor
chemical spills
Water use
conflicts (plants
with once-through
cooling systems)
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
System (NPDES) permit
process.
SMALL (Category 1).
Discharge of
SMALL (Category 1). The
Effects are not a concern
biocides, sanitary effects of these discharges
among regulatory and
wastes, and minor are regulated by Federal
resource agencies, and are chemical spills
and State environmental
not expected to be a
agencies. Discharges are
problem during the license
monitored and controlled
renewal term.
as part of the NPDES
permit process. These
impacts have been small at
operating nuclear power
plants.
SMALL (Category 1).
Effects are readily
controlled through NPDES
permit and periodic
modifications, if needed,
and are not expected to be
a problem during the
license renewal term.
SMALL (Category 1).
These conflicts have not
been found to be a
problem at operating
nuclear power plants with
once-through heat
dissipation systems.
SMALL or MODERATE
(Category 2). The issue
has been a concern at
nuclear power plants with
cooling ponds and at
plants with cooling towers.
Impacts on instream and
riparian communities near
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Surface water use
conflicts (plants
with once-through
cooling systems)
SMALL (Category 1).
These conflicts have not
been found to be a
problem at operating
nuclear power plants with
once-through heat
dissipation systems.
Surface water use SMALL or MODERATE
conflicts (plants
(Category 2). Impacts
with cooling ponds could be of small or
or cooling towers moderate significance,
using makeup
depending on makeup
water from a river) water requirements, water
availability, and competing
water demands.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
System (NPDES) permit
process.
Discharge of
SMALL (Category 1). The
biocides, sanitary effects of these discharges
wastes, and minor are regulated by Federal
chemical spills
and State environmental
agencies. Discharges are
monitored and controlled
as part of the NPDES
permit process. These
impacts have been small at
operating nuclear power
plants.
Surface water use
conflicts (plants
with once-through
cooling systems)
SMALL (Category 1).
These conflicts have not
been found to be a
problem at operating
nuclear power plants with
once-through heat
dissipation systems.
Surface water use SMALL or MODERATE
conflicts (plants
(Category 2). Impacts
with cooling ponds could be of small or
or cooling towers moderate significance,
using makeup
depending on makeup
water from a river) water requirements, water
availability, and competing
water demands.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Water use
conflicts (plants
with cooling ponds
or cooling towers
using make-up
water from a small
river with low flow)
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
Not addressed
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
these plants could be of
moderate significance in
some situations. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).
Not applicable
B-12
Temperature
effects on
sediment
transport capacity
SMALL (Category 1).
These effects have not
been found to be a
problem at operating
nuclear power plants and
are not expected to be a
problem during the license
renewal term.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Effects of
dredging on
surface water
quality
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Dredging to remove
accumulated sediments in
the vicinity of intake and
discharge structures and to
maintain barge shipping
has not been found to be a
problem for surface water
quality. Dredging is
performed under permit
from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, and possibly,
from other State or local
agencies.
Temperature
SMALL (Category 1).
effects on
These effects have not
sediment
been found to be a
transport capacity problem at operating
nuclear power plants and
are not expected to be a
problem.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
Effects of
dredging on
surface water
quality
SMALL (Category 1).
Dredging to remove
accumulated sediments in
the vicinity of intake and
discharge structures and to
maintain barge shipping
has not been found to be a
problem for surface water
quality. Dredging is
performed under permit
from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, and possibly,
from other State or local
agencies.
Temperature
SMALL (Category 1).
effects on
These effects have not
sediment
been found to be a
transport capacity problem at operating
nuclear power plants and
are not expected to be a
problem during the license
renewal term.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Table B.1-7
Comparison of Groundwater Resources-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision
to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
Ground-water use
conflicts (potable
and service water;
plants that use
<100 gpm)
Ground-water use
conflicts (potable
and service water,
SMALL (Category 1).
Plants using less than 100
gpm are not expected to
cause any ground-water
use conflicts.
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Plants that use more than
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Groundwater
contamination and
use (non-cooling
system impacts)
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Extensive dewatering is not
anticipated from continued
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal.
Industrial practices
involving the use of
solvents, hydrocarbons,
heavy metals, or other
chemicals, and/or the use
of wastewater ponds or
lagoons have the potential
to contaminate site
groundwater, soil, and
subsoil. Contamination is
subject to State or
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 SMALL (Category 1).
conflicts (plants
Plants that withdraw less
that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not
than 100 gallons
expected to cause any
per minute [gpm]) groundwater use conflicts.
Groundwater use SMALL, MODERATE, or
conflicts (plants
LARGE (Category 2).
that withdraw
Plants that withdraw more
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Groundwater
contamination and
use (non-cooling
system impacts)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Extensive dewatering is
not anticipated from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal.
Industrial practices
involving the use of
solvents, hydrocarbons,
heavy metals, or other
chemicals, and/or the use
of wastewater ponds or
lagoons have the potential
to contaminate site
groundwater, soil, and
subsoil. Contamination is
subject to State or U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regulated
cleanup and monitoring
programs. The application
of best management
practices for handling any
materials produced or used
during these activities
would reduce impacts.
Groundwater use SMALL (Category 1).
conflicts (plants
Plants that withdraw less
that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not
than 100 gallons
expected to cause any
per minute [gpm]) groundwater use conflicts.
Groundwater use SMALL, MODERATE, or
conflicts (plants
LARGE (Category 2).
that withdraw
Plants that withdraw more
Appendix B
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Extensive dewatering
during the original
construction on some sites
will not be repeated during
refurbishment on any sites.
Any plant wastes produced
during refurbishment will
be handled in the same
manner as in current
operating practices and are
not expected to be a
problem during the license
renewal term.
B-13
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Impacts of
refurbishment on
ground-water use
and quality
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
100 gpm may cause
ground-water use conflicts
with nearby ground-water
users. See §
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C).
B-14
Ground-water use SMALL, MODERATE, or
conflicts (Ranney LARGE (Category 2).
wells)
Ranney wells can result in
potential ground-water
depression beyond the site
boundary. Impacts of large
ground-water withdrawal
for cooling tower makeup
at nuclear power plants
using Ranney wells must
be evaluated at the time of
application for license
renewal. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C).
Ground-water use SMALL, MODERATE, or
conflicts (plants
LARGE (Category 2).
using cooling
Water use conflicts may
towers
result from surface water
withdrawing
withdrawals from small
make-up water
water bodies during lowfrom a small river) flow conditions which may
affect aquifer recharge,
especially if other groundwater or upstream surface
water users come on line
before the time of license
renewal. See §
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).
Ground-water
SMALL (Category 1).
quality
Ground-water quality at
river sites may be
2013 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Finding
more than 100
than 100 gpm could cause
gallons per minute groundwater use conflicts
[gpm])
with nearby groundwater
users.
2024 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Finding(a)
more than 100
than 100 gpm could cause
gallons per minute groundwater use conflicts
[gpm])
with nearby groundwater
users.
Groundwater use
conflicts (plants
with closed-cycle
cooling systems
that withdraw
makeup water
from a river)
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Water use conflicts could
result from water
withdrawals from rivers
during low-flow conditions,
which may affect aquifer
recharge. The significance
of impacts would depend
on makeup water
requirements, water
availability, and competing
water demands.
Groundwater use
conflicts (plants
with closed-cycle
cooling systems
that withdraw
makeup water
from a river)
Groundwater
quality
degradation
SMALL (Category 1).
Groundwater
Groundwater withdrawals quality
at operating nuclear power degradation
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Water use conflicts could
result from water
withdrawals from rivers
during low-flow conditions,
which may affect aquifer
recharge. The significance
of impacts would depend
on makeup water
requirements, water
availability, and competing
water demands.
SMALL (Category 1).
Groundwater withdrawals
at operating nuclear power
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
and dewatering;
plants that use
>100 gpm)
B-15
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
degradation
(Ranney wells)
1996 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue
Finding
Issue(a)
Finding(a)
degraded by induced
resulting from
plants would not contribute resulting from
plants would not contribute
infiltration of poor-quality
water withdrawals significantly to groundwater water withdrawals significantly to groundwater
river water into an aquifer
quality degradation.
quality degradation.
that supplies large
quantities of reactor
cooling water. However,
the lower quality infiltrating
water would not preclude
the current uses of ground
water and is not expected
to be a problem during the
license renewal term.
Ground-water
quality
degradation
(saltwater
intrusion)
Ground-water
quality
degradation
(cooling ponds in
salt marshes)
SMALL (Category 1).
Nuclear power plants do
not contribute significantly
to saltwater intrusion.
Groundwater
quality
degradation
(plants with
cooling ponds in
salt marshes)
SMALL (Category 1).
Sites with closed-cycle
cooling ponds could
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 with
cooling ponds)
SMALL or MODERATE
(Category 2). Sites with
cooling ponds could
degrade groundwater
quality. The significance of
the impact would depend
on site-specific conditions
including cooling pond
water quality, site
hydrogeologic conditions
(including the interaction of
surface water and
groundwater), and the
location, depth, and pump
rate of water wells.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
SMALL (Category 1).
Sites with closed-cycle
cooling ponds may
degrade ground-water
quality. Because water in
salt marshes is brackish,
this is not a concern for
plants located in salt
marshes.
Not addressed
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Sites with closed-cycle
cooling ponds may
degrade ground-water
quality. For plants located
inland, the quality of the
ground
water in the vicinity of the
ponds must be shown to
be adequate to allow
continuation of current
uses. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D).
Not applicable
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Groundwater
quality
degradation
(plants with
cooling ponds at
inland sites)
B-16
Radionuclides
released to
groundwater
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue(a)
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Inland sites with closedcycle 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.
SMALL or MODERATE
Radionuclides
(Category 2). Leaks of
released to
radioactive liquids from
groundwater
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 sitespecific characteristics.
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL or MODERATE
(Category 2). Leaks of
radioactive liquids from
plant components and
pipes have occurred at
numerous plants.
Groundwater protection
programs have been
established at all operating
nuclear power plants to
minimize the potential
impact from any
inadvertent releases. The
magnitude of impacts
would depend on sitespecific characteristics.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Ground-water
quality
degradation
(cooling ponds
at inland sites)
Table B.1-8
Comparison of Terrestrial Resources-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to
Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Effects on
terrestrial
resources (noncooling system
impacts)
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue(a)
SMALL, MODERATE, or Non-cooling system
LARGE (Category 2).
impacts on terrestrial
Impacts resulting from
resources
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.
Not addressed
Not applicable
Exposure of
terrestrial
organisms to
radionuclides
SMALL (Category 1).
Exposure of
Doses to terrestrial
terrestrial organisms
organisms from continued to radionuclides
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal are
expected to be well below
exposure guidelines
developed to protect these
organisms.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2). The
magnitude of effects of
continued nuclear power
plant operation and
refurbishment, unrelated
to operation of the cooling
system, would depend on
numerous site-specific
factors, including
ecological setting, planned
activities during the
license renewal term, and
characteristics of the
plants and animals
present in the area.
Application of best
management practices
and other conservation
initiatives would reduce
the potential for impacts.
SMALL (Category 1).
Doses to terrestrial
organisms from continued
nuclear power plant
operation and
refurbishment during the
license renewal term
would be expected to
remain well below U.S.
Department of Energy
exposure guidelines
developed to protect these
organisms.
Appendix B
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Refurbishment impacts
are insignificant if no loss
of important plant and
animal habitat occurs.
However, it cannot be
known whether important
plant and animal
communities may be
affected until the specific
proposal is presented with
the license renewal
application. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).
B-17
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Refurbishment
impacts
B-18
Cooling tower
impacts on crops
and ornamental
vegetation
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Impacts of cooling ponds
on terrestrial ecological
resources are considered
to be of small significance
at all sites.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Cooling system
impacts on
terrestrial
resources (plants
with once-through
cooling systems
or cooling ponds)
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1). No
adverse effects to
terrestrial plants or
animals have been
reported as a result of
increased 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.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Cooling system
impacts on terrestrial
resources (plants
with once-through
cooling systems or
cooling ponds)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
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 (Category 1).
Cooling tower
SMALL (Category 1).
Cooling tower
SMALL (Category 1).
Impacts from salt drift,
impacts on
Impacts from salt drift,
impacts on terrestrial Continued operation of
icing, fogging, or
vegetation (plants icing, fogging, or
plants
nuclear power plant
increased humidity
with cooling
increased humidity
cooling towers could
associated with cooling
towers)
associated with cooling
deposit particulates and
tower operation have not
tower operation have the
water droplets or ice on
been found to be a
potential to affect adjacent
vegetation and lead to
problem at operating
vegetation, but these
structural damage or
nuclear power plants and
impacts have been small
changes in terrestrial plant
are not expected to be a
at operating nuclear power
communities. However,
problem during the license
plants and are not
nuclear power plants
renewal term.
where these impacts
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Cooling pond
impacts on
terrestrial
resources
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Cooling tower
impacts on
native plants
B-19
Bird collisions
with cooling
towers
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Impacts from salt drift,
icing, fogging, or
increased humidity
associated with cooling
tower operation 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.
SMALL (Category 1).
These collisions 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.
SMALL (Category 1).
Impacts are expected to
be of small significance at
all sites.
Not addressed
Not applicable
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
expected to change over
the license renewal term.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Bird collisions
with plant
structures and
transmission
lines(b)
SMALL (Category 1). Bird Bird collisions with
collisions with cooling
plant structures and
towers and other plant
transmission lines(b)
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
SMALL or MODERATE
(Category 2). Impacts on
Water use conflicts
with terrestrial
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
occurred have
successfully mitigated the
impact. These impacts are
not expected to be
significant issues during
the license renewal term.
SMALL (Category 1). Bird
mortalities from collisions
with nuclear power plant
structures and in-scope
transmission lines would
be negligible for any
species and are unlikely to
threaten the stability of
local or migratory bird
populations or result in
noticeable impairment of
the function of a species
within the ecosystem.
These impacts are not
expected to be significant
issues during the license
renewal term.
SMALL or MODERATE
(Category 2). Nuclear
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Bird collisions
with power lines
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
terrestrial
resources (plants
with cooling
ponds or cooling
towers using
makeup water
from a river)
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
terrestrial resources in
riparian communities
affected by water use
conflicts could be of
moderate significance.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
resources (plants
with cooling ponds or
cooling towers using
makeup water from a
river)
B-20
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
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.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Power line rightof-way
management
(cutting and
herbicide
application)
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1). The
impacts of right-of-way
maintenance on wildlife
are expected to be of
small significance at all
sites.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Transmission line
right-of-way
(ROW)
management
impacts on
terrestrial
resources(b)
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Continued ROW
management during the
license renewal term is
expected to keep
terrestrial communities in
their current condition.
Application of best
management practices
would reduce the potential
for impacts.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Transmission line
right-of-way (ROW)
management
impacts on terrestrial
resources(b)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1). Inscope 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.
B-21
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
SMALL (Category 1).
Floodplains and
wetland on power Periodic vegetation control
is necessary in forested
line right of way
wetlands underneath
power lines and can be
achieved with minimal
damage to the wetland.
No significant impact is
expected at any nuclear
power plant during the
license renewal term.
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1). No
significant impacts of
electromagnetic fields on
terrestrial flora and fauna
have been identified. Such
effects are not expected to
be a problem during the
license renewal term.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Electromagnetic
fields on flora and
fauna (plants,
agricultural crops,
honeybees,
wildlife,
livestock)(b)
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue(a)
SMALL (Category 1). No Electromagnetic field
significant impacts of
effects on terrestrial
electromagnetic fields on plants and animals(b)
terrestrial flora and fauna
have been identified. Such
effects are not expected to
be a problem during the
license renewal term.
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1). Inscope 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.
B-22
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
(b) 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.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Impacts of
electromagnetic
fields on flora and
fauna (plants,
agricultural crops,
honeybees,
wildlife, livestock)
Table B.1-9
Comparison of Aquatic Resources-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to
Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
Entrainment of fish
and shellfish in
early life stages
[for plants with
once-through and
cooling-pond heat
dissipation
systems]
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
The impacts of
entrainment are small at
many plants but may be
moderate or even large at
a few plants with oncethrough and cooling-pond
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Impingement and
entrainment of
aquatic
organisms (plants
with once-through
cooling systems
or cooling ponds)
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
The impacts of
impingement and
entrainment are small at
many plants but may be
moderate or even large at
a few plants with oncethrough and cooling-pond
cooling systems,
depending on cooling
system withdrawal rates
and volumes and the
aquatic resources at the
site.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Impingement
mortality and
entrainment of
aquatic
organisms (plants
with once-through
cooling systems
or cooling ponds)
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2). The
impacts of impingement
mortality and entrainment
would generally be small at
nuclear power plants with
once-through cooling
systems or cooling ponds
that have implemented best
technology requirements for
existing facilities under
Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 316(b). For all other
plants, impacts could be
small, moderate, or large
depending on characteristics
of the cooling water intake
system, results of
impingement and
entrainment studies
performed at the plant,
trends in local fish and
shellfish populations, and
implementation of mitigation
measures.
Appendix B
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
The impacts of
impingement are small at
many plants but may be
moderate or even large at
a few plants with oncethrough and cooling-pond
cooling systems. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).
B-23
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Impingement of
fish and shellfish
[for plants with
once-through and
cooling-pond heat
dissipation
systems]
B-24
Impingement of
fish and shellfish
[for plants with
cooling-towerbased heat
dissipation
systems]
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
cooling systems. Further,
ongoing efforts in the
vicinity of these plants to
restore fish populations
may increase the numbers
of fish susceptible to
intake effects during the
license renewal period,
such that entrainment
studies conducted in
support of the original
license may no longer be
valid. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).
SMALL (Category 1). The
impingement has not been
found to be a problem at
operating nuclear power
plants with this type of
cooling system and is not
expected to be a problem
during the license renewal
term.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
Impingement and
entrainment of
aquatic
organisms (plants
with cooling
towers)
SMALL (Category 1).
Impingement and
entrainment rates are
lower at plants that use
closed-cycle cooling with
cooling towers because
the rates and volumes of
water withdrawal needed
for makeup are minimized.
Impingement
mortality and
entrainment of
aquatic
organisms (plants
with cooling
towers)
SMALL (Category 1). No
significant impacts on
aquatic populations
associated with impingement
mortality and entrainment at
nuclear power plants with
cooling towers have been
reported, including effects on
fish and shellfish from direct
mortality, injury, or other
sublethal effects. Impacts
during the license renewal
term would be similar and
small. Further, effects of
these cooling water intake
systems would be mitigated
through adherence to
NPDES permit conditions
established pursuant to
CWA Section 316(b).
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Entrainment of fish
and shellfish in
early life stages
[for plants with
cooling-tower
based heat
dissipation
systems]
Entrainment of
phytoplankton and
zooplankton
B-25
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Because of continuing
concerns about heat
shock and the possible
need to modify thermal
discharges in response to
changing environmental
conditions, the impacts
may be of moderate or
large significance at some
plants. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B).
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Entrainment of
phytoplankton
and zooplankton
(all plants)
SMALL (Category 1).
Entrainment of
Entrainment of
phytoplankton
phytoplankton and
and zooplankton
zooplankton 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 (plants
with once-through
cooling systems
or cooling ponds)
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Most of the effects
associated with thermal
discharges are localized
and 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.
Effects of thermal
effluents on
aquatic
organisms (plants
with once-through
cooling systems
or cooling ponds)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Entrainment has not resulted
in noticeable impacts on
phytoplankton or
zooplankton populations
near operating nuclear
power plants. Impacts during
the license renewal term
would be similar and small.
Further, effects would be
mitigated through adherence
to NPDES permit conditions
established pursuant to
CWA Section 316(b).
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Acute, sublethal, and
community-level effects of
thermal effluents on aquatic
organisms would generally
be small at nuclear power
plants with once-through
cooling systems or cooling
ponds that adhere to State
water quality criteria or that
have and maintain a valid
CWA Section 316(a)
variance. For all other
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Heat shock [for
plants with oncethrough and
cooling-pond heat
dissipation
systems]
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Entrainment of fish has
not been found to be a
problem at operating
nuclear power plants with
this type of cooling system
and is not expected to be
a problem during the
license renewal term.
SMALL (Category 1).
Entrainment of
phytoplankton and
zooplankton 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.
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
B-26
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
plants, impacts could be
small, moderate, or large
depending on site-specific
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.
Heat shock [for
SMALL (Category 1).
Thermal impacts SMALL (Category 1).
Effects of thermal SMALL (Category 1).
plants with cooling- Heat shock has not been on aquatic
Thermal effects
effluents on
Acute, sublethal, and
tower-based heat
found to be a problem at
organisms (plants associated with plants that aquatic
community-level effects of
dissipation
operating nuclear power
with cooling
use cooling towers are
organisms (plants thermal effluents have not
systems]
plants with this type of
towers)
expected to be small
with cooling
resulted in noticeable
cooling system and is not
because of the reduced
towers)
impacts on aquatic
expected to be a problem
amount of heated
communities at nuclear
during the license renewal
discharge.
power plants with cooling
term.
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.
Cold shock
SMALL (Category 1).
Infrequently
SMALL (Category 1).
Infrequently
SMALL (Category 1).
Cold shock has been
reported thermal Continued operations
reported effects
Continued operation of
satisfactorily mitigated at
impacts (all
during the license renewal of thermal
nuclear power plant cooling
operating nuclear plants
plants)
term are expected to have effluents
systems could result in
with once-through cooling
small thermal impacts with
certain infrequently reported
systems, has not
respect to the following:
thermal impacts, including
endangered fish
cold shock, thermal
populations or been found
Cold shock has been
migration barriers,
to be a problem at
satisfactorily mitigated at
accelerated maturation of
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
operating nuclear power
plants with cooling towers
or cooling ponds, and is
not expected to be a
problem during the license
renewal term.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
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.
B-27
Distribution of
aquatic organisms
SMALL (Category 1).
Thermal discharge may
have localized effects but
is not expected to effect
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
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.
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
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
SMALL (Category 1).
Thermal plume
barrier to migrating Thermal plumes have not
been found to be a
fish
problem at operating
nuclear power plants and
are not expected to be a
problem during the license
renewal term.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
[sic] the larger
geographical distribution
of aquatic organisms.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
distribution of aquatic
organisms.
B-28
Premature
emergence of
aquatic insects
SMALL (Category 1).
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
during the license renewal
term.
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 (e.g.,
shipworms)
SMALL (Category 1).
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 during the license
renewal term.
SMALL (Category 1).
Gas supersaturation was
a concern at a small
number of operating
nuclear power plants with
once-through cooling
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.
Gas
supersaturation
(gas bubble
disease)
Effects of cooling
water discharge
on dissolved
oxygen, gas
supersaturation,
SMALL (Category 1).
Gas supersaturation was
a concern at a small
number of operating
nuclear power plants with
once-through cooling
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue
systems but has been
and
satisfactorily mitigated. It
eutrophication
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 during the
license renewal term.
B-29
SMALL (Category 1).
Low dissolved oxygen has
been a concern at one
nuclear power plant with a
once-through cooling
system but has been
effectively mitigated. 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 during the
license renewal term.
Eutrophication
SMALL (Category 1).
Eutrophication has not
been found to be a
problem at operating
nuclear power plants and
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Low dissolved
oxygen in the
discharge
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
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.
Losses from
predation,
parasitism, and
disease among
organisms
exposed to
sublethal stresses
Accumulation of
contaminants in
sediments or biota
B-30
Not addressed
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
is not expected to be a
problem during the license
renewal term.
SMALL (Category 1).
These types of losses
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.
SMALL (Category 1).
Accumulation of
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. It
is not expected to be a
problem during the license
renewal term.
Not applicable
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
Losses from
predation,
parasitism, and
disease among
organisms
exposed to
sublethal stresses
SMALL (Category 1).
These types of losses
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.
SMALL (Category 1).
Best management
practices and discharge
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.
Effects of
nonradiological
contaminants on
aquatic
organisms
Exposure of
aquatic
organisms to
radionuclides
SMALL (Category 1).
Doses to aquatic
organisms are expected to
be well below exposure
guidelines developed to
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Effects of
nonradiological
contaminants on
aquatic
organisms
Exposure of
aquatic
organisms to
radionuclides
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Heavy metal leaching from
condenser tubes was an
issue at several operating
nuclear power plants. These
plants successfully mitigated
the issue, and it is no longer
of concern. Cooling system
effluents would be the
primary source of
nonradiological
contaminants during the
license renewal term.
Implementation of best
management practices and
adherence to NPDES permit
limitations would minimize
the effects of these
contaminants on the aquatic
environment.
SMALL (Category 1).
Doses to aquatic organisms
from continued nuclear
power plant operation and
refurbishment during the
license renewal term would
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
protect these aquatic
organisms.
Effects of
dredging on
aquatic
organisms
SMALL (Category 1).
Dredging at nuclear power
plants is expected to occur
infrequently, would be of
relatively short duration,
and would affect relatively
small areas. Dredging is
performed under permit
from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, and possibly
from other State or local
agencies.
Water use conflicts
(plants with cooling
ponds or cooling
towers using
make-up water
from a small river
with low flow)
SMALL or MODERATE
(Category 2). The issue
has been a concern at
nuclear power plants with
cooling ponds and at
plants with cooling towers.
Impacts on instream and
riparian communities near
these plants could be of
moderate significance in
some situations. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A).
Water use
conflicts with
aquatic resources
(plants with
cooling ponds or
cooling towers
using makeup
water from a
river)
SMALL or MODERATE
(Category 2). Impacts on
aquatic resources in
stream communities
affected by water use
conflicts could be of
moderate significance in
some situations.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
be expected to remain well
below U.S. Department of
Energy exposure guidelines
developed to protect these
organisms.
Effects of
SMALL (Category 1).
dredging on
Dredging at nuclear power
aquatic resources plants is expected to occur
infrequently, would be of
relatively short duration, and
would affect relatively small
areas. Continued operation
of many plants may not
require any dredging.
Adherence to best
management practices and
CWA Section 404 permit
conditions would mitigate
potential impacts at plants
where dredging is necessary
to maintain function or
reliability of cooling systems.
Dredging is not expected to
be a significant issue during
the license renewal term.
Water use
SMALL or MODERATE
conflicts with
(Category 2). Nuclear power
aquatic resources plants could consume water
(plants with
at rates that cause
cooling ponds or occasional or intermittent
cooling towers
water use conflicts with
using makeup
nearby and downstream
water from a
aquatic communities. Such
river)
impacts could noticeably
affect aquatic plants or
animals or alter
characteristics of the
Appendix B
Not applicable
B-31
Not addressed
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Refurbishment
SMALL (Category 1).
During plant shutdown
and refurbishment there
will be negligible effects
on aquatic biota because
of a reduction of
entrainment and
impingement of organisms
or a reduced release of
chemicals.
Effects on aquatic
resources (noncooling system
impacts)
SMALL (Category 1).
Licensee application of
appropriate mitigation
measures is expected to
result in no more than
small changes to aquatic
communities from their
current condition.
Non-cooling
system impacts
on aquatic
resources
Not addressed
Not applicable
Impacts of
transmission line
right-of-way
(ROW)
management on
aquatic
resources(b)
SMALL (Category 1).
Licensee application of
best management
practices to ROW
maintenance is expected
to result in no more than
small impacts on aquatic
resources.
Impacts of
transmission line
right-of-way
(ROW)
management on
aquatic
resources(b)
B-32
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
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.
SMALL (Category 1). No
significant impacts on
aquatic resources
associated with landscape
and grounds maintenance,
stormwater management, or
ground-disturbing activities
at operating nuclear power
plants have been reported.
Impacts from continued
operation and refurbishment
during the license renewal
term would be similar and
small. Application of best
management practices and
other conservation initiatives
would reduce the potential
for impacts.
SMALL (Category 1). Inscope transmission lines
tend to occupy only
industrial-use or other
developed portions of
nuclear power plant sites
and, therefore, the effects of
ROW maintenance on
aquatic plants and animals
during the license renewal
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
term would be negligible.
Application of best
management practices
would reduce the potential
for impacts.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
(b) 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-33
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Threatened or
endangered
species
B-34
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Generally, plant
refurbishment and
continued operation are
not expected to adversely
affect threatened or
endangered species.
However, consultation with
appropriate agencies
would be needed at the
time of license renewal to
determine whether
threatened or endangered
species are present and
whether they would be
adversely affected. See §
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E).
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Threatened,
endangered, and
protected species
and essential fish
habitat
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
(Category 2). The
magnitude of impacts on
threatened, endangered,
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.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Endangered
Species Act:
federally listed
species and
critical habitats
under U.S. Fish
and Wildlife
Service
jurisdiction
Endangered
Species Act:
federally listed
species and
critical habitats
under National
Marine Fisheries
Service
jurisdiction
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
(Category 2). The potential
effects of continued nuclear
power plant operation and
refurbishment on federally
listed species and critical
habitats would depend on
numerous site-specific
factors, including the
ecological setting; listed
species and critical habitats
present in the action area;
and plant-specific factors
related to operations,
including water withdrawal,
effluent discharges, and
other ground-disturbing
activities. Consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service under Endangered
Species Act Section 7(a)(2)
would be required if license
renewal may affect listed
species or critical habitats
under this agency's
jurisdiction.
(Category 2). The potential
effects of continued nuclear
power plant operation and
refurbishment on federally
listed species and critical
habitats would depend on
numerous site-specific
factors, including the
ecological setting; listed
species and critical habitats
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table B.1-10 Comparison of Federally Protected Ecological Resources-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This
LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
B-35
MagnusonStevens Act:
essential fish
habitat
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
present in the action area;
and plant-specific factors
related to operations,
including water withdrawal,
effluent discharges, and
other ground-disturbing
activities. Consultation with
the National Marine Fisheries
Service under Endangered
Species Act Section 7(a)(2)
would be required if license
renewal may affect listed
species or critical habitats
under this agency's
jurisdiction.
(Category 2). The potential
effects of continued nuclear
power plant operation and
refurbishment on essential
fish habitat would depend on
numerous site-specific
factors, including the
ecological setting; essential
fish habitat present in the
area, including habitats of
particular concern; and plantspecific 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
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
National Marine
Sanctuaries Act:
sanctuary
resources
B-36
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
could result in adverse
effects to essential fish
habitat.
(Category 2). The potential
effects of continued nuclear
power plant operation and
refurbishment on sanctuary
resources would depend on
numerous site-specific
factors, including the
ecological setting; national
marine sanctuaries present in
the area; and plant-specific
factors related to operations,
including water withdrawal,
effluent discharges, and
other activities that may
affect aquatic habitats.
Consultation with the Office
of National Marine
Sanctuaries under National
Marine Sanctuaries Act
Section 304(d) would be
required if license renewal
could destroy, cause the loss
of, or injure sanctuary
resources.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Table B.1-11
Comparison of Historic and Cultural Resources-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS
Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Historic and
archaeological
resources
B-37
1996 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue
SMALL, MODERATE, or Historic and
LARGE (Category 2).
cultural
Generally, plant
resources(b)
refurbishment and
continued operation are
expected to have no more
than small adverse impacts
on historic and
archaeological resources.
However, the National
Historic Preservation Act
requires the Federal
agency to consult with the
State Historic Preservation
Officer to determine
whether there are
properties present that
require protection. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K).
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue(a)
(Category 2). Continued
Historic and
operations and
cultural
refurbishment associated
resources(b)
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.
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
(Category 2). Impacts
from continued operations
and refurbishment on
historic and cultural
resources located onsite
and in the transmission line
ROW are analyzed on a
plant-specific basis. The
NRC will perform a
National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA)
Section 106 review, in
accordance with 36 CFR
Part 800 which includes
consultation with the State
and Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers,
Indian Tribes, and other
interested parties.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
(b) 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-38
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Public services:
public safety,
social services,
and tourism and
recreation
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Impacts to public safety,
social services, and
tourism and recreation are
expected to be of small
significance at all sites.
Considered in the
1996 LR GEIS,
but not listed as a
separate issue
Not applicable
Public services:
public safety,
social services,
and tourism and
recreation
SMALL (Category 1).
Impacts to public safety,
social services, and
tourism and recreation are
expected to be of small
significance at all sites.
2013 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Finding
Employment and SMALL (Category 1).
income, recreation Although most nuclear
and tourism
plants have large numbers
of employees with higher
than average wages and
salaries, employment,
income, recreation, and
tourism, impacts from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal are
expected to be small.
Tax revenues
SMALL (Category 1).
Nuclear plants provide tax
revenue to local
jurisdictions in the form of
property tax payments,
payments in lieu of tax
(PILOT), or tax payments
on energy production. The
amount of tax revenue paid
during the license renewal
term as a result of
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal is not
expected to change.
Community
SMALL (Category 1).
services and
Changes resulting from
education
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal to
local community and
educational services would
2024 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Finding(a)
Employment and SMALL (Category 1).
income, recreation Although most nuclear
and tourism
plants have large numbers
of employees with higher
than average wages and
salaries, employment,
income, recreation, and
tourism impacts from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal are
expected to be small.
Tax revenue
SMALL (Category 1).
Nuclear plants provide tax
revenue to local
jurisdictions in the form of
property tax payments,
payments in lieu of tax
(PILOT), or tax payments
on energy production. The
amount of tax revenue paid
during the license renewal
term as a result of
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal is not
expected to change.
Community
SMALL (Category 1).
services and
Changes resulting from
education
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal to
local community and
educational services would
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table B.1-12 Comparison of Socioeconomics-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to
Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
B-39
Public services:
public utilities
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
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.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
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 or MODERATE
(Category 2). An
increased problem with
water shortages at some
sites may lead to impacts
of moderate significance
on public water supply
availability. See §
51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
Public services,
education
(refurbishment)
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Most sites would
experience impacts of
small significance but
larger impacts are possible
depending on site- and
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
SMALL (Category 1). Only
Public services,
education (license impacts of small
significance are expected.
renewal term)
Housing impacts
B-40
Public services,
Transportation
1996 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue
project-specific factors.
See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
SMALL, MODERATE, or Population and
LARGE (Category 2).
housing
Housing impacts are
expected to be of small
significance at plants
located in a medium or
high population area and
not in an area where
growth control measures
that limit housing
development are in effect.
Moderate or large housing
impacts of the workforce
associated with
refurbishment may be
associated with plants
located in sparsely
populated areas or in areas
with growth control
measures that limit housing
development. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).
SMALL, MODERATE, or Transportation
LARGE (Category 2).
Transportation impacts
(level of service) of
highway traffic generated
during plant refurbishment
and during the term of the
renewed license are
generally expected to be of
small significance.
However, the increase in
traffic associated with
additional workers and the
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Population and
Changes resulting from
housing
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 (Category 1).
Changes resulting from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal to
regional population and
housing availability and
value would be small. With
little or no change in
employment at the
licensee’s plant expected
during the license renewal
term, population and
housing availability and
values would not be
affected by continued
power plant operations.
SMALL (Category 1).
Changes resulting from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal to
traffic volumes would be
small.
SMALL (Category 1).
Changes resulting from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal to
traffic volumes would be
small.
Transportation
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
local road and traffic
control conditions may lead
to impacts of moderate or
large significance at some
sites. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(J).
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
B-41
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue
SMALL (Category 1).
Radiation
Occupational doses from
exposures to
refurbishment are
plant workers
expected to be within the
range of annual average
collective doses
experienced for
pressurized-water reactors
and boiling-water reactors.
Occupational mortality risk
from all causes including
radiation is in the midrange for industrial
settings.
Occupational
radiation
exposures
(license renewal
term)
SMALL (Category 1).
Projected maximum
occupational doses during
the license renewal term
are within the range of
doses experienced during
normal operations and
normal maintenance
outages, and would be
well below regulatory
limits.
SMALL (Category 1).
Radiation
During refurbishment, the exposures to the
gaseous effluents would
public
result in doses that are
similar to those from
current operation.
Applicable regulatory dose
limits to the public are not
expected to be exceeded.
B-42
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Occupational
radiation
exposures during
refurbishment
Radiation
exposures to the
public during
refurbishment
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Occupational doses from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal are
expected to be within the
range of doses
experienced during the
current license term, and
would continue to be well
below regulatory limits.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Radiation
exposures to
plant workers
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Occupational doses from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal are
expected to be within the
range of doses experienced
during the current license
term, and would continue to
be well below regulatory
limits.
SMALL (Category 1).
Radiation doses to the
public from continued
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal are
expected to continue at
current levels, and would
Radiation
exposures to the
public
SMALL (Category 1).
Radiation doses to the public
from continued operations
and refurbishment
associated with license
renewal are expected to
continue at current levels,
and would be well below
regulatory limits.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table B.1-13 Comparison of Human Health-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior
Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Radiation
exposures to
public (license
renewal term)
Not addressed
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Radiation doses to the
public will continue at
current levels associated
with normal operations.
Not applicable
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Human health
impact from
chemicals
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
be well below regulatory
limits.
B-43
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
Chemical hazards SMALL (Category 1).
Chemical hazards to plant
workers resulting from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal are
expected to be minimized by
the licensee implementing
good industrial hygiene
practices as required by
permits and Federal and
State 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.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
SMALL (Category 1).
Chemical hazards to plant
workers resulting from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal are
expected to be minimized
by the licensee
implementing good
industrial hygiene
practices as required by
permits and Federal and
State regulations.
Chemical releases to the
environment and the
potential for impacts on
the public are expected to
be minimized by
adherence to discharge
limitations of NPDES and
other permits.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
B-44
1996 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue
SMALL (Category 1).
Microbiological
Occupational health
hazards to plant
impacts are expected to
workers
be controlled by continued
application of accepted
industrial hygiene
practices to minimize
worker exposures.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Microbiological
hazards to plant
workers
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Occupational health impacts
are expected to be controlled
by continued application of
accepted industrial hygiene
practices to minimize worker
exposures as required by
permits and Federal and
State regulations.
Microbiological
organisms (public
health) (plants
using lakes or
canals, or cooling
towers or cooling
ponds that
discharge to a
small river)
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
These organisms are not
expected to be a problem
at most operating plants
except possibly at plants
using cooling ponds,
lakes, or canals that
discharge to small rivers.
Without site-specific data,
it is not possible to predict
the effects generically.
See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G).
UNCERTAIN (NA).
Biological and physical
studies of 60-Hz
electromagnetic fields
have not found consistent
evidence linking harmful
effects with field
exposures. However,
research is continuing in
this area and a consensus
scientific view has not
been reached.
Microbiological
hazards to the
public
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2). These
microorganisms are not
expected to be a problem at
most operating plants except
possibly at plants using
cooling ponds, lakes, canals,
or that discharge to publicly
accessible surface waters.
Impacts would depend on
site-specific characteristics.
Electromagnetic
fields, chronic
effects(b)
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Occupational health
impacts are expected to
be controlled by continued
application of accepted
industrial hygiene
practices to minimize
worker exposures as
required by permits and
Federal and State
regulations.
Microbiological
SMALL, MODERATE, or
hazards to the
LARGE (Category 2).
public (plants with These organisms are not
cooling ponds or expected to be a problem
canals or cooling at most operating plants
towers that
except possibly at plants
discharge to a
using cooling ponds,
river)
lakes, or canals, or that
discharge into rivers.
Impacts would depend on
site-specific
characteristics.
Chronic effects of
electromagnetic
fields
(EMFs)(b,c)
Uncertain impact.
Electromagnetic
Studies of 60-Hz EMFs
fields (EMFs)(b,c)
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,
Uncertain impact. Studies
of 60Hz 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 longerterm effects, if real, are
subtle. Because the state of
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Microbiological
organisms
(occupational
health)
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Not addressed
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
Not applicable
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Physical
occupational
hazards
B-45
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue(a)
are subtle. Because the
state of the science is
currently inadequate, no
generic conclusion on
human health impacts is
possible.
SMALL (Category 1).
Physical
Occupational safety and
occupational
health hazards are generic hazards
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.
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
the science is currently
inadequate, no generic
conclusion on human health
impacts is possible.
SMALL (Category 1).
Occupational safety and
health hazards are generic to
all types of electrical
generating stations, including
nuclear power plants, and
are of small significance if
the workers adhere to safety
standards and use protective
equipment as required by
Federal and State
regulations.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
B-46
1996 LR GEIS
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue
SMALL, MODERATE, or Electric shock
LARGE (Category 2).
hazards(b)
Electrical shock resulting
from direct access to
energized conductors or
from induced charges in
metallic structures have
not been found to be a
problem at most operating
plants and generally are
not expected to be a
problem during the license
renewal term. However,
site-specific review is
required to determine the
significance of the electric
shock potential at the site.
See § 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H).
2013 LR GEIS
2024 LR GEIS
Finding
Issue(a)
SMALL, MODERATE, or Electric shock
LARGE (Category 2).
hazards(b)
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
plant’s in-scope
transmission lines, it is not
possible to determine the
significance of the
electrical shock potential.
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL, MODERATE, or
LARGE (Category 2).
Electrical shock potential is
of small significance for
transmission lines that are
operated in adherence with
the National Electrical Safety
Code (NESC). Without a
review of conformance with
NESC criteria of each
nuclear power plant’s inscope transmission lines, it is
not possible to determine the
significance of the electrical
shock potential.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Electromagnetic
fields, acute
effects (electric
shock)
Table B.1-14 Comparison of Postulated Accidents-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to
Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Design basis
accidents
Severe accidents
B-47
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
The NRC staff has
concluded that the
environmental impacts of
design basis accidents
are of small significance
for all plants.
SMALL (Category 2).
The probability weighted
consequences of
atmospheric releases,
fallout onto open bodies
of water, releases to
ground water, and
societal and economic
impacts from severe
accidents are small for all
plants. However,
alternatives to mitigate
severe accidents must be
considered for all plants
that have not considered
such alternatives. See
§ 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L).
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Design-basis
accidents
Severe accidents
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
The NRC staff has
concluded that the
environmental impacts of
design-basis accidents
are of small significance
for all plants.
SMALL (Category 2).
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.
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1). The
NRC staff has concluded
that the environmental
impacts of design-basis
accidents are of small
significance for all plants.
Severe
accidents(b)
SMALL (Category 1). The
probability-weighted
consequences of
atmospheric releases,
fallout onto open bodies of
water, releases to
groundwater, and societal
and economic impacts
from severe accidents are
small for all plants. Severe
accident mitigation
alternatives do not warrant
further plant-specific
analysis because the
demonstrated reductions
in population dose risk and
continued severe accident
regulatory improvements
substantially reduce the
likelihood of finding costeffective significant plant
improvements.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
(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.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Design-basis
accidents
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Environmental
justice
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
None (NA). The need for
and the content of an
analysis of environmental
justice will be addressed
in plant-specific reviews.(b)
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Minority and lowincome
populations
B-48
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
(Category 2). Impacts on
minority and low-income
populations and
subsistence consumption
resulting from continued
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal will
be addressed in plantspecific reviews. See
NRC Policy Statement on
the Treatment of
Environmental Justice
Matters in NRC
Regulatory and Licensing
Actions (69 FR 52040;
August 24, 2004).
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Impacts on
minority
populations, lowincome
populations, and
Indian Tribes
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
(Category 2). Impacts on
minority populations, lowincome populations,
Indian Tribes, and
subsistence consumption
resulting from continued
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal will
be addressed in nuclear
plant-specific reviews.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
(b) Environmental Justice was not addressed in NUREG-1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,’’ because
guidance for implementing Executive Order 12898 [59 FR 7629] issued on February 11, 1994, was not available prior to completion of NUREG-1437. This
issue will be addressed in individual license renewal reviews.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table B.1-15 Comparison of Environmental Justice-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision
to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
Table B.1-16 Comparison of Waste Management-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to
Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Low-level waste
storage and
disposal
B-49
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
The comprehensive
regulatory controls that
are in place and the low
public doses being
achieved at reactors
ensure that the
radiological impacts to the
environment will remain
small during the term of a
renewed license. The
maximum additional onsite land that may be
required for low-level
waste storage during the
term of a renewed license
and associated impacts
will be small.
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
The comprehensive
regulatory controls that
are in place and the low
public doses being
achieved at reactors
ensure that the
radiological impacts on
the environment would
remain small during the
license renewal term.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Low-level waste
storage and
disposal
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
The comprehensive
regulatory controls that
are in place and the low
public doses being
achieved at reactors
ensure that the
radiological impacts to the
environment would
remain small during the
license renewal term.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Nonradiological impacts
on air and water will be
negligible. The
radiological and
nonradiological
environmental impacts of
long-term disposal of lowlevel waste from any
individual plant at licensed
sites are small. In
addition, the Commission
concludes that there is
reasonable assurance
that sufficient low-level
waste disposal capacity
will be made available
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Low-level waste
storage and
disposal
On-site spent
fuel
B-50
Offsite
radiological
impacts (spent
fuel and high
level waste
disposal)
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
when needed for facilities
to be decommissioned
consistent with NRC
decommissioning
requirements.
SMALL (Category 1).
The expected increase in
the volume of spent fuel
from an additional 20
years of operation can be
safely accommodated on
site with small
environmental effects
through dry or pool
storage at all plants if a
permanent repository or
monitored retrievable
storage is not available.
(Category 1). The NRC
did not assign a single
level of significance for
the impacts of spent fuel
and high-level waste
disposal, but considered
the issue Category 1.(b)
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
Onsite storage of
spent nuclear
fuel
SMALL (Category 1).
The expected increase in
the volume of spent fuel
from an additional 20
years of operation can be
safely accommodated
onsite during the license
renewal term with small
environmental effects
through dry or pool
storage at all plants.
Onsite storage of
spent nuclear
fuel
During the license
renewal term, SMALL
(Category 1). The
expected increase in the
volume of spent fuel from
an additional 20 years of
operation can be safely
accommodated onsite
during the license renewal
term with small
environmental impacts
through dry or pool
storage at all plants.
Offsite
radiological
impacts of spent
nuclear fuel and
high-level waste
disposal
Uncertain impact. The
generic conclusion on
offsite radiological
impacts of spent nuclear
fuel and high-level waste
is not being finalized
pending the completion of
Offsite
radiological
impacts of spent
nuclear fuel and
high-level waste
disposal
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 NUREG2157 and as stated in §
51.23(b), shall be deemed
incorporated into this
issue.
(Category 1). For the
high-level waste and
spent-fuel disposal
component of the fuel
cycle, the EPA
established a dose limit of
0.15 mSv (15 millirem)
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
a generic environmental
impact statement on
waste confidence.(c)
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
B-51
SMALL (Category 1).
The comprehensive
regulatory controls and
the facilities and
procedures that are in
place ensure proper
handling and storage, as
well as negligible doses
and exposure to toxic
Mixed-waste
storage and
disposal
SMALL (Category 1).
The comprehensive
regulatory controls and
the facilities and
procedures that are in
place ensure proper
handling and storage, as
well as negligible doses
and exposure to toxic
Mixed-waste
storage and
disposal
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 (Category 1).
The comprehensive
regulatory controls and
the facilities and
procedures that are in
place ensure proper
handling and storage, as
well as negligible doses
and exposure to toxic
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Mixed waste
storage and
disposal
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
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.
B-52
Nonradiological
waste
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
materials for the public
and the environment at all
plants. License renewal
will 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. In
addition, the Commission
concludes that there is
reasonable assurance
that sufficient mixed
waste disposal capacity
will be made available
when needed for facilities
to be decommissioned
consistent with NRC
decommissioning
requirements.
SMALL (Category 1). No
changes to generating
systems are anticipated
for license renewal.
Facilities and procedures
are in place to ensure
continued proper handling
and disposal at all plants.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Nonradioactive
waste storage
and disposal
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
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 (Category 1). No
changes to systems that
generate nonradioactive
waste are anticipated
during the license renewal
term. Facilities and
procedures are in place to
ensure continued proper
handling, storage, and
disposal, as well as
negligible exposure to
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Nonradioactive
waste storage
and disposal
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
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 (Category 1). No
changes to systems that
generate nonradioactive
waste are anticipated
during the license renewal
term. Facilities and
procedures are in place to
ensure continued proper
handling, storage, and
disposal, as well as
negligible exposure to
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
toxic materials for the
public and the
environment at all plants.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
toxic materials for the
public and the
environment at all plants.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
(b) For the high level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, there are no current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for
the current candidate repository site. However, if we assume that limits are developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
report, “Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,” and that in accordance with the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a
repository can and likely will be developed at some site which will comply with such limits, peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem per
year or less. However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since
the limits are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate
possible pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for
individual doses, but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the
100 millirem per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem annual dose limit is about 3 × 10-3.
B-53
Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgment as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense
to repeat the same judgment in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in
that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR part
54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high level
waste disposal, this issue is considered Category 1.
(c) As a result of the decision of United States Court of Appeals in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the NRC cannot rely upon its waste
confidence decision and rule until it has taken those actions that will address the deficiencies identified by the D.C. Circuit. Although the waste confidence
decision and rule did not assess the impacts associated with disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in a repository, it did reflect the Commission’s
confidence, at the time, in the technical feasibility of a repository and when that repository could have been expected to become available. Without the
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously
compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the Department of Energy in the “Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste,” October 1980. The evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment to the
maximally exposed individual and to the regional population resulting from several modes of breaching a reference repository in the year of closure, after
1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years. Subsequently, the NRC and other Federal agencies have expended considerable effort to
develop models for the design and for the licensing of a high level waste repository, especially for the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More
meaningful estimates of doses to the population may be possible in the future as more is understood about the performance of the proposed Yucca
Mountain repository. Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty, especially with respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of years.
The standard proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The relationship of potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS
report, and cumulative population impacts has not been determined, although the report articulates the view that protection of individuals will adequately
protect the population for a repository at Yucca Mountain. However, the EPA's generic repository standards in 40 CFR part 191 generally provide an
indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to population that could result from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the
ultimate standards will be within the range of standards now under consideration. The standards in 40 CFR part 191 protect the population by imposing
“containment requirements” that limit the cumulative amount of radioactive material released over 10,000 years. Reporting performance standards that will
be required by EPA are expected to result in releases and associated health consequences in the range between 10 and 100 premature cancer deaths
with an upper limit of 1,000 premature cancer deaths world-wide for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
analysis in the waste confidence decision and rule regarding the technical feasibility and availability of a repository, the NRC cannot assess how long the
spent fuel will need to be stored onsite. Note: In 2014, the NRC issued the Continued Storage Final Rule (79 FR 56238) that addressed the generic
determination of the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a reactor’s licensed life for operation. This final rule made
conforming changes to the two environmental issues in Table B-1 that were affected by the vacated 2010 Waste Confidence Rule: “Onsite storage of spent
nuclear fuel” and “Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal.”
B-54
Table B.1-17 Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change-Related Environmental Issues and Findings
in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Not addressed
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
Not applicable
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Not addressed
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
Not applicable
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Greenhouse gas
impacts on
climate change
B-55
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
Greenhouse gas impacts
on climate change from
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal are
expected to be small at all
plants. Greenhouse gas
emissions from routine
operations of nuclear
power plants are typically
very minor, because such
plants, by their very
nature, do not normally
combust fossil fuels to
generate electricity.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
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.
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
Not applicable
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Not addressed
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
Not applicable
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Climate change
impacts on
environmental
resources
B-56
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
(Category 2). Climate
change can have additive
effects on environmental
resource conditions that
may also be directly
impacted by continued
operations and
refurbishment during the
license renewal term. The
effects of climate change
can vary regionally and
climate change
information at the regional
and local scale is
necessary to assess
trends and 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.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Not addressed
Table B.1-18 Comparison of Cumulative Effects-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to
Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Not addressed
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
Not applicable
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Cumulative
impacts
B-57
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
(Category 2). Cumulative
impacts of continued
operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal must
be considered on a plantspecific 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.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Cumulative
effects
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
(Category 2). Cumulative
effects or impacts of
continued operations and
refurbishment associated
with license renewal must
be considered on a plantspecific basis. The effects
depend on regional
resource characteristics,
the incremental resourcespecific effects of license
renewal, and the
cumulative significance of
other factors affecting the
environmental resource.
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
B-58
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Offsite
radiological
impacts
(individual effects
from other than
the disposal of
spent fuel and
high level waste)
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
Off-site impacts of the
uranium fuel cycle have
been considered by the
Commission in Table S-3
of this part. Based on
information in the GEIS,
impacts on individuals
from radioactive gaseous
and liquid releases
including radon-222 and
technetium-99 are small.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Offsite
radiological
impacts—
individual
impacts from
other than the
disposal of spent
fuel and highlevel waste
Offsite
radiological
impacts
(collective
effects)
(Category 1). The NRC
did not assign a single
level of significance for
the collective effects of
the fuel cycle, but
considered the issue
Category 1.(b)
Offsite
radiological
impacts—
collective
impacts from
other than the
disposal of spent
fuel and highlevel waste
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
The impacts on 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 on individuals
from radioactive gaseous
and liquid releases,
including radon-222 and
technetium-99, would
remain at or below the
NRC’s regulatory limits.
(Category 1). There are
no regulatory limits
applicable to collective
doses to the general
public from fuel-cycle
facilities. The practice of
estimating health effects
on the basis of collective
doses may not be
meaningful. All fuel-cycle
facilities are designed and
operated to meet the
applicable regulatory
limits and standards. The
Commission concludes
that the collective impacts
are acceptable.
The Commission
concludes that the
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Offsite
radiological
impacts—
individual
impacts from
other than the
disposal of spent
fuel and highlevel waste
Offsite
radiological
impacts—
collective
impacts from
other than the
disposal of spent
fuel and highlevel waste
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
The impacts to the public
from radiological
exposures have been
considered by the
Commission in Table S-3
of this part. Based on
information in the GEIS,
impacts to individuals
from radioactive gaseous
and liquid releases,
including radon-222 and
technetium-99, would
remain at or below the
NRC’s regulatory limits.
(Category 1). There are
no regulatory limits
applicable to collective
doses to the general
public from fuel-cycle
facilities. The practice of
estimating health effects
on the basis of collective
doses may not be
meaningful. All fuel-cycle
facilities are designed and
operated to meet the
applicable regulatory
limits and standards. The
Commission concludes
that the collective impacts
are acceptable.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table B.1-19 Comparison of Uranium Fuel Cycle-Related Environmental Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to
Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
B-59
Nonradiological
impacts of the
uranium fuel
cycle
SMALL (Category 1).
The nonradiological
impacts of the uranium
fuel cycle resulting from
the renewal of an
operating license for any
plant are found to be
small.
SMALL (Category 1).
The impacts of
transporting spent fuel
enriched up to 5 percent
uranium-235 with average
burnup for the peak rod to
current levels approved
by NRC up to 62,000
MWd/MTU and the
cumulative impacts of
transporting high-level
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
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.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Nonradiological
impacts of the
uranium fuel
cycle
SMALL (Category 1).
The nonradiological
impacts of the uranium
fuel cycle resulting from
the renewal of an
operating license for any
plant would be small.
Nonradiological
impacts of the
uranium fuel
cycle
Transportation
SMALL (Category 1).
The impacts of
transporting materials to
and from uranium-fuelcycle facilities on workers,
the public, and the
environment are expected
to be small.
Transportation
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
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.
SMALL (Category 1).
The nonradiological
impacts of the uranium
fuel cycle resulting from
the renewal of an
operating license for any
plant would be small.
SMALL (Category 1).
The impacts of
transporting materials to
and from uranium-fuelcycle facilities on workers,
the public, and the
environment are expected
to be small.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Transportation
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
B-60
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
waste to a single
repository, such as Yucca
Mountain, Nevada are
found to be consistent
with the impact values
contained in 10 CFR
51.52(c), Summary Table
S–4—Environmental
Impact of Transportation
of Fuel and Waste to and
from One Light-WaterCooled Nuclear Power
Reactor. If fuel
enrichment or burnup
conditions are not met,
the applicant must submit
an assessment of the
implications for the
environmental impact
values reported in §
51.52.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
(b) The 100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be
about 14,800 person rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20-year power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the contribution of radon
releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses summed over large populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be extended to
include many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well as doses outside the U.S. The result of such a calculation would be thousands of cancer
fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses have some statistical adverse health effect which will not ever be mitigated (for
example no cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that these doses projected over thousands of years are meaningful. However, these assumptions
are questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility that there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses
are very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even smaller fractions of natural background exposure to the same populations.
Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgment as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made and it makes no sense to
repeat the same judgment in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that
these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should
be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is
considered Category 1.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Table B.1-20 Comparison of Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning-Related Environmental
Issues and Findings in This LR GEIS Revision to Prior Versions of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51
Water quality
SMALL (Category 1).
The potential for
significant water quality
impacts from erosion or
spills is no greater
whether
decommissioning occurs
after a 20-year license
renewal period or after
the original 40-year
operation period, and
measures are readily
available to avoid such
impacts.
Ecological
resources
SMALL (Category 1).
Decommissioning after
either the initial operating
period or after a 20-year
license renewal period is
not expected to have any
direct ecological impacts.
Socioeconomic
impacts
SMALL (Category 1).
Decommissioning would
have some short-term
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
Termination of
plant operations
and
decommissioning
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1).
License renewal is
expected to have a
negligible effect on the
impacts of terminating
operations and
decommissioning on all
resources.
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
Termination of
plant operations
and
decommissioning
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
SMALL (Category 1).
License renewal is
expected to have a
negligible effect on the
impacts of terminating
operations and
decommissioning on all
resources.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix B
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
SMALL (Category 1). Air
quality impacts of
decommissioning are
expected to be negligible
either at the end of the
current operating term or
at the end of the license
renewal term.
B-61
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Air quality
Radiation doses
SMALL (Category 1).
Doses to the public will
be well below applicable
regulatory standards
regardless of which
decommissioning method
is used. Occupational
doses would increase no
more than 1 man-rem
caused by buildup of
long-lived radionuclides
during the license
renewal term.
Waste
management
SMALL (Category 1).
Decommissioning at the
end of a 20-year license
renewal period would
generate no more solid
wastes than at the end of
the current license term.
No increase in the
quantities of Class C or
greater than Class C
wastes would be
expected.
B-62
1996 LR GEIS
Finding
socioeconomic impacts.
The impacts would not be
increased by delaying
decommissioning until the
end of a 20-year
relicense period, but they
might be decreased by
population and economic
growth.
2013 LR GEIS
Issue
2013 LR GEIS
Finding
2024 LR GEIS
Issue(a)
2024 LR GEIS
Finding(a)
(a) The technical bases for these issues and findings in the LR GEIS have been revised to fully account for the impacts of initial and one term of subsequent
license renewal.
Appendix B
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
1996 LR GEIS
Issue
Appendix B
B.2
References
10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental
Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”
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 28467. June 5, 1996. “Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses.” Final Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
61 FR 66537. December 18, 1996. “Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses.” Final Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
62 FR 59276. November 3, 1997. “10 CFR Parts 13, 32, 50, 51, 55, 60, 72, and 110, Minor
Correcting Amendments.” Final Rule; Technical amendment, Federal Register, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
64 FR 48496. September 3, 1999. “Changes to Requirements for Environmental Review for
Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.” Final Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
66 FR 39278. July 30, 2001. “Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses; Correction.” Final Rule: Correcting amendment, Federal Register, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
78 FR 37282. June 20, 2013. “Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear
Power Plant Operating Licenses.” Final Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
79 FR 56262. September 19, 2014. “Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel.” Final Rule,
Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705, ML040690738.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [GEIS]. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Package Accession No. ML13107A023.
B-63
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
APPENDIX C
–
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS
OF OPERATING DOMESTIC NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
APPENDIX C
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS
OF OPERATING DOMESTIC NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
This appendix contains brief descriptions of each operating commercial nuclear power plant site
in the United States.1 The material is intended to serve as an overview of the important
characteristics of each plant and its environmental setting. The information was taken from the
1996 and 2013 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
(LR GEIS, NUREG-1437, Revisions 0 and 1; NRC 1996, NRC 2013) and updated with the best
available information from recently published supplemental environmental impacts statements,
U.S. Census Bureau population estimates (USCB 2021), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Level III ecoregion data (EPA 2013), National Wetlands Inventory data (FWS 2022), National
Land Cover Database data (USGS 2019), the 2022–2023 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Information Digest (NRC 2023a), and license renewal applications, including associated
environmental reports, as docketed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1
The scope of this revised LR GEIS is limited to nuclear power plants for which an operating license,
construction permit, or combined license was issued as of June 30, 1995. Nuclear power plants not
meeting these conditions (such as Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Waynesboro, Georgia, which commenced
commercial operations in July 2023 and April 2024, respectively), are not included in this appendix.
C-1
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE (Arkansas)
Location: Pope County, Arkansas
6 mi (10 km) WNW of Russellville
Latitude 35.3100°N; longitude 93.2308°W
Licensee: Entergy Operations, Inc.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-313
1968
1974
1974
2034
2,568
833
PWR
B&W
50-368
1972
1978
1980
2038
3,026
985
PWR
CE
Cooling Water System
Type: Unit 1: Once-through; Unit 2: Natural draft cooling tower
Source: Dardanelle Reservoir
Source Temperature Range: 40−83°F (4−28°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 762,400 gpm (48.1 m3/s) for Unit 1
422,000 gpm (26.6 m3/s) for Unit 2
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 5°F (8.3°C) for Unit 1
30.7°F (17.1°C) for Unit 2
Intake Structure: 4,400 ft (1,340 m) canal
Discharge Structure: 520 ft (158 m) canal
Site Information
Total Area: 1,164 ac (471 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.7 mi (1 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 4 mi (6.44 km) radius
Nearest City: Little Rock: 2020 population: 202,591
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly to mountainous
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, open water
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Arkansas Valley
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 0.9
Nearby Features: The nearest town is London 2 mi (3 km) NW. The size of Lake Dardanelle is
37,000 ac (15,000 ha). The reservoir is part of the Arkansas River. Interstate
Highway I-40 is directly north of the site.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 312,591.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-2
Appendix C
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION (Beaver Valley)
Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania
25 mi (40 km) NW of Pittsburgh
Latitude 40.6219°N; longitude 80.4339°W
Licensee: Energy Harbor Nuclear Corporation
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-334
1970
1976
1976
2036
2,900
892
PWR
WEST
50-412
1974
1987
1987
2047
2,900
901
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling towers
Source: Ohio River
Source Temperature Range: 36.5−79.5°F (2.5−26.4°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 480,400 gpm (30.31 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 26°F (14°C)
Intake Structure: Concrete structure at river edge
Discharge Structure: At river edge
Site Information
Total Area: 453 ac (183 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.38 mi (0.61 km)
Low Population Zone: 3.60 mi (5.79 km)
Nearest City: Pittsburgh; 2020 population: 302,971
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, developed: open space
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Western Allegheny Plateau
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 0.5
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Midland 1 mi (1.6 km) NW. A large industrial area is
about 1 mi (1.6 km) WNW. Beaver Creek and Raccoon Creek State Parks
are within 10 mi (16 km).
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 3,146,489.
C-3
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
BRAIDWOOD STATION (Braidwood)
Location: Will County, Illinois
39 km (24 mi) SSW of Joliet
Latitude 41.2436°N; longitude 88.2297°W
Licensee: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-456
1975
1987
1988
2046
3,645
1,183
PWR
WEST
50-457
1975
1988
1988
2047
3,645
1,154
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Cooling pond
Source: Kankakee River
Source Temperature Range: 32−87°F (0−31°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 729,800 gpm (46.05 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 21°F (12°C)
Intake Structure: Concrete structure at lake shore (Braidwood Lake cooling pond)
Discharge Structure: Surface discharge flume to lake
Site Information
Total Area: 4,457 ac (1,804 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.3 mi (0.48 km) minimum
Low Population Zone: 1.125 mi (1.810 km) radius
Nearest City: Joliet; 2020 population: 150,362
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, developed: high, medium, low
density
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Corn Belt Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 3.9
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Godley 0.5 mi (0.8 km) SW. There are 4 State parks
within 10 mi (16 km). Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie and Abraham
Lincoln National Cemetery are about 8 mi (13 km) NE. Dresden Nuclear
Power Station is about 10 mi (16 km) N, and LaSalle County Station
(nuclear) is about 20 mi (32 km) WSW. Interstate Highway I-55 is about 2 mi
(3 km) NW.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 5,033,013.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-4
Appendix C
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT (Browns Ferry)
Location: Limestone County, Alabama
16 km (10 mi) NW of Decatur
Latitude 34.7042°N; longitude 87.1186°W
Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-259
1967
1973
1974
2033
3,952
1,256
BWR
GE
50-260
1967
1974
1975
2034
3,952
1,259
BWR
GE
50-296
1968
1976
1977
2036
3,952
1,260
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through with helper towers
Source: Tennessee River
Source Temperature Range: 40−90°F (4−32°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 734,000 gpm (139 m3/s); for all three units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 28.7°F (15.9°C)
Intake Structure: Concrete structure in small inlet
Discharge Structure: Diffuser pipes
Site Information
Total Area: 840 ac (340 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.76 mi (1.22 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 7 mi (11.3 km)
Nearest City: Huntsville; 2020 population: 215,006
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, open water, forest
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Interior Plateau
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 11.9, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Lawngate 1 mi (1.6 km) NE. The Redstone Arsenal is
25 mi (40 km) E. Two wildlife management areas are located within 3 mi
(5 km) of the plant.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,081,319.
C-5
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT (Brunswick)
Location: Brunswick County, North Carolina
16 mi (26 km) S of Wilmington
Latitude 33.9583°N; longitude 78.0106°W
Licensee: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-325
1967
1976
1977
2036
2,923
938
BWR
GE
50-324
1968
1974
1975
2034
2,923
932
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Cape Fear River
Source Temperature Range: 40−86°F (4−30°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 675,000 gpm (42.6 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 17°F (9°C)
Intake Structure: 3 mi (5 km) canal from Cape Fear River
Discharge Structure: 6 mi (10 km) canal to Atlantic Ocean
Site Information
Total Area: 1,200 ac (490 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.57 mi (0.92 km)
Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km)
Nearest City: Wilmington; 2020 population: 115,451
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Wetland, open water, forest
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 32.3, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland and
estuarine and marine wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Southport 3 mi (5 km) S. Sunny Point Military Ocean
Terminal is about 5 mi (8 km) N.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 548,758.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-6
Appendix C
BYRON STATION (Byron)
Location: Ogle County, Illinois
17 mi (27 km) SW of Rockford
Latitude 42.0750°N; longitude 89.2811°W
Licensee: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-454
1975
1985
1985
2044
3,645
1,182
PWR
WEST
50-455
1975
1987
1987
2046
3,645
1,154
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft towers
Source: Rock River
Source Temperature Range: Not available
Condenser Flow Rate: 632,000 gpm (39.9 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 24°F (13°C)
Intake Structure: Concrete structure on river bank
Discharge Structure: Discharged to river
Site Information
Total Area: 1,398 ac (565.8 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.26 mi (0.42 km)
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Rockford; 2020 population: 148,655
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, developed: open space
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Corn Belt Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 1.8, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Byron about 3 mi (5 km) NNE. White Pines State Park is
about 11 mi (18 km) WSW.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,284,960.
C-7
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
CALLAWAY PLANT (Callaway)
Location: Callaway County, Missouri
10 mi (16 km) SE of Fulton
Latitude 38.7622°N; longitude 91.7817°W
Licensee: Ameren Missouri
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-483
1976
1984
1984
2044
3,565
1,190
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling tower
Source: Missouri River
Source Temperature Range: Not available
Condenser Flow Rate: 530,000 gpm (33 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 30°F (17°C)
Intake Structure: Intake from river
Discharge Structure: Discharged to river
Site Information
Total Area: 5,228 ac (2,115.8 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.75 mi (1.21 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 2.50 mi (4.02 ha)
Nearest City: Columbia; 2020 population: 126,254
Site Topography: Flat, on a small plateau
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, developed: open space
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Interior River Valley and Hills
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 3.3, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Portland 5 mi (8 km) SE. Interstate Highway I-70 is
about 10 mi (16 km) N.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 585,372.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-8
Appendix C
CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (Calvert Cliffs)
Location: Calvert County, Maryland
35 mi (56 km) S of Annapolis
Latitude 38.4347°N; longitude 76.4419°W
Licensee: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-317
1969
1974
1975
2034
2,737
866
PWR
CE
50-318
1969
1976
1977
2036
2,737
842
PWR
CE
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Chesapeake Bay
Source Temperature Range: 34−87°F (1−31°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 1,200,000 gpm (76 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 12°F (6.7°C).
Intake Structure: 4,500 ft (1,372 m) from shore
Discharge Structure: 850 ft (260 m) from shore
Site Information
Total Area: 2,108 ac (853 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.67 mi (1.08 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.2 km)
Nearest City: Washington, D.C.; 2020 population: 689,545
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Plains; Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 2.1, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Long Beach 1 mi (1.6 km) NNW. Calvert Cliffs State
Park is about 4 mi (6 km) SSE. A naval ordinance facility is 7 mi (11 km)
SSW.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 3,962,475.
C-9
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION (Catawba)
Location: York County, South Carolina
6 mi (10 km) NNW of Rock Hill
Latitude 35.0514°N; longitude 81.0708°W
Licensee: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-413
1975
1985
1985
2043
3,469
1,160
PWR
WEST
50-414
1975
1986
1986
2043
3,411
1,150
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Mechanical draft towers
Source: Lake Wylie
Source Temperature Range: 43−83°F (6−28°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 660,000 gpm (42 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 24°F (13°C)
Intake Structure: Skimmer wall on cove of the lake
Discharge Structure: On another cove of the lake
Site Information
Total Area: 391 ac (158 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 2,500 ft (0.76 km; 0.47 mi) radius
Low Population Zone: 3.8 mi (6.12 km) radius
Nearest City: Charlotte, North Carolina; 2020 population: 874,579
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, developed: open space
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 0.7, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland and
freshwater pond
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Rock Hill 6 mi (10 km) SSE. Interstate Highway I-77 is
about 6 mi (10 km) E and I-85 is about 17 mi (27 km) N.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 3,034,933.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-10
Appendix C
CLINTON POWER STATION (Clinton)
Location: DeWitt County, Illinois
6 mi (10 km) E of Clinton
Latitude 40.1731°N; longitude 88.8342°W
Licensee: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-461
1976
1987
1987
2027
3,473
1,065
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through (cooling pond)
Source: Salt Creek
Source Temperature Range: 32−83°F (0−28°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 568,701 gpm (35.89 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 23°F (13°C)
Intake Structure: Concrete structure at shoreline of North Fork Salt Creek
Discharge Structure: 3 mi (5 km) flume discharging to Salt Creek
Site Information
Total Area: 14,090 ac (5,702 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.60 mi (0.97 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 2.5 mi (4.02 km) radius
Nearest City: Decatur; 2020 population: 70,522
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, open water
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Corn Belt Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 0.7, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is DeWitt 2 mi (3 km) ENE. Weldon Springs State Park is
6 mi (10 km) SW. Interstate Highway I-74 is 11 mi (18 km) NE. A dam on Salt
Creek near the site creates the reservoir Lake Clinton for the cooling water
system.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 815,617.
C-11
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION (Columbia)
Location: Benton County, Washington
10 mi (17 km) NW of Richland
Latitude 46.4714°N; longitude 119.3331°W
Licensee: Energy Northwest
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-397
1973
1984
1984
2043
3,544
1,163
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Mechanical draft cooling towers
Source: Columbia River
Source Temperature Range: 38−64°F (3−18°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 550,000 gpm (35 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 28.7°F (15.9°C)
Intake Structure: 2 perforated pipe inlets supported offshore above the river bed 900 ft (270 m)
from pump structure on river bank
Discharge Structure: Buried 3 mi (5 km) pipeline, terminating at the river bed 175 ft (53 m) from
the shoreline
Site Information
Total Area: 1,089 ac (441 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 1.21 mi (1.95 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Spokane; 2020 population: 228,989
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Shrub/scrub, open water, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): North American Desert
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Columbia Plateau
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 0.3
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Richland 10 mi (17 km) S. The site is in the SE part of
the Hanford Reservation.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 517,245.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-12
Appendix C
COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (Comanche Peak)
Location: Somervell County, Texas
40 mi (64 km) SW of Fort Worth
Latitude 32.2983°N; longitude 97.7856°W
Licensee: Vistra Operations Company, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-445
1974
1990
1990
2030
3,612
1,205
PWR
WEST
50-446
1974
1993
1993
2033
3,612
1,195
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Comanche Peak Reservoir
Source Temperature Range: Not available
Condenser Flow Rate: 1,030,000 gpm (65 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 15°F (8°C)
Intake Structure: On shore of reservoir
Discharge Structure: Canal to reservoir
Site Information
Total Area: 7,669 ac (3,104 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.96 mi (1.54 km) minimum
Low Population Zone: 4 mi (6.44 km) radius
Nearest City: Fort Worth; 2020 population: 918,915
Site Topography: Flat, with hills rising from the reservoir
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Herbaceous, forest, open water
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Great Plains
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Cross Timbers
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 1.1, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Glen Rose 5 mi (8 km) SSE. Dinosaur Valley State Park
is 5 mi (8 km) SW. A 26 in. (66 cm) oil pipeline traverses the site, and a 36 in.
(91 cm) natural gas line is about 2 mi (3 km) from the site.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,077,599.
C-13
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
COOPER NUCLEAR STATION (Cooper)
Location: Nemaha County, Nebraska
23 mi (37 km) S of Nebraska City
Latitude 40.3619°N; longitude 95.6411°W
Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-298
1968
1974
1974
2034
2,419
770
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Missouri River
Source Temperature Range: 34−73°F (1−23°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 631,000 gpm (39.8 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 18°F (10°C)
Intake Structure: At shoreline
Discharge Structure: At shoreline
Site Information
Total Area: 1,090 ac (441 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.68 mi (1.09 km)
Low Population Zone: 1 mi (1.61 km) radius
Nearest City: Lincoln; 2020 population: 291,082
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, wetland, forest
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Great Plains
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Western Corn Belt Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 4.4, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Nemaha about 1 mi (1.6 km) S. Indian Cave State Park
is about 8 mi (13 km) SSE.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 153,581.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-14
Appendix C
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (Davis-Besse)
Location: Ottawa County, Ohio
21 mi (34 km) E of Toledo
Latitude 41.5972°N; longitude 83.0864°W
Licensee: Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-346
1971
1977
1978
2037
2,817
894
PWR
B&W
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling tower
Source: Lake Erie
Source Temperature Range: 34−73°F (1−23°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 480,000 gpm (30 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 26°F (14°C)
Intake Structure: Submerged intake about 3,000 ft (900 m) offshore
Discharge Structure: Submerged discharge about 930 ft (280 m) offshore
Site Information
Total Area: 954 ac (386 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.45 mi (0.72 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km)
Nearest City: Toledo; 2020 population: 270,871
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, agriculture, wetland
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Huron/Erie Lake Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 11.6, mostly freshwater emergent wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Oak Harbor about 6 mi (10 km) SW. Several wildlife
refuge areas are within 5 mi (8 km) of the site.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,812,385.
C-15
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT (Diablo Canyon)
Location: San Luis Obispo County, California
12 mi (19 km) W of San Luis Obispo
Latitude 35.2117°N; longitude 120.8544°W
Licensee: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:2
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-275
1968
1984
1985
2024
3,411
1,122
PWR
WEST
50-323
1970
1985
1986
2025
3,411
1,118
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Pacific Ocean
Source Temperature Range: 50−63°F (10−17°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 863,000 gpm (54.5 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 18°F (10°C)
Intake Structure: Reinforced-concrete structure in shoreline cove with artificial breakwater wall
Discharge Structure: Reinforced-concrete structure drops water in stair-step type weir overflow
from elevation 70 ft (21 m) and discharges to the ocean surface
Site Information
Total Area: 750 ac (300 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.50 mi (0.80 km)
Low Population Zone: 6 mi (9.66 km)
Nearest City: Santa Barbara; 2020 population: 88,665
Site Topography: Hilly
Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly to mountainous
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, shrub/scrub
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Mediterranean California
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southern & Central California Chaparral/Oak Woodlands
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 0.67
Nearby Features: The nearest town is San Luis Obispo 12 mi (19 km) E. Pismo Beach State
Park and Morro Bay State Park are within 15 mi (24 km). Vandenberg Air
Base is 35 mi (56 km) ESE.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 499,952.
2
On March 2, 2023, the NRC granted Pacific Gas and Electric Company an exemption from 10 CFR
2.109(b), provided a sufficient license renewal application is submitted by December 31, 2023, and the
NRC staff finds it acceptable for docketing, which would render the existing operating licenses effective
until the NRC has made a final determination on the application (NRC 2023b). On November 7, 2023, the
licensee submitted a license renewal application. On December 19, 2023, the NRC issued a Federal
Register notice that the application was acceptable for docketing and announced a hearing opportunity.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-16
Appendix C
DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT (D.C. Cook)
Location: Berrien County, Michigan
10 mi (16 km) S of St. Joseph
Latitude 41.9761°N; longitude 86.5664°W
Licensee: Indiana Michigan Power Co.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-315
1969
1974
1975
2034
3,304
1,009
PWR
WEST
50-316
1969
1977
1978
2037
3,468
1,060
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Lake Michigan
Source Temperature Range: 34−73°F (1−23°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 1.6 million gal/min both units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 20°F (11°C)
Intake Structure: Intake cribs 2,250 ft (686 m) from shore
Discharge Structure: 1,150 ft (351 m) from shore
Site Information
Total Area: 650 ac (260 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.38 mi (0.61 km)
Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km)
Nearest City: South Bend, Indiana; 2020 population: 103,453
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, agriculture, forest
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): S. Michigan/N. Indiana Drift Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 3.1, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Livingston 1 mi (1.6 km) SW. Interstate Highway I-94 is
directly E of the site. Warren Dunes State Park is about 5 mi (8 km) SSW.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,265,894.
C-17
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION (Dresden)
Location: Grundy County, Illinois
9 mi (14 km) E of Morris
Latitude 41.3897°N; longitude 88.2711°W
Licensee: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 2
Unit 3
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-237
1966
1969
1970
2029
2,957
902
BWR
GE
50-249
1966
1971
1971
2031
2,957
895
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Cooling lake and spray canal; mechanical draft towers
Source: Kankakee River
Source Temperature Range: 40−85°F (4−29°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 940,000 gpm both units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: Not available
Intake Structure: Canal from Kankakee River to a crib house
Discharge Structure: A canal carries water to a cooling lake of about 1,275 ac (516 ha)
Site Information
Total Area: 2,500 ac (1,012 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.5 mi (0.8 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 5 mi (8 km)
Nearest City: Joliet; 2020 population: 150,362
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, herbaceous, forest
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Corn Belt Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 10.7, mostly freshwater emergent wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Channahon 3 mi (5 km) NNE. Braidwood Station
(nuclear plant) is about 10 mi (16 km) S and LaSalle County Station (nuclear
plant) is about 22 mi (35 km) SW.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 7,525,651.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-18
Appendix C
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT (Hatch)
Location: Appling County, Georgia
11 mi (18 km) N of Baxley
Latitude 31.9342°N; longitude 82.3444°W
Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-321
1969
1974
1975
2034
2,804
876
BWR
GE
50-366
1972
1978
1979
2038
2,804
883
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Mechanical draft towers
Source: Altamaha River
Source Temperature Range: 43−90°F (6−32°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 556,000 gpm (35.1 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 20°F (11°C)
Intake Structure: At edge of river
Discharge Structure: 120 ft (37 m) from shore
Site Information
Total Area: 2,244 ac (908 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.78 mi (1.26 km)
Low Population Zone: 0.78 mi (1.26 km)
Nearest City: Savannah; 2020 population: 147,780
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, wetland, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Plains; Southern Coastal Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 21.4, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Cedar Crossing about 7 mi (11 km) NNW.
U.S. Highway 1 is directly W of the site.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 464,024.
C-19
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT (Fermi)
Location: Monroe County, Michigan
30 mi (48 km) SW of Detroit
Latitude 41.9631°N; longitude 83.2578°W
Licensee: DTE Electric Company
Unit Information
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-341
1972
1985
1988
2045
3,486
1,141
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling towers
Source: Lake Erie
Source Temperature Range: 34−76°F (1−24°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 836,000 gpm (52.80 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 18°F (10°C)
Intake Structure: At edge of lake
Discharge Structure: To the lake via a 50 ac (20 ha) pond
Site Information
Total Area: 1,120 ac (453 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.57 mi (0.92 km)
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Detroit; 2020 population: 639,111
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, agriculture, developed: high, medium,
low density
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Huron/Erie Lake Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 6.0, mostly freshwater emergent wetland
Nearby Features: The town of Stony Point is adjacent to the site to the S. Sterling State Park
and General Custer Historical Site are about 5 mi (8 km) SW.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 4,908,826.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-20
Appendix C
JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (FitzPatrick)
Location: Oswego County, New York
6 mi (10 km) NE of Oswego
Latitude 43.5239°N; longitude 76.3983°W
Licensee: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-333
1970
1974
1975
2034
2,536
848
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Lake Ontario
Source Temperature Range: 32−68°F (0−20°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 352,600 gpm (22.25 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 32°F (18°C)
Intake Structure: 900 ft (274 m) from shore
Discharge Structure: 1,400 ft (427 m) from shore
Site Information
Total Area: 702 ac (284 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 3,000 ft (914 m) to the east, over 1 mi (1.6 km) to the west, and
about 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the southern site boundary
Low Population Zone: 3.4 mi (5.47 km)
Nearest City: Syracuse; 2020 population: 148,620
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 3.4, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Lakeview about 1 mi (1.6 km) WSW. Fort Ontario is
about 5 mi (8 km) SW. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station is about 0.5 mi
(0.8 km) W.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 932,913.
C-21
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT (Farley)
Location: Houston County, Alabama
16 mi (26 km) E of Dothan
Latitude 31.2228°N; longitude 85.1125°W
Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-348
1972
1977
1977
2037
2,775
874
PWR
WEST
50-364
1972
1981
1981
2041
2,775
877
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Mechanical draft cooling towers
Source: Chattahoochee River
Source Temperature Range: 86°F (130°C) maximum
Condenser Flow Rate: 635,000 gpm (40.1 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 20°F (11°C)
Intake Structure: Intake from river bank via storage pond
Discharge Structure: At river bank
Site Information
Total Area: 1,850 ac (749 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.78 mi (1.26 km)
Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km)
Nearest City: Columbus, Georgia; 2020 population: 206,922
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, wetland
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 11.8, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Columbia about 4 mi (6 km) N. Chattahoochee State
Park is about 12 mi (19 km) S.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 425,394.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-22
Appendix C
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION (Grand Gulf)
Location: Clairborne County, Mississippi
25 mi (40 km) S of Vicksburg
Latitude 32.0075°N; longitude 91.0475°W
Licensee: Entergy Operations, Inc.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-416
1974
1984
1985
2044
4,408
1,401
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling towers
Source: Mississippi River
Source Temperature Range: 34−82°F (1−28°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 572,000 gpm (36.1 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 30°F (17°C)
Intake Structure: A series of radial-collector wells along the shoreline
Discharge Structure: Discharge to river via a barge slip
Site Information
Total Area: 2,100 ac (850 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.43 mi (0.69 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km)
Nearest City: Jackson; 2020 population: 153,701
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, wetland, open water
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Mississippi Valley Loess Plains; Mississippi
Alluvial Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 25.3, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Grand Gulf 2 mi (3 km) N. The Natchez Trace Parkway
is about 6 mi (10 km) SE. The Grand Gulf Military Park is directly N of the
site.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 323,744.
C-23
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
H.B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (Robinson)
Location: Darlington County, South Carolina
26 mi (42 km) NE of Florence
Latitude 34.4025°N; longitude 80.1586°W
Licensee: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-261
1967
1970
1971
2030
2,339
759
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through (cooling pond)
Source: Lake Robinson
Source Temperature Range: 46−85°F (8−29°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 454,167 gpm (28.7 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 18°F (10°C)
Intake Structure: Concrete structure on edge of lake
Discharge Structure: 4.2 mi (6.8 km) canal discharging about 4 mi (6 km) upstream from intake
Site Information
Total Area: 6,020 ac (2,435 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.27 mi (0.43 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 4.5 mi (7.24 km)
Nearest City: Columbia; 2020 population: 136,632
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, herbaceous
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 9.6, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Hartsville 5 mi (8 km) SE. Sand Hills State Forest is
about 4 mi (6 km) N. The Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge is about
5 mi (8 km) NNW.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 922,132.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-24
Appendix C
HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION (Hope Creek)
Location: Salem County, New Jersey
8 mi (13 km) SW of Salem
Latitude 39.4678°N; longitude 75.5381°W
Licensee: PSEG Nuclear, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-354
1974
1986
1986
2046
3,902
1,172
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling tower
Source: Delaware River
Source Temperature Range: 34−81°F (1−27°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 552,000 gpm (34.8 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 28°F (16°C)
Intake Structure: At edge of river
Discharge Structure: Pipe 10 ft (3 m) offshore
Site Information
Total Area: 740 ac (300 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.56 mi (0.90 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 5 mi (8.05 km) radius
Nearest City: Wilmington, Delaware; 2020 population: 70,898
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, wetland, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 37.4, mostly estuarine and marine wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Port Penn about 4 mi (6 km) NW in Delaware. The plant
is on the same site as the Salem Nuclear Generating Station.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 5,946,917.
C-25
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
LASALLE COUNTY STATION (LaSalle)
Location: LaSalle County, Illinois
11 mi (18 km) SE of Ottawa
Latitude 41.2439°N; longitude 88.6708°W
Licensee: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-373
1973
1982
1984
2042
3,546
1,131
BWR
GE
50-374
1973
1984
1984
2043
3,546
1,134
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Cooling pond
Source: Illinois River
Source Temperature Range: 47−85°F (8−29°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 645,000 gpm (40.7 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 24°F (13°C)
Intake Structure: Intake from 2,058 ac (832.8 ha) cooling pond, makeup from river
Discharge Structure: Discharge to cooling pond
Site Information
Total Area: 3,060 ac (1,240 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.32 mi (0.51 km)
Low Population Zone: 3.98 mi (6.41 km)
Nearest City: Joliet; 2020 population: 150,362
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat with hills along river
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, open water
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Corn Belt Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 0.6
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Seneca about 5 mi (8 km) NNE. Braidwood Station
(nuclear plant) is about 20 mi (32 km) ENE, and Dresden Nuclear Power
Station is about 22 mi (35 km) NE.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,948,438.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-26
Appendix C
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION (Limerick)
Location: Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
21 mi (34 km) NW of Philadelphia
Latitude 40.2200°N; longitude 75.5900°W
Licensee: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-352
1974
1985
1986
2049
3,515
1,120
BWR
GE
50-353
1974
1989
1989
2049
3,515
1,122
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling towers
Source: Schuylkill River
Source Temperature Range: 42−82°F (6−28°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 450,000 gpm (28 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 30°F (17°C)
Intake Structure: Intake from river
Discharge Structure: Discharge to river
Site Information
Total Area: 595 ac (241 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.47 mi (0.76 km)
Low Population Zone: 1.30 mi (2.09 km)
Nearest City: Reading; 2020 population: 95,112
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, developed: high, medium, low
density
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northern Piedmont
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 1.0, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Linfield about 1 mi (1.6 km) SE. Valley Forge State Park
is 10 mi (16 km) SSE. Interstate Highway I-76 is about 10 mi (16 km) S.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 8,594,665.
C-27
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION (McGuire)
Location: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
17 mi (27 km) NNW of Charlotte
Latitude 35.4322°N; longitude 80.9483°W
Licensee: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-369
1973
1981
1981
2041
3,469
1,159
PWR
WEST
50-370
1973
1983
1984
2043
3,469
1,158
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Lake Norman
Source Temperature Range: 38−89°F (3−32°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 1,756,944 gpm (111 m3/s) both units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 22.1°F (12.3°C)
Intake Structure: Submerged and surface intakes at shoreline
Discharge Structure: 2,000 ft (610 m) discharge canal
Site Information
Total Area: 577 ac (234 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.47 mi (0.76 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 5.50 mi (8.85 km)
Nearest City: Charlotte; 2020 population: 874,579
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, open water, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 2.1, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Lowesville about 3 mi (5 km) W. The dam forming Lake
Norman and a hydroelectric power plant are adjacent to the site.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 3,351,808.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-28
Appendix C
MILLSTONE POWER STATION (Millstone)
Location: New London County, Connecticut
3 mi (5 km) WSW of New London
Latitude 41.3086°N; longitude 72.1681°W
Licensee: Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.
Unit Information
Unit 2
Unit 3
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-336
1970
1975
1975
2035
2,700
853
PWR
CE
50-423
1974
1986
1986
2045
3,709
1,220
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Long Island Sound
Source Temperature Range: 36−72°F (2−22°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 1.46 million gpm (92 m3/s) both units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 21°F (13°C) for Unit 2; 17.5°F (9.7°C) for Unit 3
Intake Structure: On shore of Niantic Bay off Long Island Sound
Discharge Structure: Discharge to Niantic Bay via holding pond
Site Information
Total Area: 500 ac (200 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.34 mi (0.55 km) minimum
Low Population Zone: (2.40 mi 3.86 km) radius
Nearest City: New Haven; 2020 population: 134,023
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, developed: high to low density
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northeastern Coastal Zone
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 4.5, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Niantic 2 mi (3 km) NW. Interstate Highway I-95 is about
4 mi (6 km) NNE. Stone Ranch Military Reservation is about 6 mi
(10 km) NW. Harkness Memorial, Bluff Point, and Rocky Neck State Parks
are within 5 mi (8 km) of the site. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Plum
Island facility is 10 mi (16 km) S in Long Island Sound.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 3,071,351.
C-29
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT (Monticello)
Location: Wright County, Minnesota
35 mi (56 km) NW of Minneapolis
Latitude 45.3333°N; longitude 93.8483°W
Licensee: Northern States Power Company-Minnesota
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-263
1967
1970
1971
2030
2,004
617
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through and mechanical draft towers
Source: Mississippi River
Source Temperature Range: 32−85°F (0−29°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 292,000 gpm (18 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 26.8°F (14.9°C)
Intake Structure: Canal
Discharge Structure: Canal
Site Information
Total Area: 2,150 ac (860 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.30 mi (0.48 km)
Low Population Zone: 1 mi (1.61 km)
Nearest City: Minneapolis; 2020 population: 429,954
Site Topography: Flat terraces
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to gently sloping
Dominant Land Cover 5 mi within (8 km): Agriculture, forest, developed: open space
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): North Central Hardwood Forests
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 1.6, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The business district of Monticello is about 2 mi (3.2 km) SE. Sherburne
National Wildlife Refuge is about 9 mi (14 km) N. Lake Maria State Park is
about 6 mi (10 km) WSW, and Sand Dunes State Forest and campground
are 9 mi (14 km) NE.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 3,347,158.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-30
Appendix C
NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION (Nine Mile Point)
Location:
Oswego County, New York
6 mi (10 km) NE of Oswego
Latitude 43.5222°N; longitude 76.4100°W
Licensees: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC and Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-220
1965
1968
1969
2029
1,850
621
BWR
GE
50-410
1974
1987
1988
2046
3,988
1,292
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Unit 1: Once-through
Unit 2: Natural draft tower
Source: Lake Ontario
Source Temperature Range: 33−77°F (1−25°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: Unit 1: 290,278 gpm (18 m3/s);
Unit 2: 580,000 gpm (36.6 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: Unit 1: 35°F (19.4°C);
Unit 2: 30°F (16.7°C)
Intake Structure: Unit 1: submerged pipeline about 850 ft (260 m) from shore;
Unit 2: submerged pipelines about 950 ft (300 m) and 1,050 ft (320 m) from
shore
Discharge Structure: Diffuser pipe 555 ft (169 m) long serving both sides
Site Information
Total Area: 900 ac (360 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 1 mi (1.6 km) to the east, 0.87 mi (1.4 km) to the southwest, and
1.3 mi (2 km) to the southern site boundary
Low Population Zone: 4 mi (6.44 km) radius
Nearest City: Syracuse; 2020 population: 148,620
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 3.4, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Lakeview about 1 mi (1.6 km) WSW. Fort Ontario is
about 6 mi (10 km) SW. James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant is 0.5 mi
(0.8 km) E.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 927,862.
C-31
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
NORTH ANNA POWER STATION (North Anna)
Location: Louisa County, Virginia
40 mi (64 km) NW of Richmond
Latitude 38.0608°N; longitude 77.7906°W
Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-338
1971
1978
1978
2038
2,940
948
PWR
WEST
50-339
1971
1980
1980
2040
2,940
944
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Lake Anna
Source Temperature Range: 48−83°F (9−28°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 1,900,000 gpm (120 m3/s) both units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 14.5°F (8.1°C)
Intake Structure: Intake at lake shore
Discharge Structure: Discharged through lake via a 3,400 ac (1,400 ha) cooling pond
Site Information
Total Area: 18,643 ac (7,550 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.84 mi (1.35 km)
Low Population Zone: 9.66 km (6 mi)
Nearest City: Richmond; 2020 population: 226,610
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, agriculture, open water
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 3.6, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Centreville 1 mi (1.6 km) SW. Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania National Military Park is about 15 mi (24 km) NE.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,237,934.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-32
Appendix C
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION (Oconee)
Location: Oconee County, South Carolina
26 mi (42 km) W of Greenville
Latitude 34.7917°N; longitude 82.8986°W
Licensee: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-269
1967
1973
1973
2033
2,610
847
PWR
B&W
50-270
1967
1973
1974
2033
2,610
848
PWR
B&W
50-287
1967
1974
1974
2034
2,610
859
PWR
B&W
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Lake Keowee
Source Temperature Range: 44−77°F (7−25°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 1,527,778 gpm (96 m3/s) all units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 17.2°F (9.6°C)
Intake Structure: A skimmer wall draws water from the depths of 735 ft (223 m)
Discharge Structure: All three units discharge through one structure near the Keowee Dam
Site Information
Total Area: 510 ac (210 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 1 mi (1.6 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 6 mi (9.66 km)
Nearest City: Greenville; 2020 population: 70,720
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, open water, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 0.8
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Six Mile (6 4 mi km) ENE. Keowee Dam is close to the
plant. Chattahoochee National Forest is about 15 mi (24 km) W.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,577,801.
C-33
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT (Palisades)
Location: Van Buren County, Michigan
35 mi (56 km) W of Kalamazoo
Latitude 42.3222°N; longitude 86.3153°W
Licensee: Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC
Unit Information
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:3
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
Unit 1
50-255
1967
1972
1973
2031
2,565.4
769
PWR
CE
Cooling Water System
Type: Mechanical draft cooling towers
Source: Lake Michigan
Source Temperature Range: 35−75°F (2−24°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 98,000 gpm (6.2 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 25°F (14°C)
Intake Structure: Intake crib 3,300 ft (1,000 m) from shore
Discharge Structure: 108 ft (33 m) long canal
Site Information
Total Area: 432 ac (174.8 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.44 mi (0.71 km) radius
Low Population Zone: Not available
Nearest City: Kalamazoo; 2020 population: 73,598
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): S. Michigan/N. Indiana Drift Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 10.0, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is South Haven about 4 mi (6 km) N. Van Buren State
Park adjoins the plant on the north. Interstate Highway I-196 is about
1 mi (1.6 km) E.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,441,106.
3
On June 28, 2022, the license for Palisades was transferred from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. to
Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (NRC 2022a). Palisades shutdown in May 2022; however,
shortly thereafter the plant operator began exploring options to resume operations. As of the time of this
update, the status for the plant has yet to be determined. As a result, the plant has been retained in this
appendix for the purposes of this LR GEIS update.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-34
Appendix C
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (Palo Verde)
Location: Maricopa County, Arizona
34 mi (55 km) W of Phoenix
Latitude 33.3881°N; longitude 112.8644°W
Licensee: Arizona Public Service Co.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-528
1976
1985
1986
2045
3,990
1,311
PWR
CE
50-529
1976
1986
1986
2046
3,990
1,314
PWR
CE
50-530
1976
1987
1988
2047
3,990
1,312
PWR
CE
Cooling Water System
Type: Mechanical draft cooling towers treatment plant
Source: Phoenix City Sewage
Source Temperature Range: Not available
Condenser Flow Rate: 560,000 gpm (35 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 32.1°F (17.8°C)
Intake Structure: 35 mi (56 km) underground pipeline from Phoenix 91st Avenue Sewage
Treatment Plant
Discharge Structure: Blowdown from the circulating water system is directed to onsite
evaporation ponds without requiring any offsite discharge
Site Information
Total Area: 4,050 ac (1,640 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.54 mi (0.87 km) minimum
Low Population Zone: 4 mi (6.44 km) radius
Nearest City: Phoenix; 2020 population: 1,608,139
Site Topography: Flat with hills
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat with hills
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Shrub/scrub, agriculture, developed: open space
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): North American Desert
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Sonoran Basin and Range
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 0.1
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Wintersburg about 3 mi (5 km) N. Interstate
Highway I-10 is about 7 mi (11 km) N.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,350,442.
C-35
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION (Peach Bottom)
Location: York County, Pennsylvania
18 mi (29 km) S of Lancaster
Latitude 39.7589°N; longitude 76.2692°W
Licensee: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 2
Unit 3
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:4
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-277
1968
1973
1974
2033
4,016
1,265
BWR
GE
50-278
1968
1974
1974
2034
4,016
1,285
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through, with helper mechanical draft towers
Source: Conowingo Pond, an impoundment on the Susquehanna River
Source Temperature Range: 34−80°F (1−27°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 1.5 million gpm (95 m3/s) both units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 20.8°F (11.5°C)
Intake Structure: Intake from Conowingo Pond through a small intake pond
Discharge Structure: 5,000 ft (1,520 m) canal to Conowingo Pond
Site Information
Total Area: 620 ac (248 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.51 mi (0.82 km)
Low Population Zone: 1.38 mi (2.22 km)
Nearest City: Lancaster; 2020 population: 58,039
Site Topography: Rolling to hilly
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, open water
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northern Piedmont
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 0.6
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Slate Hill 2 mi (3 km) SW. Susquehanna State Park is
about 3 mi (5 km) N. Interstate Highway I-95 is 15 mi (24 km) SE. Conowingo
Dam, 8 mi (13 km) SE, forms Conowingo Pond. Unit 1 is a 40 MWe nuclear
plant on the same site (maintained in safe storage). Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station (no longer operating) is 35 mi (56 km) upstream.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 6,005,101.
4
The subsequent renewed licenses for Peach Bottom are still in place. In CLI-22-04 (NRC 2022b), the
Commission ordered that the expiration date of the subsequently renewed licensees be reset to the end
of the initial period of extended operation (as affirmed in Order CLI-22-07 [NRC 2022c]). The
Commission's direction will hold until the staff completes its re-evaluation of generic environmental issues
for subsequent license renewal.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-36
Appendix C
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (Perry)
Location: Lake County, Ohio
7 mi (11 km) NE of Painesville
Latitude 41.8008°N; longitude 81.1442°W
Licensee: Energy Harbor Nuclear Corp.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-440
1977
1986
1987
2026
3,758
1,261
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling tower
Source: Lake Erie
Source Temperature Range: 32−79°F (0−26°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 545,400 gpm (34.41 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 32°F (18°C)
Intake Structure: Submerged multiport structure 2,550 ft (777 m) offshore
Discharge Structure: Submerged diffuser 1,650 ft (503 m) offshore
Site Information
Total Area: 1,100 ac (450 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.55 mi (0.89 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 2.50 mi (4.02 km)
Nearest City: Euclid; 2020 population: 49,692
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, developed: high, medium, low
density
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands; Erie Drift
Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 2.1, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is North Perry 1 mi (1.6 km) SW. Interstate Highway I-90 is
about 5 mi (8 km) S.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,299,476.
C-37
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT (Point Beach)
Location: Manitowoc County, Wisconsin
13 mi (21 km) NNW of Manitowoc
Latitude 44.2808°N; longitude 87.5361°W
Licensee: NextEra Energy Point Beach, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-266
1967
1970
1970
2030
1,800
598
PWR
WEST
50-301
1968
1972
1972
2033
1,800
603
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Lake Michigan
Source Temperature Range: Not available
Condenser Flow Rate: 350,000 gpm (22 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 19.3°F (10.7°C)
Intake Structure: Submerged structure 1,750 ft (533 m) from shore
Discharge Structure: 2 steel piling troughs, extending 200 ft (61 m) into Lake Michigan
Site Information
Total Area: 1,260 ac (510 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.74 mi (1.19 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 5.60 mi (9.01 km)
Nearest City: Green Bay; 2020 population: 107,395
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, agriculture, wetland
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 4.6, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Two Creeks 1 mi (1.6 km) NNW. Point Beach State
Forest is directly S of the site. The Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant, which is
no longer operating, is about 5 mi (8 km) N.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 826,680.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-38
Appendix C
PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT (Prairie Island)
Location: Goodhue County, Minnesota
28 mi (45 km) SE of Minneapolis
Latitude 44.6219°N; longitude 92.6331°W
Licensee: Northern States Power Company-Minnesota
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-282
1968
1973
1973
2033
1,677
521
PWR
WEST
50-306
1968
1974
1974
2034
1,677
519
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through and/or mechanical draft cooling towers
Source: Mississippi River
Source Temperature Range: 32−82°F (0−28°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 294,000 gpm (18.6 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 27°F (15°C)
Intake Structure: Short canal
Discharge Structure: Discharges to a basin then to towers and/or river
Site Information
Total Area: 560 ac (230 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.43 mi (0.69 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 1.50 mi (2.41 km)
Nearest City: Minneapolis; 2020 population: 429,954
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, wetland
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Driftless Area
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 18.5, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The business district of the town of Red Wing is 6 mi (9.6 km) SE. The
Prairie Island Indian Community is located immediately NW of the site.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 3,309,059.
C-39
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION (Quad Cities)
Location: Rock Island County, Illinois
20 mi (32 km) NE of Moline
Latitude 41.7261°N; longitude 90.3100°W
Licensee: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-254
1967
1972
1973
2032
2,957
908
BWR
GE
50-265
1967
1972
1973
2032
2,957
911
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Mississippi River
Source Temperature Range: 32−85°F (0−29°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 970,000 gpm (61 m3/s) both units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 28°F (15.6°C)
Intake Structure: Canal at edge of river
Discharge Structure: Two-pipe diffuser system on bottom of river
Site Information
Total Area: 817 ac (331 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.50 mi (0.80 km)
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Davenport, Iowa; 2020 population: 101,724
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, wetland, forest
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Interior River Valley and Hills; Western Corn Belt Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 12.1, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The village of Cordova is 4 mi (6 km) S. The Rock Island Arsenal is about
15 mi (24 km) SW.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 655,699.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-40
Appendix C
R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (Ginna)
Location: Wayne County, New York
20 mi (32 km) NE of Rochester
Latitude 43.2778°N; longitude 77.3089°W
Licensee: Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-244
1966
1969
1970
2029
1,775
581
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Lake Ontario
Source Temperature Range: 32−80°F (0−27°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 340,000 gpm (21.4 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 20°F (11°C)
Intake Structure: 3,100 ft (945 m) from shore, at a depth of 33 ft (10 m)
Discharge Structure: Canal discharges to Lake Ontario at shoreline
Site Information
Total Area: 488 ac (197 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.29−0.85 mi (0.47−1.38 km)
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Rochester; 2020 population: 211,328
Site Topography: Gently rolling to flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Sloping
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, agriculture, forest
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 4.3, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Lakeside 2 mi (3 km) SW.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,299,149.
C-41
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
RIVER BEND STATION (River Bend)
Location: West Feliciana County, Louisiana
24 mi (39 km) NNW of Baton Rouge
Latitude 30.7569°N; longitude 91.3314°W
Licensee: Entergy Operations, Inc.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-458
1977
1985
1986
2045
3,091
968
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Mechanical draft cooling towers
Source: Mississippi River
Source Temperature Range: Not available
Condenser Flow Rate: 508,470 gpm (32.08 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 27°F (15°C)
Intake Structure: At river bank
Discharge Structure: Pipe extending into the river
Site Information
Total Area: 3,342 ac (1,352 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.57 mi (0.92 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 2.50 mi (4.02 km) radius
Nearest City: Baton Rouge; 2020 population: 227,470
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Wetland, forest, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Mississippi Valley Loess Plains; Mississippi Alluvial Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 17.7, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is St. Francisville 3 mi (5 km) NW. Audubon Memorial
State Park is about 3 mi (5 km) NNE.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,037,151.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-42
Appendix C
ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT (St. Lucie)
Location: St. Lucie County, Florida
7 mi (11 km) SE of Fort Pierce
Latitude 27.3486°N; longitude 80.2464°W
Licensee: Florida Power & Light Co.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-335
1970
1976
1976
2036
3,020
981
PWR
CE
50-389
1977
1983
1983
2043
3,020
987
PWR
CE
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Atlantic Ocean
Source Temperature Range: 87°F (31°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 968,000 gpm (61 m3/s) both units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 24°F (13°C).
Intake Structure: 1,200 ft (370 m) offshore
Discharge Structure: Unit 1 is 1,500 ft (460 m) offshore; Unit 2 is a multiport discharge 3,400 ft
(1,040 m) offshore
Site Information
Total Area: 1,130 ac (457 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.97 mi (1.56 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 1 mi (1.61 km)
Nearest City: West Palm Beach; 2020 population: 117,415
Site Topography: Flat land and water
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, wetland, developed: high, medium, low
density
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southern Coastal Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 9.5, mostly freshwater emergent wetland and estuarine
and marine wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Ankona 2 mi (3 km) W. The plant is on Hutchinson
Island, which is separated from the mainland by the Indian River, which is
part of the Intracoastal Waterway. A causeway to the mainland is about 6 mi
(10 km) SSE.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,456,749.
C-43
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (Salem)
Location: Salem County, New Jersey
8 mi (13 km) SW of Salem
Latitude 39.4628°N; longitude 75.5358°W
Licensee: PSEG Nuclear, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-272
1968
1976
1977
2036
3,459
1,174
PWR
WEST
50-311
1968
1981
1981
2040
3,459
1,130
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Delaware River
Source Temperature Range: 33−79°F (1−26°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 1,100,000 gpm (69 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 13.6°F (7.6°C)
Intake Structure: 12-bay structure on edge of river
Discharge Structure: Submerged pipes extending 500 ft (150 m) into the river
Site Information
Total Area: 700 ac (280 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.80 mi (1.29 km)
Low Population Zone: 5 mi (8.05 km)
Nearest City: Wilmington, Delaware; 2020 population: 70,898
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, wetland, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 37.9, mostly estuarine and marine wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Port Penn about 4 mi (6 km) NW in Delaware. The plant
is on the same site as the Hope Creek Generating Station (nuclear).
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 5,873,042.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-44
Appendix C
SEABROOK STATION (Seabrook)
Location: Rockingham County, New Hampshire
13 mi (21 km) SSW of Portsmouth
Latitude 42.8983°N; longitude 70.8497°W
Licensee: NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-443
1976
1990
1990
2050
3,648
1,295
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Gulf of Maine
Source Temperature Range: 37−55°F (3−13°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 399,000 gpm (25.2 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 38°F (21°C)
Intake Structure: 3 structures 50 ft (15 m) below sea level with pipeline submerged about 175 ft
(50 m) below mean sea level and extending about 7,000 ft (2,100 m) offshore
Discharge Structure: Submerged pipeline ending in a diffuser located about 5,500 ft (1,675 m)
offshore and about 5,000 ft (1,525 m) S of intake
Site Information
Total Area: 896 ac (363 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.57 mi (0.92 km) minimum
Low Population Zone: 1.25 mi (2.01 km)
Nearest City: Lawrence, Massachusetts; 2020 population: 89,143
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, developed: high, medium, low
density
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northeastern Coastal Zone
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 21.2, mostly estuarine and marine wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Seabrook 1 mi (1.6 km) W. Interstate Highway I-95 is
about 1 mi (1.6 km) W. Hampton Beach State Park is 2 mi (3 km) E.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 4,693,723.
C-45
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (Sequoyah)
Location: Hamilton County, Tennessee
10 mi (16 km) NE of Chattanooga
Latitude 35.2233°N; longitude 85.0878°W
Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-327
1970
1980
1981
2040
3,455
1,152
PWR
WEST
50-328
1970
1981
1982
2041
3,455
1,126
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through and/or natural draft cooling towers
Source: Chickamauga Lake
Source Temperature Range: 42−83°F (6−28°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 522,000 gpm (32.9 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 30°F (17°C)
Intake Structure: Intake from lake
Discharge Structure: Discharge to lake
Site Information
Total Area: 525 ac (212 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.35 mi (0.56 km)
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Chattanooga; 2020 population: 181,099
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, open water
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Ridge and Valley
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 0.5
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Shady Grove about 2 mi (3 km) NW. Harrison Bay State
Park is 3 mi (5 km) S. Chickamauga Lake is part of the Tennessee River.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,172,704.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-46
Appendix C
SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (Harris)
Location: Wake County, North Carolina
20 mi (32 km) SW of Raleigh
Latitude 35.6336°N; longitude 78.9564°W
Licensee: Duke Energy Progress, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-400
1978
1987
1987
2046
2,948
964
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling tower
Source: Buckhorn Creek
Source Temperature Range: 41−81°F (5−27°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 483,000 gpm (30.5 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 25.7°F (14.3°C)
Intake Structure: At shoreline of reservoir on Buckhorn Creek
Discharge Structure: Discharged to reservoir
Site Information
Total Area: 10,744 ac (4,348 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 6,640 ft (2 km) (northwest) to 7,000 ft (2.1 km) (east) to 7,200 ft
(2.2 km) (south)
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Raleigh; 2020 population: 467,665
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, herbaceous, open water
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont; Southeastern Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 3.9, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Bonsal 2 mi (3 km) NW. Buckhorn Creek feeds into the
Cape Fear River.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 3,041,733.
C-47
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION (South Texas)
Location: Matagorda County, Texas
12 mi (19 km) SSW of Bay City
Latitude 28.7950°N; longitude 96.0481°W
Licensee: STP Nuclear Operating Co.
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-498
1975
1988
1988
2047
3,853
1,280
PWR
WEST
50-499
1975
1989
1989
2048
3,853
1,280
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Cooling reservoir
Source: Colorado River
Source Temperature Range: 58−84°F (14−29°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 907,400 gpm (57.26 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 19°F (11°C)
Intake Structure: On bank of Colorado River
Discharge Structure: On bank of Colorado River
Site Information
Total Area: 12,350 ac (4,998 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.89 mi (1.43 km) minimum
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Galveston; 2020 population: 53,695
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, open water, wetland
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Great Plains
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Western Gulf Coastal Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 6.2, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland and
freshwater emergent wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Matagorda 8 mi (13 km) SE. The Port of Bay City
terminal is located 5 mi (8 km) NNE.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 268,364.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-48
Appendix C
SURRY POWER STATION (Surry)
Location: Surry County, Virginia
17 mi (27 km) NW of Newport News
Latitude 37.1656°N; longitude 76.6983°W
Licensee: Virginia Electric and Power Company
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-280
1968
1972
1972
2052
2,587
838
PWR
WEST
20-281
1968
1973
1973
2053
2,587
838
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: James River
Source Temperature Range: 35−84°F (2−29°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 1.68 million gpm (106 m3/s) both units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 14°F (7.8°C)
Intake Structure: 1.7 mi (2.7 km) concrete canal
Discharge Structure: 2,900 ft (880 m) canal
Site Information
Total Area: 840 ac (340 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 1,650 ft (500 m) radius or 0.31 mi (0.5 km)
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Newport News; 2020 population: 186,247
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain; Southeastern Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 9.6, mostly freshwater emergent wetland, estuarine and
marine wetland, and freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Scotland 5 mi (8 km) W. Jamestown Island, a Federal
park, is 4 mi (6 km) NW. Chippokes Plantation, a State park, is 3 mi (5 km)
WSW. Jamestown National Historical Park is 5 mi (8 km) WNW. Colonial
Williamsburg is 7 mi (11 km) NNW. Adjacent to the site on the north is Hog
Island, a waterfowl refuge. Interstate Highway I-64 is 12 mi (19 km) NW.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,462,820.
C-49
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (Susquehanna)
Location: Luzerne County, Pennsylvania
7 mi (11 km) NE of Berwick
Latitude 41.0922°N; longitude 76.1467°W
Licensee: Susquehanna Nuclear, LLC
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-387
1973
1982
1983
2042
3,952
1,247
BWR
GE
50-388
1973
1984
1985
2044
3,952
1,247
BWR
GE
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling towers
Source: Susquehanna River
Source Temperature Range: Not available
Condenser Flow Rate: 968,000 gpm (61 m3/s) both units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 14°F (8°C)
Intake Structure: Intake bays on river bank
Discharge Structure: Diffuser pipe 200 ft (61 m) from river bank
Site Information
Total Area: 1,173 ac (475 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.34 mi (0.55 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Wilkes-Barre; 2020 population: 44,328
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly with flat river valley
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, developed: open space
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Ridge and Valley
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 1.4, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Beach Haven about 1 mi (1.6 km) SW. Interstate
Highway I-80 is 5 mi (8 km) E.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,829,035.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-50
Appendix C
TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT (Turkey Point)
Location: Dade County, Florida
25 mi (40 km) S of Miami
Latitude 25.4350°N; longitude 80.3314°W
Licensee: Florida Power and Light Co.
Unit Information
Unit 3
Unit 4
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:5
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-250
1967
1972
1972
2032
2,644
837
PWR
WEST
50-251
1967
1973
1973
2033
2,644
861
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Cooling canal system
Source: Biscayne Bay; Supplemental makeup from the Upper Floridan aquifer
Source Temperature Range: 54−90°F (12−32°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 1.3 million gpm (82 m3/s) both units
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 18°F (10°C)
Intake Structure: Intake canal and barge canal
Discharge Structure: Canal system covering about 4,000 ac (1,600 ha)
Site Information
Total Area: 24,000 ac (9,700 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.79 mi (1.27 km)
Low Population Zone: 5 mi (8.05 km)
Nearest City: Miami; 2020 population: 442,241
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Wetland, open water, agriculture
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Tropical Wet Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southern Florida Coastal Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 39.7, mostly estuarine and marine wetland and freshwater
emergent wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Florida City about 9 mi (14 km) W. Homestead Air
Reserve Base is 6 mi (9.7 km) NW. Homestead Recreation Park is about
2 mi (3 km) NNW. Unit 5 is gas-fired and co-located onsite.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 3,813,589.
5
The subsequent renewed licenses for Turkey Point are still in place. In CLI-22-02 (NRC 2022d), the
Commission ordered that the expiration date of the subsequently renewed licensees be reset to the end
of the initial period of extended operation (as affirmed in Order CLI-22-06 [NRC 2022e]). The
Commission's direction will hold until the staff completes its re-evaluation of generic environmental issues
for subsequent license renewal.
C-51
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION (Summer)
Location: Fairfield County, South Carolina
26 mi (42 km) NW of Columbia
Latitude 34.2958°N; longitude 81.3203°W
Licensee: Dominion Energy South Carolina
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-395
1973
1982
1984
2042
2,900
971
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Lake Monticello
Source Temperature Range: 52−91°F (11−33°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 507,000 gpm (32 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 25°F (14°C)
Intake Structure: Intake at shoreline
Discharge Structure: Discharge to lake via a discharge basin and 1,000 ft (305 m) canal
Site Information
Total Area: 2,200 ac (890 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 1.01 mi (1.63 m) radius
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Columbia; 2020 population: 136,632
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, open water, herbaceous
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 2.5, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Jenkinsville 3 mi (5 km) SE. Interstate Highway I-26 is
7 mi (11 km) SSW. The Fairfield pumped storage hydrostation is about 1 mi
(1.6 km) NW and uses Lake Monticello as well as the Parr Reservoir.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,289,146.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-52
Appendix C
VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT (Vogtle)
Location: Burke County, Georgia
26 mi (42 km) SE of Augusta
Latitude 33.1414°N; longitude 81.7625°W
Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Co., Inc.
Unit Information
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
Unit 1
Unit 2
50-424
1974
1987
1987
2047
3,625.6
1,150
PWR
WEST
50-425
1974
1989
1989
2049
3,625.6
1,152
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling towers
Source: Savannah River
Source Temperature Range: 39−86°F (4−30°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 509,600 gpm (32.16 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 33°F (18°C)
Intake Structure: At river bank
Discharge Structure: Single-point discharge pipe near the shoreline
Site Information
Total Area: 3,169 ac (1,282 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.68 mi (1.09 km) minimum
Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km) radius
Nearest City: Augusta-Richmond County; 2020 population: 202,081
Site Topography: Rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling, river flood plain
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, wetland, herbaceous
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 26.5, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Shell Bluff about 7 mi (11 km) W. Vogtle Units 3 and 4
(next generation large light water reactors) are co-located onsite. The U.S.
Department of Energy Savannah River Site is about 10 mi (16 km) NNE.
Population within 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 789,654.
C-53
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (Waterford)
Location: St. Charles County, Louisiana
20 mi (32 km) W of New Orleans
Latitude 29.9947°N; longitude 90.4711°W
Licensee: Entergy Operations, Inc.
Unit Information
Unit 3
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-382
1974
1985
1985
2044
3,716
1,250
PWR
CE
Cooling Water System
Type: Once-through
Source: Mississippi River
Source Temperature Range: 46−82°F (8−28°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 975,000 gpm (61.53 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 16°F (9°C)
Intake Structure: At river bank
Discharge Structure: At river bank
Site Information
Total Area: 3,561 ac (1,441 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 90.57 mi (0.92 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km)
Nearest City: New Orleans; 2020 population: 383,997
Site Topography: Flat
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Wetland, agriculture, developed: high, medium, low
density
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Mississippi Alluvial Plain
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 58.3, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Killona 1 mi (1.6 km) WNW. Interstate Highway I-10 is
about 7 mi (11 km) NE and I-90 about 7 mi (11 km) SE. Lake Pontchartrain is
about 7 mi (11 km) NE.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,171,180.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-54
Appendix C
WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT (Watts Bar)
Location: Rhea County, Tennessee
7 mi (11 km) SSE of Spring City
Latitude 35.6022°N; longitude 84.7894°W
Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority
Unit Information
Unit 1
Unit 2
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-390
1973
1996
1996
2035
3,459
1,123
PWR
WEST
50-391
1973
2015
2016
2055
3,459
1,122
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Natural draft cooling towers
Source: Chickamauga Lake on the Tennessee River.
Source Temperature Range: 43−82°F (6−28°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 410,000 gpm (26 m3/s) each unit
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 38°F (21°C)
Intake Structure: At lake bank
Discharge Structure: To lake via a holding pond
Site Information
Total Area: 1,770 ac (716 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.75 mi (1.21 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km)
Nearest City: Chattanooga; 2020 population: 181,099
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, open water
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Ridge and Valley
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 1.5, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Peakland 2 mi (3 km) NE. Watts Bar Dam is 1 mi
(1.6 km) N. Interstate Highway I-75 is about 11 mi (18 km) SE.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,312,700.
C-55
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION (Wolf Creek)
Location: Coffey County, Kansas
4 mi (6 km) NE of Burlington
Latitude 38.2386°N; longitude 95.6894°W
Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation
Unit Information
Unit 1
Docket Number:
Construction Permit:
Operating License:
Commercial Operation:
License Expiration:
Licensed Thermal Power (MWt):
Net Capacity (MWe):
Type of Reactor:
Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor:
50-482
1977
1985
1985
2045
3,565
1,166
PWR
WEST
Cooling Water System
Type: Cooling pond
Source: Coffey County Lake
Source Temperature Range: 32−87°F (0−31°C)
Condenser Flow Rate: 500,000 gpm (30 m3/s)
Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 30°F (1.1°C)
Intake Structure: On the shore of cooling lake
Discharge Structure: Discharged to 5,090 ac (2,060 ha) cooling lake, into an embayment
separated from the intake
Site Information
Total Area: 9,818 ac (3,973 ha)
Exclusion Area Distance: 0.75 mi (1.21 km) radius
Low Population Zone: 2.5 mi (4.02 km) radius
Nearest City: Topeka; 2020 population: 126,587
Site Topography: Flat to rolling
Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling
Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Herbaceous, agriculture, open water
Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Great Plains
Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Irregular Plains
Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 2.1, mostly freshwater pond and freshwater emergent
wetland
Nearby Features: The nearest town is Sharpe about 2 mi (3 km) N. The Flint Hills National
Wildlife Refuge is about 7 mi (11 km) W. The John Redmond Reservoir is
about 4 mi (6 km) W. Interstate Highway I-35 is 14 mi (23 km) N. The cooling
lake is formed by a dam on Wolf Creek.
Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 173,018.
°C = degree(s) Celsius; °F = degree(s) Fahrenheit; ac = acre(s); B&W = Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear
Power Company; BWR = boiling water reactor; CE = Combustion Engineering; cm = centimeter(s);
CONUS = continental United States; E = east; ENE = east-northeast; ESE = east-southeast; ft = feet/foot;
GE = General Electric (Company); GEIS = generic environmental impact statement; gpm = gallon(s) per
minute; ha = hectare(s); in. = inch(es); km = kilometer(s); LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-56
Appendix C
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; m = meter(s); m3/s = cubic meter(s) per second;
mi = mile(s); MWe = megawatt(s) electric; MWt = megawatt(s) thermal; N = north; NE = northeast;
NNE = north-northeast; NNW = north-northwest; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
NW = northwest; PSEG = Public Service Enterprise Group Nuclear, LLC; PWR = pressurized water
reactor; s = second(s); S = south; SE = southeast; SSE = south-southeast; SSW = south-southwest;
SW = southwest; STP = South Texas Project; W = west; WEST = Westinghouse; WNW = westnorthwest; WSW = west-southwest.
C.1
References
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. “Level III and IV Ecoregions of the
Continental United States.” Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18023A341.
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022. “National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Data
Layer.” Washington, D.C. Accessed May 5, 2022, at https://www.fws.gov/program/nationalwetlands-inventory/wetlands-data.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705, ML040690738.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [GEIS]. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Package Accession No. ML13107A023.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022a. Letter from S.P. Wall to P. Oneid and K.
Trice, dated June 28, 2022, regarding “Palisades Nuclear Plant and Big Rock Point Plant –
Issuance of Amendment Nos. 129 and 273 Re: Order Approving Transfer of Licenses and
Conforming Administrative License Amendments (EPIDS L-2022-LLM-0002 AND L-2020-LLM0003).” Rockville, MD. ADAMS Accession No. ML22173A179.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022b. Memorandum and Order in the Matter of
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3).
CLI-22-04, Rockville, MD. ADAMS Accession No. ML22055A557.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022c. Memorandum and Order in the Matter of
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (F/K/A Exelon Generation Company, LLC) (Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3). CLI-22-07, Rockville, MD. ADAMS Accession
No. ML22154A217.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022d. Memorandum and Order in the Matter of
Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4). CLI-22-02,
Rockville, MD. ADAMS Accession No. ML22055A496.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022e. Memorandum and Order in the Matter of
Florida Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 and 4). CLI-22-06,
Rockville, MD. ADAMS Accession No. ML22154A215.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023a. 2022-2023 Information Digest.
NUREG-1350, Volume 34. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML23047A371.
C-57
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix C
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023b. Letter from B.K. Harris to P. Gerfen, dated
March 2, 2023, regarding “Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 – Exemption from
Requirements Related to Submission of a License Renewal Application.” Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML23026A102.
USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2021. “Quick Facts: United States, Population Estimates.”
Washington, D.C. Accessed May 4, 2022, at
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2019. “NLCD 2019 Land Cover (CONUS).” Multi-Resolution
Land Characteristics Consortium Project. Sioux Falls, SD. Accessed May 11, 2023, at
https://www.mrlc.gov/data/nlcd-2019-land-cover-conus.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
C-58
APPENDIX D
–
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
CONSIDERED IN THE LR GEIS
APPENDIX D
–
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
CONSIDERED IN THE LR GEIS
D.1
Introduction
This appendix provides additional descriptions of (1) the alternatives to the proposed action that
are described in Chapter 2 of this revision of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS), and (2) the environmental impacts
to each resource area that would be associated with construction and operation of these
alternatives to the proposed action.1
D.2
No Action Alternative
The no action alternative 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. At some point, all nuclear plants will terminate operations and undergo
decommissioning. Under the no action alternative, plant operations would terminate at or before
the end of the current license term.
Not renewing the license and ceasing operation under the no action alternative may lead to a
variety of potential outcomes, but these would be essentially the same regardless of whether
operations cease at the expiration of the original operating license or at the expiration of a
renewed license. As described in Chapter 4, Section 4.14.2.1 of this LR GEIS, expiration of a
license will require the reactor to ultimately undergo decommissioning, whether it be more
immediate or deferred. Termination of nuclear power plant operations would result in the total
cessation of electrical power production. The no action alternative, unlike the other alternatives,
does not expressly meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, because it does not
provide a means of delivering baseload power to meet future electric system needs. The no
action alternative on its own would likely create a need for replacement energy; that need could
be met by installation of additional generating capacity, adoption or expansion of energy
conservation and energy efficiency programs (including demand-side management [DSM]),
delayed retirements, purchased power, or some combination of these options.
1
The information and analyses included here consist of certain relocated text from Chapters 2 and 4 of
the draft LR GEIS to address changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. §
4321 et seq.) from the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10). The text
was relocated to revise the document to be less than the 300-page limit (not including appendices,
citations, figures, tables, and other graphics) for environmental impact statements analyzing proposed
agency actions of “extraordinary complexity” specified in the revised NEPA statute. Changes made in
response to comments in this final LR GEIS, additions of new text, as well as corrective and substantial
editorial revisions are marked with a change bar (vertical line) on the side margin of the page where the
changes or additions were made. Minor editorial revisions and those limited to formatting are not marked.
Text that was simply relocated from Chapters 2 and 4, along with associated references, and not
otherwise changed is not marked with a change bar.
D-1
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
D.3
Alternative Energy Sources
The following sections describe alternative energy sources identified by the NRC that may be
potentially capable of meeting the purpose and need of the proposed action (license renewal).
Accordingly, these alternative energy sources could provide additional options that allow for
baseload power-generation capability beyond the term of the current nuclear power plant
operating license to meet future system power-generating needs, as such needs may be
determined by State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers. A
reasonable alternative must be commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the
expiration of the reactor’s operating license, or expected to become commercially viable on a
utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s operating license. The NRC
has updated this LR GEIS to incorporate the latest information on alternative energy sources,
but it is inevitable that rapidly evolving technologies will outpace the information presented. As
technologies improve, the NRC expects that some alternative energy sources not currently
viable for replacing or offsetting the power generated by a nuclear power plant may become
viable at some time in the future. The NRC will make that determination during plant-specific
license renewal reviews, as documented in plant-specific supplemental environmental impact
statements (SEISs) to this LR GEIS. The amount of replacement power generated or offset
must equal the baseload capacity previously supplied by the nuclear plant and reliably operate
at or near the nuclear plant’s demonstrated capacity factor.2
If the need arises to replace or offset the generating capacity of a nuclear reactor, power could
be provided by a suite of individual alternative energy sources. Power could also be provided
using combinations of alternative energy sources, as well as by instituting DSM measures,
delaying the scheduled retirement of one or more existing power plants, or purchasing an
equivalent amount of power. The number of possible combinations of alternative energy
sources that could replace or offset the generating capacity of a nuclear power plant is
potentially unlimited. Based on this, the NRC has only evaluated individual energy sources
rather than combinations of energy sources in this LR GEIS. However, combinations of energy
sources may be considered during plant-specific license renewal reviews.
The following sections describe alternative means of generating electricity or otherwise
addressing electrical loads that could serve to replace or offset the power produced by an
existing nuclear power plant. As discussed in Chapter 1, the NRC does not engage in
energy-planning decisions and makes no judgment about which alternative energy source(s)
evaluated would be chosen in any given case.
The NRC relies on many sources of information to determine which alternatives are available
and commercially viable. The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Energy Information
Administration (EIA) maintains the official energy statistics of the Federal government. Along
with information from other sources, the NRC commonly uses information from EIA reports,
including the Electric Power Annual, Monthly Energy Review, Annual Energy Outlook, and
Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook to identify energy trends and inform the staff’s
analysis of alternatives to the proposed action (initial license renewal [LR] or subsequent license
renewal [SLR]). The NRC often considers the existing portfolio of electric generating
technologies in the State or utility service area in which a nuclear plant is located, along with
State and Federal policies that may promote or oppose certain alternatives. The NRC may also
2
The capacity factor is the ratio of the amount of electric energy produced by an electric generator over a
given period of time to the amount of electric energy the same generator would have produced had it
operated at its full, rated capacity over the same period of time.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-2
Appendix D
use the EIA’s State Energy Profiles as well as State, regional, and, in some cases, utility- or
system-level assessments of energy resources and projections (such as integrated resource
plans) to identify alternatives for consideration.
The United States relies on a variety of energy sources and technologies to provide electrical
power. Annual electric power generation has increased from 4,125 million megawatt-hours
(MMWh) in 2010 to 4,243 MMWh in 2022. Coal and petroleum (oil) generation decreased
substantially between 2010 and 2022, while natural gas, wind, and solar increased. Table D.3-1
includes the changes in values of net generation at utility-scale facilities between 2010 and
2022 (DOE/EIA 2022a, DOE/EIA 2023a).
Table D.3-1
Net Generation at Utility-Scale Facilities (million megawatt-hours [MMWh])
Utility-Scale Facility
Net Generation (in MMWh)
in Year 2010
Nuclear
Net Generation (in MMWh)
in Year 2022
807
772
1,847
828
988
1,689
37
23
260
262
Geothermal
15
17
Wind
95
435
Biomass
56
53
1
146
Other(a)
19
17
Total(b)
4,125
4,243
Coal
Natural Gas
Oil
Hydroelectric
Solar
MMWh = million megawatt-hours.
(a) Other includes blast furnace gas and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels, nonbiogenic municipal solid waste, batteries, hydrogen, purchased steam, sulfur, tire-derived fuel, and other
miscellaneous energy sources, offset by savings associated with hydroelectric pumped storage.
(b) May not sum to the total due to rounding.
In the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2023, the EIA projects an increase in energy consumption
and generating capacity throughout the 2050 forecast period because population and economic
growth is expected to outweigh efficiency gains. Electricity demand is expected to grow slowly
over the projection period, with renewable energy generation increasing more rapidly than
overall electricity demand. Declining capital costs for solar panels, wind turbines, and battery
storage, as well as government subsidies, are expected to result in renewables becoming
increasingly cost-effective, with nuclear, coal, and natural gas expected to decline as a share of
total energy generation (DOE/EIA 2023b).
In Sections D.3.1 through D.3.3 of this appendix, the NRC presents a variety of energy sources
(including fossil fuel, new nuclear, and renewable energy technologies) that might be
considered as alternatives for replacing the power generated by nuclear power plants being
considered for initial LR or SLR. In Section D.4, the NRC compares the environmental impacts
of these alternatives to the environmental impacts of license renewal. In addition, Section D.3.4
discusses non-power-generating approaches that could also be considered for offsetting a
nuclear power plant’s existing capacity.
D-3
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
D.3.1
Fossil Fuel Energy Technologies
Fossil fuel energy technologies burn fuel derived from ancient organic matter such as natural
gas, coal, or crude oil and as such are a source of greenhouse gases (GHGs), including carbon
dioxide (CO2) (NRC 2013). While the EIA indicates that renewable energy will be the fastestgrowing category of U.S. energy source through 2050, fossil fuels such as natural gas will
maintain a large market share, while coal and oil are likely to continue to decline.
D.3.1.1
Natural Gas
The most common types of natural gas-fired plants are combustion turbine and combined-cycle
plants. A schematic of a representative gas-fired power plant is provided in Figure D.3-1.
Combustion turbines use hot gases that drive a generator and are then used to run a
compressor. In contrast, a combined-cycle power system typically uses a gas turbine to drive an
electrical generator, recovering waste heat from the turbine exhaust to generate steam that
drives a steam turbine generator. This two-cycle process has a high rate of efficiency because
the natural gas combined-cycle system captures the exhaust heat that otherwise would be lost
and reuses it. Baseload natural gas combined-cycle power plants have proven their reliability
and can have capacity factors as high as 87 percent (DOE/EIA 2015a). Since 2016, 31 percent
of new natural gas-powered plants constructed use advanced natural gas-fired combined-cycle
units, increasing efficiency and decreasing capital construction costs (DOE/EIA 2019a).
As of 2021, natural gas technologies represented 37 percent of electricity generation, outpacing
coal (23 percent), nuclear (19 percent), and renewables (21 percent). Based on reference case
projections, natural gas generation as a proportion of U.S. electricity generation is expected to
remain relatively constant (34 percent in 2050), with decreases in coal and nuclear generation
being replaced by increases in renewables (DOE/EIA 2022b).
Figure D.3-1 Schematic of a Natural Gas-Fired Plant
D.3.1.2
Coal
Although coal has historically been the largest source of electricity generation in the United
States, both natural gas and nuclear energy generation surpassed coal at the national level in
2020, before coal-fired generation rebounded after 2020. Overall, coal-fired electricity
generation in the United States has continued to decrease as coal-fired generating units have
been retired or converted to use other fuels and as the remaining coal-fired generating units
have been used less often (DOE/EIA 2021a). Projections for the amount of electricity produced
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-4
Appendix D
from coal in the future vary widely across planning scenarios, primarily due to cost uncertainties
associated with anticipated future environmental regulations such as cap-and-trade regulations
for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and the regulation of GHG emissions, primarily carbon
dioxide. The EIA projects that between 2021 and 2050, coal-fired generation will decrease from
23 percent to 10 percent of total U.S. electricity generation (DOE/EIA 2022b).
Baseload coal units have proven their reliability and can routinely sustain capacity factors as
high as 85 percent. Among the technologies available, pulverized coal boilers producing
supercritical steam (supercritical pulverized coal [SCPC] boilers) have become increasingly
common at newer coal-fired plants given their generally high thermal efficiencies and overall
reliability. A schematic of a representative coal-fired power plant is provided in Figure D.3-2.
SCPC facilities are more expensive than subcritical coal-fired plants to construct, but they
consume less fuel per unit output, reducing environmental impacts. Integrated gasification
combined-cycle (IGCC) is another technology that generates electricity from coal. It combines
modern coal gasification technology with both gas turbine and steam turbine power generation.
The technology is cleaner than conventional pulverized coal plants because some of the major
pollutants are removed from the gas stream before combustion. Although several smaller, IGCC
power plants have been in operation since the mid-1990s, more recent large-scale projects
using this technology have experienced setbacks and opposition that have hindered the
technology from being fully integrated into the energy market.
Figure D.3-2 Schematic of a Coal-Fired Power Plant. Source: NETL Undated.
Advanced coal technologies will likely become increasingly important as regulations on power
plant emissions evolve, including under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) and the
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S. C. § 1251 et seq.). Technologies often referred to as “clean
D-5
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
coal technologies,” which include coal cleaning processes, coal gasification technologies,
improved combustion technologies, and enhanced devices for capturing pollutants, may reduce
impacts associated with a coal-fired plant (NRC 2013). The EIA assumes that by 2025, coal
plants are expected to either invest in heat rate improvement technologies or be retired.
Additionally, low natural gas prices are expected to contribute to the retirement of existing
coal-fired plants (DOE/EIA 2020).
D.3.1.3
Oil
Oil-fired energy technologies are conceptually similar to gas-fired technologies but use crude oil
rather than natural gas fuel. According to the EIA, in 2016, only 3 percent of utility-scale
generators used petroleum as a primary fuel and produced less than 1 percent of total electricity
generation in the United States. In general, oil plants are located in coastal States where marine
modes of oil transportation are competitive with transportation of coal by rail. These plants are
on average more than 40 years old, with roughly 70 percent of the capacity constructed prior to
1980. Since that time, oil-fired generation has become more expensive than other fossil fuel
generation options. Accordingly, this high cost has contributed to the overall decline in the use
of oil for electricity generation (DOE/EIA 2017).
D.3.2
New Nuclear Energy Technologies
Commercial nuclear power plants use fission to heat water and produce steam, which is then
used to spin turbines that generate electricity. The newest nuclear power plants to enter service
in the United States are Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Waynesboro, Georgia, which began commercial
operation in July 2023 and April 2024, respectively. Prior to that, the last new nuclear power
reactor to come online was Watts Bar Unit 2 in 2016 (Georgia Power 2024, DOE/EIA 2022c).
The EIA projects that nuclear power’s contribution to total U.S. electrical generation will
decrease from 19 percent in 2021 to 12 percent by 2050 (DOE/EIA 2022b). Currently, seven
light water nuclear reactor designs have been certified by the NRC. Certified designs include the
1,300 megawatt-electric (MWe) U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (10 CFR Part 52,
Appendix A), the 1,300 MWe System 80+ Design (10 CFR Part 52, Appendix B), the 600 MWe
AP600 Design (10 CFR Part 52 Appendix C), the 1,100 MWe AP1000 Design (10 CFR Part 52,
Appendix D), the 1,500 MWe GE-Hitachi Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (10 CFR
Part 52 Appendix E), the 1,400 MWe Korean Electric Power Corporation APR 1400 (10 CFR
Part 52 Appendix F), and the 600 MWe NuScale Small Modular Reactor (10 CFR Part 52,
Appendix G) (NRC 2022, 88 FR 3287).
Several companies are considering other advanced, non-light water reactor designs and
technologies and are conducting preapplication activities with the NRC. These reactors may be
cooled by liquid metals, molten salt mixtures, or inert gases. Advanced reactors can also
consider fuel materials and designs that differ radically from standard uranium dioxide fuel types
currently in use (NRC 2023a). Given the uncertainties associated with their technical viability
and deployment timeframes, these emerging technologies are not evaluated further in this
LR GEIS. Furthermore, the NRC is currently in the process of developing a Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for Advanced Nuclear Reactors (ANR GEIS) to analyze the
environmental impacts associated with the licensing of these reactors (85 FR 24040, NRC
2024). In this LR GEIS, the NRC staff has evaluated the construction and operation of two types
of new nuclear technologies as reasonable alternatives to license renewal: (1) large light water
reactor (LLWR) plants and (2) small modular reactor (SMR) plants.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-6
Appendix D
D.3.2.1
Large Light Water Reactors
LLWR designs feature advanced safety systems and evolutionary operating improvements over
existing power reactors. The first of these new LLWR units to be built in the United States
(Vogtle Units 3 and 4, see Section D.3.2) represent the initial U.S. deployment of the
Westinghouse AP1000 reactor, which was designed as a next-generation nuclear reactor that
could provide a standardized design for the U.S. utilities market. In addition, the AP1000 has a
smaller footprint, simpler design, and uses less piping, fewer valves, and fewer pumps than
older designs (DOE/EIA 2022d, DOE Undated-a). A schematic of an LLWR is depicted in
Figure D.3-3.
Figure D.3-3 Schematic of a Large Light Water Reactor. Adapted from: NRC 2004.
D.3.2.2
Small Modular Reactors
SMRs, in general, are light water reactors that use water for cooling and enriched uranium for
fuel in the same manner as the conventional light water reactors (LWRs) and LLWRs currently
operating in the United States. SMR modules typically generate 300 MWe or less, compared to
today’s larger nuclear reactor designs, which can generate 1,000 MWe or more per reactor.
However, their smaller size means that several SMRs can be bundled together in a single
containment. Smaller size also means greater siting flexibility because they can fit in locations
not large enough to accommodate a conventional nuclear reactor (NRC 2018, NRC 2020,
D-7
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
DOE 2022a). SMR design features can include below grade containment and inherent safe
shutdown features, longer station blackout coping time without external intervention, and core
and spent fuel pool cooling without the need for active heat removal. A representative SMR is
illustrated in Figure D.3-4. SMR power-generating facilities are also designed to be deployed in
an incremental fashion to meet the power-generation needs of a service area, in which
generating capacity can be added in increments to match load growth projections (NRC 2018).
Overall, the NRC staff assumes that the resource requirements, key characteristics, and
impacts associated with constructing and operating SMRs would be bounded by the impacts of
constructing and operating the light water reactor units (either conventional LWR or LLWR) that
have been evaluated in NRC EISs since the 1970s. The NRC received the first design
certification application for an SMR in December 2016 (NRC 2023b). This design, the NuScale
SMR, was certified by the NRC in January 2023, and could potentially achieve operation on a
commercial scale by 2029 (88 FR 3287, NuScale 2022, NuScale 2023). SMRs could potentially
be constructed and operational by the time some existing nuclear power plant licenses expire.
Figure D.3-4 Schematic of a Light Water Small Modular Nuclear Reactor. Source: GAO
2015.
D.3.3
Renewable Energy Technologies
The NRC considers the following renewable energy technology alternatives for possible
replacement power: solar (both photovoltaic [PV] and thermal), wind (both land-based and
offshore), hydroelectric, biomass, geothermal, ocean wave and current, and fuel cells.
Combinations of renewable energy alternatives may be considered during plant-specific license
reviews.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-8
Appendix D
Renewable energy sources accounted for approximately 22 percent of total U.S. electricity
generation in 2022, and are projected to account for nearly 60 percent of cumulative generating
capacity additions through 2050 (DOE/EIA 2022e, DOE/EIA 2022f). The past two decades have
seen a dramatic increase in the commercial use of renewable energy alternatives, allowing for
the increased likelihood that some of these technologies could individually or in combination
provide total replacement power for a nuclear power plant. One of the major reasons for this is
that energy storage technologies are rapidly gaining in importance. As the amounts of power
from variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar increase, energy storage
capability has become an essential tool for temporally decoupling generation and demand
(DOE/EIA 2021b).
Energy storage can enhance the overall efficiency and value of intermittent renewable energy
technologies as sources of reliable baseload power. Some energy storage options can also help
maintain grid stability through improved frequency management, and some may improve the
use and integration of smart grid technologies. Energy storage technologies are not generation
sources but rather complementary technologies that can take many forms, among them,
electrochemical energy of batteries and capacitors, pumped storage hydropower, and
compressed air.
Battery energy storage systems are increasingly being used to provide electric powergeneration and backup capacity for times when nondispatchable renewable energy sources,
such as wind and solar, are unavailable. These batteries can be used in a standalone manner
or as components of a hybrid system coupled with intermittent generation sources. U.S. battery
power capacity was negligible prior to 2020, but is expected to increase to 30 gigawatts (GW)
by the end of 2025 (DOE/EIA 2022g).
Pumped storage hydropower generates energy during peak load periods by using water
previously pumped into an elevated storage reservoir and then released to turn a turbinegenerator during off-peak periods, and in 2020 accounted for 93 percent of grid storage in the
United States. In contrast, compressed air energy storage systems use motor-driven air
compressors to compress air into a suitable geological repository such as an underground salt
cavern, a mine, or a porous rock formation. Compressed air energy storage systems have been
limited, with only one such system developed in the United States in the 1990s (NPCC 2010).
The environmental impacts of the construction and operation of renewable energy alternatives
are quite different from those of nonrenewable alternatives. In general, however, resource areas
that have the greatest range of impacts include air quality, hydrology, and land use. Air quality
impacts from hydroelectric, wind, solar, and ocean wave and ocean current generation methods
would be negligible; however, biomass-fueled energy, for example, would emit air pollutants,
some of them hazardous. Some geothermal technologies may also be sources of hazardous air
pollutants. All renewable energy alternatives would rely on modest amounts of water, but those
that would rely on conventional steam cycles to power turbine generators (biomass, geothermal,
solar thermal) would have higher water demands, some of which are comparable to those of
nonrenewable alternatives. All renewable energy alternatives would require land, although land
requirements would be negligible for offshore wind and ocean wave and ocean current
alternatives. Solar and conventional hydroelectric generators, for example, would require
significant amounts of land.
D-9
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
The NRC has elected not to evaluate energy storage technologies as discrete alternatives to a
nuclear reactor because they do not directly generate electricity. The NRC intends to consider
the influence that energy storage technologies can have on its evaluations of the environmental
impacts of alternative generating technologies in future license renewal reviews.
Brief overviews of renewable energy alternatives are provided in the following sections.
D.3.3.1
Solar Energy
Solar energy technologies generate power from sunlight. Solar technologies that are
commercially viable for the production of electricity include solar PV and solar thermal, also
referred to as concentrating solar power (CSP) (see Figure D.3-5 and Figure D.3-6).
Solar PV components convert sunlight directly into electricity using solar cells. Solar cells have
been developed using silicon (single crystal, polycrystalline, and amorphous silicon) and a
variety of compounds such as cadmium telluride, copper-indium-gallium-selenide, and gallium
arsenide. Among the silicon-based solar cells, single crystals exhibit the highest efficiency, but
polycrystalline cells now represent the majority of the PV market. Although more expensive to
produce, high-performance, multi-junction cells offer greater energy-conversion efficiencies and
are currently the subject of most research into utility-scale applications. Many solar cell
materials are now being manufactured as thin films, which have lower efficiencies than other
types of PV technologies but typically can be made at a lower cost. Unlike CSP technologies,
PV systems do not require cooling water, although they may have substantial land
requirements.
Figure D.3-5 Schematic of Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant. Adapted from: NRC 2013.
CSP systems use heat from the sun to boil water and produce steam. The steam then drives a
turbine connected to a generator to ultimately produce electricity (NREL Undated). CSP facilities
can use molten salt to store heat for steam production at night and during cloudy periods, but to
do so and still maintain their nameplate capacities, such CSP facilities must increase the size of
the solar field. CSP facilities use conventional steam cycles and thus have cooling demands
similar to fossil fuel power plants of equivalent capacities and overall thermal efficiencies.
Solar generators are considered an intermittent resource because their availability depends on
ambient exposure to the sun, also known as solar insolation. The highest-value solar resources
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-10
Appendix D
in the United States exist in the desert regions of the Southwest. However, solar resources of
adequate quality to support utility-scale solar energy facilities, particularly PV, are located—to
varying extents—throughout the country.
Figure D.3-6 Schematic of Concentrated Solar Power Plant. Adapted from: NRC 2013.
Solar energy technologies produced approximately 3.4 percent of total U.S. electricity
generation in 2022, representing approximately 16 percent of total renewable generation
(DOE/EIA 2023a). Nationwide, growth in utility-scale solar PV facilities (greater than 1 MW) has
resulted in an increase from approximately 1,000 MW in 2011 to approximately 60,000 MW of
installed capacity in 2021 (DOE/EIA Undated-a). EIA projects that solar energy’s contribution to
total U.S. electrical generation will continue to increase and account for 20 percent by 2050
(DOE/EIA 2021c). EIA further projects that solar energy’s share of total U.S. capacity will
increase from 7 percent in 2020 to 29 percent in 2050. About 70 percent of these solar additions
are anticipated to be from utility-scale PV power plants (i.e., having at least 1 MW of electrical
generating capacity) that could potentially serve as reasonable replacement energy sources.
The remaining 30 percent of these solar additions are projected to come from individually
smaller end-use PV sources, such as residential and commercial rooftop solar installations,
which do not meet the NRC’s utility-scale criterion (DOE/EIA 2022h).
D.3.3.2
Wind Energy
Onshore and offshore wind resources exist throughout the United States. The dominant
technology for utility-scale applications is the horizontal-axis wind turbine. A typical wind turbine
consists of rotor blades attached to a nacelle, which is mounted on a tower. Within the nacelle,
a drive train connects to an electrical generator to produce electricity, which is then conveyed by
D-11
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
cables to electronic conversion equipment situated at ground level within the tower (see
Figure D.3-7). As is the case with other renewable energy sources, the feasibility of wind energy
serving as an alternative baseload power depends on the location (relative to expected
electricity users), value, accessibility, and constancy of the resource. Wind energy must be
converted to electricity at or near the point where it is extracted, and backup power sources or
energy storage capabilities often need to be paired to overcome the intermittency and variability
of wind resources.
The American Clean Power Association reports a total of more than 122,000 MW of installed
wind energy capacity nationwide as of December 31, 2020 (DOE Undated-b). The average
rated (nameplate) capacity of newly installed land-based wind turbines in the United States in
2018 was 2.4 MW (Wiser and Bolinger 2019).
Increasing attention has recently been focused on developing U.S. offshore wind resources,
particularly along the Atlantic coast. In 2016, a 30 MWe project off the coast of Rhode Island
became the first operating offshore wind farm in the United States (Orsted Undated). This was
followed in 2020 with the construction and operation of the Mid-Atlantic’s first offshore wind
demonstration project in Federal waters, a 12 MWe demonstration project supporting the
planned operation of a 2,600 MWe utility-scale wind farm off the coast of Virginia (BOEM 2021).
Figure D.3-7 Components of a Modern Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine. Source: NREL
2012.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-12
Appendix D
Modern offshore wind turbines are substantially larger than those constructed and operated on
land. From 2000 to 2020, offshore wind turbine sizes have grown from an installed average of
2 MW per turbine to recent designs capable of generating 14 MW per turbine (BOEM 2020a).
Offshore wind energy development activities have the potential to also affect onshore land use
and coastal infrastructure, particularly due to onshore construction activities, port modifications,
and cable landing facilities needed to connect the wind turbines to onshore electricity
transmission infrastructure (BOEM 2019). A schematic of a representative offshore wind
generating facility is illustrated in Figure D.3-8.
Figure D.3-8 Major Offshore Wind Power Plant and Transmission Elements. Source:
DOE 2022b.
The amount of wind electricity generation has grown significantly in the past 30 years. Wind
energy was the source of approximately 10 percent of total U.S. electricity generation and about
48 percent of all renewable energy produced in 2022 (DOE/EIA 2023a). EIA forecasts that wind
energy will account for approximately 10 percent of new U.S. generating capacity additions
through 2050, exceeded only by solar and natural gas (DOE/EIA 2022h).
D.3.3.3
Hydroelectric Energy
Hydropower, which uses the flow of moving water to generate electricity, is one of the oldest
and largest sources of renewable energy. As of 2020, there were approximately 2,300 operating
hydroelectric facilities in the United States (DOE Undated-c). Hydroelectric technology operates
by capturing the energy of flowing water and directing it to a turbine and generator to produce
electricity. There are two fundamental hydropower facility designs: “run-of-the-river” facilities
that simply redirect the natural flow of a river, stream, or canal through a hydroelectric facility
and “store-and-release” facilities that block the flow of the river by using dams that cause the
water to accumulate in an upstream reservoir (see Figure D.3-9) (NRC 2013).
Hydropower facilities generally have between a 40–50 percent capacity factor, higher than
those of solar or wind, but lower than power plants operated for baseload power generation
(DOE/EIA 2021d).
D-13
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
Figure D.3-9 Cross Section of a Large Hydroelectric Plant. Source: NREL 2012.
Large hydroelectric facilities constructed on major rivers can have peak power capacities as
high as 10,000 MWe. However, river flow conditions and other circumstances and factors
(e.g., spawning periods of anadromous fish) often require dam operators to divert river flow
around power-generating turbines over various periods of time, thereby reducing the amount of
power generated (NRC 2013). In addition, hydroelectricity generation ultimately depends on
precipitation levels that can vary seasonally and annually. As recently as 2019, hydroelectric
energy was the leading source of U.S. renewable energy generation. In 2022, hydroelectricity
accounted for approximately 6.2 percent of total U.S. utility-scale electricity generation and
approximately 29 percent of the total utility-scale renewable electricity generation
(DOE/EIA 2023a). EIA projects that this level of generation will remain relatively steady through
2050 (DOE/EIA 2022h). However, the potential for future construction of large dams has
diminished due to increased public concerns about flooding, habitat alteration and loss, and
destruction of natural river courses. Additional demands for river water have also reduced water
flow.
D.3.3.4
Biomass Energy
Biomass energy can be generated from a wide variety of fuels, including municipal solid waste
(MSW), refuse-derived fuel, landfill gas, urban wood wastes, forest residues, agricultural crop
residues and wastes, and energy crops. Definitions of materials that qualify as biomass may
vary by State or region depending on regulatory schemes or renewable portfolio standards.
Biomass energy conversion is accomplished using a wide variety of technologies, some of
which are similar in appearance and operation to fossil fuel plants, and include directly
combusting biomass in a boiler or incinerator to produce steam, co-firing biomass along with
fossil fuels (primarily coal) in boilers to produce steam, producing synthetic liquid fuels that are
subsequently combusted, gasifying biomass to produce gaseous fuels that are subsequently
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-14
Appendix D
combusted, and anaerobically digesting biomass to produce biogas. Accordingly, biomass
generation is generally considered a carbon-emitting technology. Historically, wood has been
the most widely used biomass fuel for electricity generation, while coal-biomass co-firing and
MSW combustion are also commercially feasible. An example of a biomass-fired power plant is
illustrated in Figure D.3-10 (NRC 2013).
Figure D.3-10
Schematic of a Biomass/Waste-to-Energy Plant
The MSW combustors use one of three types of technologies: mass burn, modular, or refusederived fuel. Mass burning is currently the method used most frequently in the United States
and involves no (or little) sorting, shredding, or separation. Consequently, toxic or hazardous
components present in the waste stream are combusted, and toxic constituents are exhausted
to the air or become part of the resulting solid wastes. As of 2019, the United States had 75
operational waste-to-energy plants in 21 States, processing approximately 29 million tons of
waste per year. These waste-to-energy plants have an aggregate capacity of 2,725 MWe
(Michaels and Krishnan 2019). Although some plants have expanded to handle additional waste
and to produce more energy, only one new plant has been built in the United States since 1995
(Maize 2019).
Landfill gas is another potential source of biomass energy for electric power production.
Landfills in which organic materials are disposed represent the largest source of methane in the
United States. Landfill gas composition varies depending on the type of waste.
In 2022, biomass energy was the source of approximately 1.3 percent of total U.S. electrical
generation and approximately 6 percent of the total generation derived from renewable energy
sources (DOE/EIA 2023a). This contribution from biomass energy sources is projected to
remain largely unchanged through 2050 (DOE/EIA 2022b).
D-15
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
D.3.3.5
Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy is energy in the form of heat contained below the Earth’s surface in
hydrothermal zones (hot water or steam trapped in an aquifer), hot and dry geologic formations
(referred to as hot dry rock or engineered geothermal systems [EGSs]), or in geopressurized
resources (hot brine aquifers existing under pressure). The technical approaches to extracting
geothermal energy resources involve drilling wells down into the heated resources to raise hot
water or steam to the surface where the heat energy can be used to generate electricity. EGSs
differ in that crews must first fracture a hot, dry rock formation and then inject a heat transfer
fluid (typically water). They then recover the heated fluid from the formation through the well and
then use the heated fluid to produce steam—and subsequently electricity—in a conventional
steam turbine generator (NRC 2013). A schematic of a representative geothermal generating
facility is provided in Figure D.3-11.
Figure D.3-11
Schematic of a Hydrothermal Binary Power Plant. Source: NREL 2012.
Utility-scale geothermal energy generation requires geothermal reservoirs with a temperature
above 200°F (93°C). Known utility-scale geothermal resources are concentrated in the western
United States, specifically Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. In general, most assessments
of geothermal resources have concentrated on these Western States (DOE Undated-d, USGS
2008). In 2022, geothermal power plants produced approximately 0.4 percent of total U.S.
electrical generation, equivalent to approximately 2.0 percent of total U.S. renewable electricity
generation (DOE/EIA 2023a). This contribution from geothermal energy sources is projected to
remain largely unchanged through 2050 (DOE/EIA 2022b).
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-16
Appendix D
D.3.3.6
Ocean Wave and Current Energy
Waves, currents, and tides are often predictable and reliable, making them attractive candidates
for potential renewable energy generation. Four major technologies may be suitable to harness
wave energy: (1) point absorbers, (2) attenuators, (3) water column terminator devices, and
(4) overtopping devices (see Figure D.3-12) (BOEM Undated). Point absorbers and attenuators
use floating buoys to convert wave motion into mechanical energy, driving a generator to
produce electricity. Overtopping devices trap some portion of an incident wave at a higher
elevation than the average height of the surrounding sea surface, while terminators allow waves
to enter a tube, compressing air that is then used to drive a generator that produces electricity
(NRC 2013). Some of these technologies are undergoing demonstration testing at commercial
scales, but none is currently used to provide baseload power (BOEM Undated).
Figure D.3-12 Primary Types of Wave Energy Devices. Source: NREL 2012. Illustrations
Not to Scale.
In general, technologies that harness the energy of ocean waves are in their infancy and have
not been used at utility scale. Feasibility studies and prototype tests for wave energy capture
devices have been conducted for locations off the coasts of Hawaii, Oregon, California,
Massachusetts, and Maine. Similarly, ocean current energy technology is also in its infancy.
Existing prototypes capture ocean current energy with submerged turbines that are similar to
wind turbines. Although the functions of ocean turbines and wind turbines are similar (both
derive power from moving fluids), ocean turbines have substantially greater power-generating
capacity because the energy contained in moving water is approximately 800 times greater than
that contained in air (MMS 2007).
D-17
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
D.3.3.7
Fuel Cells
Fuel cells work without combustion and its associated environmental side effects. Power is
produced electrochemically by passing a hydrogen-rich fuel over an anode, air over a cathode,
and then separating the two by an electrolyte. The only byproducts are heat, water, and CO2
(see Figure D.3-13). Hydrogen fuel can come from a variety of hydrocarbon resources by
subjecting them to steam under pressure. Natural gas is typically used as the source of
hydrogen (DOE Undated-e). As of October 2020, the United States had a total of 250 MW of
fuel cell generation capacity (DOE/EIA Undated-a).
Figure D.3-13
Components of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell. Adapted from: DOE/EIA 2022i.
Currently, fuel cells are not economically or technologically competitive with other alternatives
for electricity generation. The EIA estimates that fuel cells may cost $6,866 per installed kilowatt
(total overnight capital costs in 2020 dollars), which is high compared to other alternative
technologies analyzed in this section (DOE/EIA 2022j). In 2021, the DOE launched an initiative
to reduce the cost of hydrogen production to spur fuel cell and energy storage development
over the next decade (DOE 2021). However, it is unclear to what degree this initiative will lead
to increased future development and deployment of fuel cell technologies.
D.3.4
Non-Power-Generating Alternatives
As discussed in Section D.3, various electric power-generating technologies can be employed
to replace the power provided by a nuclear power plant in a particular region of the country. The
preceding sections have identified power-generating technologies that the NRC considers to be
viable candidates as alternatives. However, in addition to these power-generating options,
viable non-power-generating alternatives that offset power needs and do not include the
introduction of new electricity-generating capacity also exist. Three such alternatives are energy
efficiency and demand response measures (collectively, part of a range of DSM measures),
delayed retirement of existing non-nuclear plants, and purchased power from other electricity
generators within or outside of a region.
D.3.4.1
Demand-Side Management Programs
The need for alternative or replacement power can precipitate or invigorate conservation and
energy efficiency efforts designed to either reduce electricity demand at the retail level or alter
the shape of the electricity load. All such efforts are broadly categorized as DSM, although DSM
can also include other measures to influence energy consumer practices. Utility companies use
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-18
Appendix D
DSM to reduce consumer energy usage, either through conservation and energy efficiency
measures or through demand response (DOE/EIA 2019b). Energy efficiency measures consist
of installations of more efficient devices or implementing more efficient processes that exceed
current standards. Examples are replacing light bulbs with more efficient technology or replacing
older heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems with high-efficiency systems that exceed
current codes and standards. Demand response programs are procedures that encourage a
temporary reduction in demand for electricity at certain times in response to a signal from the
grid operator or market conditions (DOE/EIA Undated-b). DSM measures may be championed
by the same company that operates a nuclear power plant when that company also serves retail
customers. In other cases, the measures may be offered by other load-serving entities,
State-based programs, third-party service providers and aggregators, or even transmission
operators. Programs include, but are not limited to, incentives for equipment upgrades,
improved codes and standards, rebates or rate reductions in exchange for allowing a utility to
control or curtail the use of high-consumption appliances (like air conditioners) or equipment,
training in efficient operation of building heating and lighting systems, direct payments in
consideration for avoided consumption, or use of price signals to shift consumption away from
peak times.
Data contained in the 2022 EIA Electric Power Annual report showed that peak demand
savings from energy efficiency and demand response activities totaled 16,674 MW in 2020
(DOE/EIA 2022a). EIA data show that historically, residential electricity consumers have been
responsible for the majority of peak load reductions achieved by conservation and energy
efficiency programs. However, participation in most conservation programs is voluntary, and the
existence of a program does not guarantee that reductions in electricity demand would occur.
Nevertheless, energy conservation programs in general can result in significant reductions in
demand. Recent legislative actions in some States requiring the establishment of programs
such as “net metering” and technological advances in the electric transmission network (the
“smart grid”) have facilitated greater degrees of participation in energy conservation programs,
especially among residential customers.
Conservation and energy efficiency programs may reduce overall environmental impacts
associated with energy production. However, while the energy conservation or energy efficiency
potential in the United States is substantial, the NRC staff is not aware of any cases where a
DSM program has been implemented expressly to replace or offset a large, baseload
generation station. While the potential to replace a large baseload generator may exist in some
locations, it is more likely that DSM programs will not be evaluated in plant-specific license
renewal environmental reviews as standalone alternatives but may play an important role in the
evaluation of a combination of alternatives.
D.3.4.2
Delayed Retirement of Other Generating Facilities
Delayed retirement of other power-generating plants is another potential alternative to license
renewal. Delaying the retirement of one or more power-generating facilities in a region could
enable them to continue supplying sufficient electricity to offset that which a nuclear plant
currently provides to its service area. Repowering existing facilities using new or different
technologies could also provide a means for delaying their retirement.
Power plants retire for several reasons. Because generators are required to adhere to additional
regulations that will require significant reductions in plant emissions, some power plant owners
may opt for early retirement of older units (which often generate more pollutants and are less
efficient) rather than incur the cost for compliance. Additional retirements may be driven by low
D-19
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
competing commodity prices (such as low natural gas prices), slow growth in electricity demand,
and the requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards (DOE/EIA 2015b). Impacts would occur in areas where delayed retirements of
existing non-nuclear power plants occur, and the magnitude of these impacts would be
reflective of the type of generating technology employed and the amount of power required.
D.3.4.3
Purchased Power
Bulk electricity purchases currently take place within geographic regions established by the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the authorized Electric Reliability
Organization for the United States. NERC is a regulatory organization that develops and
enforces reliability standards; monitors the bulk power system; assesses future adequacy;
audits owners, operators, and users for preparedness; and educates and trains industry
personnel. NERC is composed of eight Regional Reliability Councils, each responsible for a
specific geographic area. These entities account for virtually all bulk electricity (i.e., electricity
provided at 100 kV or higher) supplied in the United States, Canada, and a portion of Baja
California Norte, Mexico. Interconnections exist between NERC regions that allow for power
exchanges between the regions when necessary to satisfy short-term demand. The NRC
recognizes the possibility that replacement power may be imported from outside a nuclear
power plant’s service area, which may or may not require importing power from another region.
In most instances, importing power from distant generating sources would have little or no
measurable environmental impact in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant, but it could cause
environmental impacts where the power is generated or anywhere along the transmission route.
Similar to other approaches, the magnitude of these impacts would be reflective of the type of
generating technology employed and the amount of power required.
Many factors influence power purchasing decisions, with respect to both technical feasibility and
cost. The existing transmission grid may not support every possible power transfer agreement.
Incremental power transfer capacities have been established between grid segments both
within and across NERC regions, and modest amounts of power routinely transfer across those
points. Such capabilities were established to make sure that overall grid stability and reliability
under both routine and nonroutine conditions are maintained. In contrast, long-term transfers of
utility-scale power from outside of a given power plant’s region may require modification of one
or more existing transmission grid segments (as well as modifications of substations and power
synchronization equipment) and could require construction of new transmission line segments.
New transmission lines may be required for long-term purchased power from within the same
NERC region, but the need for new transmission lines is highly situation-dependent. Further,
efforts by transmission operators to provide a price signal for transmission congestion through
locational-marginal pricing would, over the long run, provide an incentive for power purchases
closer to the existing power plant or construction of new capacity nearer the existing power
plant. In general, the more geographically distant the exporting source, the greater the likelihood
that new or modified interconnecting transmission line segments would be necessary.
D.4
Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The no action alternative (see Section D.2) represents a decision where the NRC does not
issue a renewed operating license. The licensee would then have to terminate reactor
operations at the end of its current license and permanently shut down the nuclear power
plant. At some point, all licensees will terminate nuclear plant operations and undergo
decommissioning. Under the no action alternative, this would occur sooner than it would if the
NRC issued a renewed operating license.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-20
Appendix D
Not renewing the operating license and ceasing nuclear plant operation under the no action
alternative would lead to a variety of potential outcomes. These outcomes would be the same
as those that would occur after license renewal (see Chapter 4, Section 4.14.2 in this LR GEIS
for a discussion of these effects). Termination of reactor operations would result in a net
reduction in power generating capacity. Power not generated by the nuclear plant during license
renewal would likely be replaced by (1) replacement energy alternatives, (2) energy
conservation and efficiency (DSM measures), (3) delayed retirements, (4) purchased power, or
(5) some combination of these options. The consideration of the no action alternative does not
involve the determination of whether replacement energy is needed or should be generated.
The decision to generate electric power and the determination of how much power is needed
are at the discretion of State, Federal (non-NRC), and utility officials.
The following sections present NRC’s detailed consideration and analysis of the potential
environmental impacts from the construction and operation of generating technologies using
alternative energy sources (including fossil fuel, new nuclear, and renewable energy) to replace
the amount of electric power generated by an existing nuclear power plant as compared to the
proposed action (license renewal). For each resource area addressed, the range of possible
environmental effects of constructing and operating various replacement energy alternatives is
generically assessed. Alternatives were selected based on energy technologies that are either
currently commercially viable on a utility scale and operational or could become commercially
viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the original or renewed
operating license. Other replacement energy technologies holding promise for becoming part of
a bulk electricity portfolio sometime in the future are identified. Replacement energy is likely to
be provided by a combination of electrical energy-producing technologies. The number of
possible combinations of alternative energy sources that could replace or offset the generating
capacity of a nuclear power plant is potentially unlimited. Based on this, the NRC has only
evaluated individual energy sources rather than combinations of energy sources in this
LR GEIS. However, combinations of energy sources may be considered during plant-specific
license renewal environmental reviews. The NRC does not engage in energy-planning decisions
and makes no judgment as to which of the replacement energy alternatives evaluated in this
LR GEIS would ultimately be chosen.
In addition to alternative electrical energy-generating technologies, power needs could also be
offset by instituting DSM measures, delaying the scheduled retirement of one or more existing
power plants, or purchasing an equivalent amount of power from other energy suppliers. As
summarized in Chapter 2, Table 2.4-1 through Table 2.4-5, DSM initiatives are anticipated to
result in negligible to no incremental environmental impacts. Delayed retirements and energy
purchases would likely have characteristics similar to some of the replacement energy
alternatives considered and would be dependent on their availability at the time they are
needed. Historically, coal, natural gas, and nuclear-fueled power plants have been the most
prevalent sources of baseload purchased power, though an increasing number of renewable
energy sources are emerging as viable options. As such, the effects of deploying offsetting
alternatives such as purchased power and delayed retirement are likely to be similar to the
effects of operating a combination of alternative electrical energy-generating technologies, and
are therefore more appropriately considered in plant-specific license renewal environmental
reviews.
D-21
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
D.4.1
Land Use and Visual Resources
Construction – Various replacement energy alternatives would involve the permanent
commitment of land for the construction of a new power plant along with support structures and
other facilities. Other land use and visual impacts during construction would include land
clearing, excavation, and the installation of temporary facilities, such as material laydown areas
and concrete batch plants. Depending on the location, construction of an electrical substation,
switchyards, transmission lines, railroad spurs, and access roads may also be required. Some
of these facilities could affect offsite land use.
Construction of a new power plant at an existing nuclear plant or brownfield site would have less
of a land use and visual impact than at a greenfield site. Installation of a replacement energy
alternative at an existing nuclear plant site would require the least amount of land because the
new power plant could make use of existing intake and discharge structures, substations,
transmission lines, office buildings, parking lots, and access roads. Constructing a power plant
at a greenfield site would convert land from other uses such as agriculture (including prime
farmland) to industrial use. In addition, construction on a greenfield site could have a dramatic
visual impact because the industrial appearance of a new power plant would be quite different
from a surrounding rural landscape.
Increase in traffic to and from the construction site could require changes to existing
transportation infrastructure and traffic patterns resulting in offsite land use and visual impacts.
Operations – Land would be in use throughout the period of power plant operation. Aesthetic
impacts would be similar to those experienced at existing nuclear plants or industrial brownfield
sites. Power plant structures, transmission lines, cooling and meteorological towers would add
to the permanent visual impact. Vapor plumes during power plant operations may be visible for
some distance in certain weather conditions.
D.4.1.1
Fossil Energy Alternatives
Construction and Operations – Land use impacts from constructing coal- or natural gas-fired
power plants would be similar. However, a coal-fired power plant would need more land for coal
fuel delivery and storage. A coal-fired power plant would likely have a greater visual impact than
a natural gas-fired plant.
D.4.1.2
New Nuclear Alternatives
Construction and Operations – Land requirements for a new nuclear power plant would be the
same as license renewal and similar to a coal-fired power plant. The appearance of the new
nuclear power plant during operations would be the same as license renewal.
D.4.1.3
Renewable Alternatives
Construction and Operations – Land requirements for renewable energy facilities would vary
greatly. Hydroelectric dams and reservoirs capable of generating utility-scale power would
require a large land area resulting in a noticeable visual impact. Dams serving as flood control
could affect land use both upstream and downstream of the reservoir.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-22
Appendix D
Geothermal facilities, typically located in remote areas, would require a small land area and
could generate vapor plumes in certain weather conditions. The appearance of wellheads,
exposed piping, and power plant structures in remote settings would have a noticeable visual
impact.
Land area required for biomass and MSW, refuse-derived and landfill gas-fired power plants
would be similar to that required for other fossil fuel-fired facilities. Additional land would be
required for biomass and MSW, refuse-derived and landfill gas-fuel handling facilities. Buildings,
smokestacks, cooling towers, and condensate plumes would have a visual impact in open areas
comparable to fossil fuel-fired facilities.
Utility-scale wind farms generally require large land or surface water areas. However, only a
small percentage of land and water would be occupied by wind turbines and other support
facilities. Land-based wind farms generally have a greater visual impact depending on the
height and placement of the turbines (e.g., along ridgelines). Once construction is completed,
the area between turbines can be used for other purposes (e.g., agriculture, grazing, boating,
fishing, etc.). In addition, land would be required to support utility-scale offshore energy facilities
for cable landings and substations. Distance from shore and the curvature of the Earth could
attenuate some of the visual impacts of offshore wind turbines.
Utility-scale solar thermal power block and PV farms could require large areas of land. Visual
impacts would depend on the size, location, and the amount of land needed for power
generation—height of thermal power block, cooling towers, and condensate plume, and the
array of solar collectors.
Offshore ocean wave and current energy-generating facilities would require a small land area
for cable landing, substation, warehouse, and repair facilities. Existing piers and docks could
also be used to support power generation. The relatively short height of above-water structures,
distance from shore, and the curvature of the Earth may attenuate most, if not all, of the visual
impacts.
D.4.2
Air Quality and Noise
Construction – Construction of a replacement power alternative would result in temporary
impacts on local air quality. Air emissions would include criteria pollutants, hazardous air
pollutants, and GHGs from construction vehicles and equipment and dust from land clearing
and grading. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) could be released from organic solvents used
in cleaning, during the application of protective coatings, and the onsite storage and use of
petroleum-based fuels. Air emissions would be intermittent and would vary depending on the
level and duration of specific activities throughout the construction phase. Engine exhaust
emissions would be from heavy construction equipment and commuter, delivery, and support
vehicular traffic traveling to and from the facility as well as within the site. Fugitive dust
emissions would be from soil disturbances by heavy construction equipment (e.g., earthmoving,
excavating, and bulldozing), vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces, concrete batch plant
operations, and wind erosion to a lesser extent. Various mitigation techniques and best
management practices (BMPs) (e.g., watering disturbed areas, reducing equipment idle times,
and using ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel) could be used to minimize air emissions and reduce
fugitive dust.
Construction of a replacement power alternative would be similar to the construction of any
industrial facility in that they all involve many noise-generating activities. In general, noise
D-23
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
emissions would vary during each phase of construction, depending on the level of activity,
types of equipment and machinery used, and site-specific conditions. Typical construction
equipment, such as dump trucks, loaders, bulldozers, graders, scrapers, air compressors,
generators, and mobile cranes, would be used, and pile-driving and blasting activities could take
place. Other noise sources include construction worker vehicle and truck delivery traffic.
Impacts, however, would be temporary, and both air quality and noise impacts would return to
preconstruction levels after construction was completed.
Air quality and noise impacts from construction activities would be similar whether occurring at a
greenfield site, brownfield site, or at an existing nuclear power plant.
Operations – The impacts on air quality as a result of operation of a facility for a replacement
power alternative would depend on the energy technology (e.g., fossil, new nuclear, or
renewable). Air quality would be affected during operations by cooling tower drift, auxiliary
power equipment, building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (i.e., HVAC) systems, and
vehicle emissions. Auxiliary power equipment could include standby diesel generators and
power systems for emergency power and auxiliary steam.
Noise generated during operation would include noise from cooling towers (water pumps,
cascading water, or fans), transformers, turbines, pumps, compressors, loudspeakers, other
auxiliary equipment such as standby generators, and vehicles. Noise from vehicles would be
intermittent.
D.4.2.1
Fossil Energy Alternatives
Construction – Air quality and noise impacts would be the same as described in Section D.4.2.
Operations – Fossil fuel (coal, natural gas) power plants can have a significant impact on air
quality. The burning of fossil fuels is a major source of criteria pollutants and GHGs, primarily
CO2, as well as other hazardous air pollutants. The exact nature of these pollutants and their
quantity depends on many factors, including the chemical constituency of the fuel, combustion
technology, air pollution control devices, and onsite management of fuel and waste material.
Table D.4-1 presents representative emission factors for various fossil fuel power plants. The
values presented in Table D.4-1 are not all inclusive of fossil fuel-burning technologies, but
represent the possible range of operational emissions that could result from fossil fuel-fired
power plants. In comparing these emission factors, it is apparent that air emissions from a
natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant would be less than those from operation of an
IGCC or SCPC plant.
Table D.4-1
Pollutant
SO2
NOx
PM
CO
CO2
Emission Factors of Representative Fossil Fuel Plants
Emission Factors(a) in
kg/MWh (lb/MWh)
for NGCC(b)
0.003 (0.006)
0.010 (0.022)
0.005 (0.012)
0.005 (0.012)
336 (741)
Emission Factors(a) in
kg/MWh (lb/MWh)
for SCPC(c)
0.294 (0.648)
0.318 (0.700)
0.041 (0.090)
N/A
738 (1,627)
Emission Factors(a) in
kg/MWh (lb/MWh)
for IGCC(d)
0.059 (0.130)
0.177 (0.390)
0.021 (0.047)
N/A
602 (1,328)
SO2 = sulfur dioxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM = particulate matter; CO = carbon monoxide; CO 2 = carbon dioxide;
kg/MWh = kilogram(s) per megawatt-hour; lb/MWh = pound(s) per megawatt-hour; NGCC = natural gas combined
cycle; SCPC = supercritical pulverized coal; IGCC = integrated gasification combined cycle; N/A = not available.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-24
Appendix D
(a) Values are based on gross output and no carbon capture technology.
(b) Emission factors are based on two combustion turbine-generators, a gross output of 740 MW, a capacity factor
of 85 percent, NOx emissions control technology (selective catalytic reduction and dry low NO x burner), and low
natural gas sulfur content.
(c) Emission factors are based on a gross output of 685 MW, a capacity factor of 85 percent, SO2 emission control
technology (wet limestone forced oxidation), NOx control technology (low NOx burner and selective catalytic
reduction), and bituminous coal.
(d) Emission factors are based on two Shell gasifiers, a total gross output of 765 MW, a capacity factor of
80 percent, two carbon beds to remove mercury, and bituminous coal.
Source: NETL 2019.
Air quality and noise impacts from operations of a fossil fuel power plant would be the same as
described in Section D.4.2. Operation of a natural gas power plant would also include offsite
mechanical noise from compressor stations and pipeline blowdowns. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission requires that any new compressor station or any modification, upgrade,
or update of an existing station must not exceed a day-night sound intensity level of 55 dBA at
the closest noise-sensitive area (18 CFR 157.206).
D.4.2.2
New Nuclear Alternatives
Construction – Air quality and noise impacts for the construction of a new nuclear power plant
would be the same as those described in Section D.4.2. Air emissions from construction would
be limited, local, and temporary. Noise impacts during construction would be limited to the
immediate vicinity of the site.
Operations – Air quality and noise impacts would be the same as those described in
Section D.4.2. An operating nuclear plant would have minor air emissions associated with
stationary combustion sources (e.g., diesel generators, auxiliary boilers, pumps) and mobile
sources (e.g., worker vehicles, truck deliveries). Additional air emissions would result from the
use of cooling towers and could contribute to the impacts associated with the formation of
visible plumes, fogging, and subsequent icing downwind of the towers. Noise sources would
include turbines, cooling towers, transformers, and vehicular traffic associated with worker and
delivery vehicles.
D.4.2.3
Renewable Alternatives
Construction – Air quality and noise impacts for the construction of land-based alternative
energy technologies would be the same as those described in Section D.4.2. Air quality impacts
associated with the construction of offshore power-generating facilities and support structures
include the emission of criteria pollutants from construction barges and equipment (e.g., cranes,
compressors) and vehicles delivering materials and crews to embarkation locations on the
shore, and dust from the construction of onshore facilities (e.g., cable landings, substations).
Construction-related noise impacts would be substantially different offshore than those
associated with onshore construction because these activities would be distant from most
human receptors and because noise propagates much greater distances in water. Sources of
noise would include crew vessels and construction and equipment barges; seismic technologies
used to characterize the site; explosives or pile-driving to construct foundations for offshore
wind turbines or anchoring devices for wave, tidal, and current energy capturing equipment; and
excavation of sea bottoms for installation of buried power and communication cables.
Construction-related impacts on air quality and noise would generally be temporary.
D-25
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
Operations – In general, air quality impacts associated with most renewable energy alternatives
would be negligible because no burning of fossil fuels resulting in direct air emissions would be
required to generate electricity. Emission sources associated with the operation of renewable
energy alternatives could include engine exhaust from worker vehicles, heavy equipment
associated with site inspections, onsite combustion sources (emergency diesel generators,
pumps), and cooling towers. Biomass, geothermal, and refuse-derived fuel facilities, however,
can emit significant air emissions, including criteria pollutants, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
mercury, and hazardous air pollutants (Ciferno and Marano 2002; NREL 2003; Kagel et al.
2005; BLM 2008). Air emissions associated with the operation of offshore facilities will also
result from engine exhaust of vessel traffic traveling to and from offshore sites for operation and
maintenance activities.
Noise sources associated with operation of renewable energy alternatives can include
transformers, transmission lines, cooling towers, pumps, and worker vehicles. Noise generated
by onshore and offshore wind turbines includes aerodynamic noise from the blades and
mechanical noise from turbine drivetrain components (generator, gearbox). Noise impacts
would depend on the proximity of noise-sensitive receptors to noise sources.
D.4.3
Geologic Environment
Construction – For all alternatives (including fossil energy, new nuclear, and renewable
alternatives) discussed in this section, the impacts of construction on geology and soils would
be similar in nature but would likely vary in intensity based on the land area required. Land
would be cleared of any vegetation during construction. Clearing and grading activities over
large land areas increase the risk of soil erosion, soil loss, and potential offsite water quality
impacts due to stormwater runoff. Soils would be stored onsite for redistribution at the end of
construction. Land clearing during construction and the installation of power plant structures and
impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, parking lots, buildings) would alter surface drainage. Sources
of engineered fill (e.g., compacted soil or other material) and aggregate such as crushed stone
and sand and gravel would be required for construction of buildings, foundations, roads, and
parking lots. Once facility construction is completed, areas disturbed during construction would
be within the footprint of the completed facilities, overlain by other impervious surfaces (such as
roadways and parking lots), or revegetated or stabilized as appropriate, so there would be no
additional land disturbance and no direct operational impacts on geology and soils.
Consumption of geologic resources (e.g., aggregate materials or topsoil) for maintenance
purposes during operations would be negligible.
D.4.3.1
Fossil Energy Alternatives
Operations – Impacts on soil and geologic resources during power plant operations would be
limited to the extraction of fossil fuel, typically at existing mining and drilling locations away from
the power plant. Surface mining or underground mining for coal would result in various degrees
of overburden clearing, soil stockpiling, waste rock disposal, re-routing of drainages, and
management of any co-located geologic resources. Drilling for petroleum resources and natural
gas would involve clearing and grading for drill pads and construction of pipelines with
associated soil disturbance. Proper design of surface water crossings would be needed to
manage the potential for erosion at these locations. Eventual closure of extraction sites would
require proper restoration of mines and other sites to reduce environmental impacts.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-26
Appendix D
D.4.3.2
New Nuclear Alternatives
Operations – Impacts on soil and geologic resources during operations would be limited to the
extraction of uranium ore material used to make nuclear fuel, typically at existing mining
locations away from the power plant. The extraction could involve mining techniques similar to
those used for fossil fuels, along with management of ore tailings. However, another method is
solution mining (in situ leach uranium recovery), which involves the construction of drilling pads
for injection and recovery wells to remove uranium from underground ore bodies.
D.4.3.3
Renewable Alternatives
Operations – For renewable energy facilities requiring large land areas (i.e., solar PV and solar
thermal), vegetation maintenance during operations would increase the potential for soil erosion
and loss by wind and precipitation runoff.
Other renewable technologies would entail potential operational impacts inherent to their
design. The operation of hydroelectric dams would induce downstream impacts, including
sediment transport and deposition patterns, and channel erosion or scouring. Geothermal
energy facilities can induce land subsidence due to the removal of large quantities of
groundwater. Farming to provide feedstock for biomass-fuel facilities would have the potential
for increased soil erosion and the release of pesticides and fertilizers to nearby surface
waterbodies.
D.4.4
Water Resources
Construction – For all alternatives discussed in this section, the impacts of construction on water
resources would be similar but could vary considerably in magnitude. For land-based facilities,
construction-related impacts on hydrology (land clearing, excavation work, and installation of
impervious surfaces) could alter surface drainage patterns and groundwater recharge zones, as
applicable. Potential hydrologic impacts would vary depending on the nature and acreage of the
land area disturbed and the intensity of the excavation work. Surface water runoff over disturbed
ground, construction laydown areas, and material stockpiles could increase the levels of
dissolved and suspended solids and other contaminants. Water quality could also be affected
by spills and leaks of petroleum, oil, and lubricant products from construction equipment and
conveyed in stormwater runoff or otherwise discharge into waterbodies and potentially affecting
underlying groundwater. Groundwater withdrawn from onsite wells and dewatering systems
could depress the water table and possibly change the direction of groundwater flow near the
affected sites. Concrete production and wetting of ground surfaces and unpaved roadways for
fugitive dust control could require substantial amounts of water. Appropriate permits, including
a CWA Section 404 permit for dredge and fill activities, Section 401 certification, and
Section 402(p) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general stormwater
permit, would be required prior to construction. These impacts would apply generally to the
construction phase of each of the alternatives discussed below. Differences among alternatives
would depend not only on the selected technology but on site-specific factors, which cannot be
evaluated here. For example, locating new alternative facilities, particularly thermoelectric
power-generating plants, at existing or former power plant sites to maximize the use of existing
infrastructure would reduce environmental impacts. However, the discussion of such differences
and considerations is outside the scope of this LR GEIS but is considered in plant-specific
SEISs.
D-27
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
Operations – Most large electrical power plants require water for cooling. As a result,
fossil-fueled and nuclear power plants are generally located near large surface waterbodies,
including lakes, rivers, or oceans. Table D.4-2 compares water demands and consumptive use
for various technologies. Existing thermoelectric power plants use either once-through or
closed-cycle cooling systems (i.e., typically cooling towers). New thermoelectric power plants
are generally constructed with a closed-cycle cooling system to meet CWA Section 316(b)
requirements. Surface water and any groundwater withdrawals for cooling or other uses would
be subject to applicable State water appropriation and registration requirements. Potable water
could be purchased from municipalities or commercial water providers or obtained from onsite
wells or a combination of the above.
Potential operational water quality impacts could occur from blowdown (from cooling towers,
ponds, or other plant systems) and evaporative losses in the steam cycle and cooling system
and from drift of chemically treated cooling water from cooling towers. Releases of industrial
wastewaters, stormwater, and other effluents would be controlled by an NPDES permit, issued
by the EPA or State permitting authority. The operational aspects and impacts of alternative
energy technologies on water resources are presented in the following sections.
Table D.4-2
Water Withdrawal and Consumptive Use Factors for Select Electric Power
Technologies
Water Withdrawal Consumptive
(gal/MWh)(a)
Use (gal/MWh)(a)
Electric Power Technologies
IGCC (coal) with cooling towers
358 to 605
318 to 439
IGCC (coal) with cooling towers and carbon capture and
sequestration (storage)
479 to 678
522 to 558
22,551 to 22,611
64 to 124
582 to 669
458 to 594
Supercritical (coal) with cooling towers and carbon capture and
sequestration (storage)
1,098 to 1,148
846(c)
NGCC with once-through cooling
7,500 to 20,000
20 to 100
NGCC with cooling towers
150 to 283
130 to 300
NGCC with cooling towers and carbon capture and sequestration
(storage)
487 to 506
378(c)
25,000 to 60,000
100 to 400
Nuclear (conventional LWR) with cooling towers
800 to 2,600
581 to 845
Nuclear (conventional LWR) with cooling pond
500 to 13,000
560 to 720
Biopower (steam) with cooling towers
500 to 1,460
480 to 965
Supercritical (coal) with once-through cooling
Supercritical (coal) with cooling towers
Nuclear (conventional LWR) with once-through cooling
Geothermal (EGS) with cooling towers
2,885 to
5,147(b)
2,885 to 5,147(b)
740 to 860(b)
740 to 860(b)
Solar photovoltaic
0 to 33(b)
0 to 33(b)
Wind turbine
0 to 1(b)
0 to 1(b)
Not applicable
1,425 to 18,000
Concentrated solar power (power tower) with cooling towers
Hydropower (instream and reservoir losses due to power
production)
EGS = enhanced geothermal system; gal/MWh = gallons per megawatt-hour; IGCC = integrated gasification
combined cycle; LWR = light water reactor; NGCC = natural gas combined cycle.
(a) Water withdrawal and consumptive use are expressed in units of volume per unit of electrical output (gallons per
megawatt-hour) to provide a direct comparison among technologies based on NREL 2011.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-28
Appendix D
(b) Water withdrawal factors and consumptive use for geothermal, concentrated solar, solar photovoltaic, and wind
technologies are assumed to be equal (i.e., all water is assumed to be lost through evaporation or consumed in
process, etc.).
(c) Only a single value is included in the source data.
Note: To convert gallons (gal) to liters, multiply by 3.7854.
Source: NREL 2011.
D.4.4.1
Fossil Energy Alternatives
Operations – All thermoelectric energy facilities, including fossil fuel power plants, require a
continuous supply of water to operate. Water demands vary greatly among energy technologies
and cooling system designs. In general, facilities using once-through cooling systems withdraw
10 to 100 times more water per unit of electric generation than those using closed-cycle
(recirculating) cooling, but closed-cycle consumptive water use is twice as much or more as that
of once-through cooling systems (NREL 2011). As indicated in Table D.4-2, coal-fired facilities
generally have higher consumptive water use than natural gas combined-cycle plants. The use
of carbon capture and sequestration (storage) increases both water withdrawal (demand)
requirements and consumptive use. In total, water usage is a function of the fossil fuel
combustion technology, heating value of the fuel being consumed, the design of the primary
cooling systems, and the operation of various other devices, many of which require water.
Water resources would be affected not only by water withdrawals but by reintroduction of water
from steam cycle, cooling tower, gasifier blowdown water, and other wastewaters, as applicable
to the technology. Water quality would also be affected by wastewater generated by exhaustgas cleaning devices that may be operating and by other ancillary industrial activities, such as
runoff and the leachate from onsite coal storage and ash piles.
D.4.4.2
New Nuclear Alternatives
Water resources would be affected by operation of the cooling system and by discharges of
blowdown water from the cooling system and steam cycle, both of which can introduce chemical
contaminants and heat to the receiving surface waterbody. Operation of these systems could
also affect hydrology by reducing available surface water volume, altering current patterns at
intake and discharge structures, altering salinity gradients where applicable, scouring and
increases in sediment caused by discharges of treated cooling water, and increasing water
temperature. Hydrologic impacts would vary, depending on the surface water source or
groundwater used for cooling as well as the cooling water system employed (see Table D.4-2).
Hydrology can also be affected by a nuclear power plant’s service water system, which provides
water for turbine and reactor auxiliary equipment cooling, reactor shutdown cooling, and other
services. Surface water and groundwater can also be affected by discharges authorized under
NPDES and other permits and by accidental spills and leaks of radionuclides, chemicals, and
fuels to the ground surface. Overall, impacts on water resources at a greenfield site could be
substantial and would depend highly on local circumstances and factors such as other
dependencies on the hydrologic resources. Hydrologic impacts at a brownfield site or an
existing nuclear facility could also be substantial, depending in part on whether or not the new
nuclear plant could use the existing cooling water system.
D.4.4.3
Renewable Alternatives
The operational impacts of renewable energy technologies on water resources would vary
greatly based on the technology (see Table D.4-2).
D-29
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
For biomass-fired plants, water demands for cooling and steam would be similar to those of
some fossil fuel-fired power plants. Water demand could equal evaporative water loss from
cooling tower and flue gas scrubbers. Water quality could be affected by blowdown and
contaminants released in runoff from piles of feedstock materials, fly and bottom ash, and
scrubber sludge.
Geothermal plants have water demands and consumptive water use rates equal to or greater
than those of many conventional thermoelectric (nonrenewable) technologies (Table D.4-2)
during operation. Potential operational impacts on surface water or groundwater from
geothermal plants include releases of contaminants from faulty geothermal wells or release of
geothermal fluids (brines) to the surface and being conveyed by stormwater runoff or otherwise
affecting surface waterbodies. These potential impacts can be mitigated with proper safeguards
(DOE 1997).
As shown in Table D.4-2, solar PV facilities and wind farms (either onshore or offshore) have
minimal water demands during normal operation. Similarly, solar PV and wind farm installations
have little or no wastewater discharge during normal operation. In contrast, concentrated
thermal power facilities can have water demands similar to those of many other thermoelectric
(nonrenewable) technologies. For some facilities, cooling tower blowdown must be managed
(typically in an arid environment), and there is the potential for water quality impacts from
accidental release of heat transfer fluids or thermal storage media (molten salts) used in
concentrated solar plants (DOE 1997).
Reservoirs used by hydroelectric dams could be affected by changes in water temperature and
amounts of dissolved oxygen. Surface water temperatures in the reservoir could be affected
when water flow is reduced. Warm water released from the top of a hydroelectric dam and
cooler water released from the lower portions of the dam could affect river water temperatures
downstream. Additionally, both low- and high-flow conditions would alter sediment transport and
deposition patterns.
D.4.5
Ecological Resources
Construction – For all alternative energy technologies discussed in this section, the impacts of
construction on ecological resources would be similar but could vary considerably in magnitude.
For land-based facilities, land clearing, excavation work, and installation of impervious surfaces
could result in habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation as well as disturbance, displacement, or
mortality of animals. Potential ecological impacts would vary depending on the nature and
acreage of the land area disturbed and the intensity of the excavation work. At greenfield sites,
impacts would likely be greater than at brownfield and other developed sites because habitat
could be permanently lost. Surface water runoff over disturbed ground, construction laydown
areas, and material stockpiles could increase levels of dissolved and suspended solids and
other contaminants in nearby waterways and aquatic features. Terrestrial and aquatic habitats
could also be affected by spills and leaks of petroleum, oil, and lubricant products from
construction equipment that is conveyed in stormwater runoff or that otherwise enters nearby
waterbodies. Noise, vibration, and human activity could alter wildlife behaviors and result in
avoidance of neighboring areas of otherwise suitable habitat. Dredging and other in-water work
could directly remove or alter the aquatic environment and disturb or kill aquatic organisms.
Because construction effects would be short term, some of these effects would be relatively
localized and temporary. Effects could be minimized by using existing infrastructure at an
existing site, such as retired intake and discharge systems, as well as by using existing
transmission lines, roads, parking areas, and certain existing buildings and structures on the
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-30
Appendix D
site. Co-location of utility and transmission line right-of-way (ROW) with other existing ROWs
would minimize the amount of habitat disturbance. Aquatic habitat alteration and loss could be
minimized by siting components of the alternatives farther from waterbodies and away from
drainages and other aquatic features.
Water quality permits required through Federal and State regulations would control, reduce, or
mitigate potential effects on the aquatic environment. Through such permits, the permitting
agencies could include conditions requiring BMPs or mitigation measures to avoid adverse
impacts. For instance, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers oversees Section 404 permitting for
dredge and fill activities, and EPA or authorized States and Tribes oversee NPDES permitting
and general stormwater permitting. Companies would likely be required to obtain each of these
permits to construct a new replacement power alternative. Notably, the EPA final rule under
Phase I of the CWA Section 316(b) regulations applies to new facilities and sets standards to
limit intake capacity and velocity to minimize impacts on fish and other aquatic organisms in the
source water (40 CFR 125.84). Any new replacement power alternative subject to this rule
would be required to comply with the associated technology standards, so construction of
once-through cooling systems for alternatives that require cooling water is unlikely.
Operations – Many of the operational impacts of a fossil fuel-fired or nuclear power plant
alternative would be like those resulting from continued operation of a nuclear power plant
during an initial LR or SLR term. Impacts on the ecological environment would include cooling
tower deposition of salt and moisture on plants; bird collisions with plant structures and
transmission lines; impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms; thermal and chemical
effects related to cooling water effluent discharges; effects of periodic dredging; and potential
water use conflicts. Water quality permits required through Federal and State regulations would
control, reduce, or mitigate potential effects on the aquatic environment. The operational
impacts of other alternative energy technologies would differ and are presented in the following
sections.
The above-described impacts would apply generally to construction and operation of each of the
alternatives discussed below. Differences among alternatives would depend not only on the
selected technology but also on site-specific factors, which cannot be evaluated here.
Discussion of such differences is outside the scope of this LR GEIS but is considered in
plant-specific SEISs.
D.4.5.1
Fossil Energy Alternatives
The general impacts of the construction and operation of new fossil fuel energy technologies are
described above in Section D.4.5. The magnitude of impacts on ecological resources would be
site-dependent. Impacts would depend on the type and location of a proposed facility, the size
of the area affected by construction, the type of cooling system, and the characteristics of the
ecological resources present on the site. The magnitude of potential impacts from a proposed
facility could be greater than or less than renewing the license for an existing nuclear power
plant depending upon site-specific and project-specific factors. Many of the potential ecological
impacts from operations of new fossil fuel energy technologies (coal- or gas-fired) would
essentially be like those for a nuclear power plant.
Unique features of a coal-fired power plant that could affect ecological resources include coal
delivery, cleaning, and storage, which would involve periodic maintenance dredging (if coal is
delivered by barge); noise; dust; loss of habitat; sedimentation and turbidity; and introduction of
minerals and trace elements (including contaminants that can cause impacts like acid mine
D-31
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
drainage). Limestone preparation and storage could result in fugitive dust and runoff. Air
emissions, most notably acid rain, can cause direct and indirect effects, including foliage injury,
nutrient leaching, and decreased biodiversity. Disposal of combustion waste can result in habitat
loss and potential seepage of trace and other elements into groundwater, soils, and surface
waters.
The unique features of a gas-fired power plant that could affect ecological resources would be
those associated with gas pipelines. Pipeline construction could result in the loss, modification,
and fragmentation of natural habitats. Co-location of these lines within existing utility ROWs
could minimize these impacts. Gas leaks and spills could also adversely affect terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems.
D.4.5.2
New Nuclear Alternatives
Many of the impacts of construction and operation of new nuclear technologies are described
above in Section D.4.5. The magnitude of these impacts on ecological resources would be
site-dependent and would depend on the type and location of a proposed facility, the size of the
area affected by construction, the type of cooling system, and the characteristics of the
ecological resources present on the site. For instance, small modular reactors can be more
easily sited on existing industrial-use sites, which would minimize disturbance of natural habitats
and maximize the use of existing infrastructure. The impacts of operation of a new nuclear
power plant and operation of an existing nuclear power plant during an initial LR or SLR term
would be similar. However, impacts could be greater than or less than renewing the license for
an existing nuclear power plant depending upon site-specific and project-specific factors.
D.4.5.3
Renewable Alternatives
The impacts of renewable energy technologies on the ecological environment would vary based
on the technology.
Biomass-fired plants would require large amounts of land for cultivation of energy crops, which
would result in habitat alteration and loss. Over time, cultivation could deplete the quality of
soils. For biomass plants that use agricultural residues (e.g., corncobs, rice husk, jute sticks,
cotton stock, coffee prunings, and coconut shells that do not decompose easily and have
potential as energy sources), the impacts would potentially be smaller because the affected land
would already be in use for cultivation. For biomass plants that use MSW feedstock, deposition
of toxic constituents could adversely affect nearby ecosystems. Water demands for cooling
would be like those of fossil fuel-fired plants, and therefore, similar impacts on the ecological
environment would be expected (e.g., cooling tower deposition of salt and moisture on plants;
impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms; thermal and chemical effects related to
cooling water effluent discharges; effects of periodic dredging; and potential water use conflicts).
The effects of geothermal energy alternatives depend on how the geothermal energy is
converted to useful energy. Direct use applications and geothermal heat pumps have almost no
negative effects on the environment. Geothermal plants may release chemicals in liquid
fractions that could include various heavy metals, which could leach into nearby terrestrial and
aquatic habitats and bioaccumulate in plants and animals (Kristmannsdottir and Armannsson
2003). If makeup water is derived from natural waterbodies, impacts would be like those of fossil
fuel-fired plants.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-32
Appendix D
Onshore wind projects could affect terrestrial species through mechanical noise, collision with
turbines and meteorological towers, and interference with migratory behavior. Bird and bat
collision mortality is an ongoing concern at operating wind projects, but recent developments in
turbine design have reduced strike risk. At 43 wind facilities in Canada, researchers estimated
bird fatality at 8.2 birds (±1.4 birds) per turbine per year (Zimmerling et al. 2013). Publications
examining 2012 data from U.S. wind energy facilities estimated that in total, about a quarter to a
half-million birds are killed per year at U.S. wind turbines (Johnson et al. 2016). Another
estimate using data through 2014 estimated that U.S. wind turbines account for the death of
over a half-million birds per year (Loss et al. 2015). Numbers are likely higher now because
many new wind projects have been developed in the past 10 years. At a wind facility in southern
Texas, researchers estimated bat fatalities at 16 bats per megawatt per year across all species
(Weaver et al. 2020). Onshore wind projects are generally sited away from waterways.
Therefore, construction would be unlikely to disturb or otherwise affect aquatic habitats or
features. Operation would not require cooling or consumptive water use and, thus, would not
affect aquatic resources.
Offshore wind projects could cause increased turbidity, noise, vibration, and other physical
disturbances to the aquatic environment from pile-driving, turbine construction, and submarine
power cable installation associated with construction. Cable installation could disturb large
spans of aquatic habitat and would be especially detrimental to nearshore and estuarine
habitats used by early life stages of finfish and shellfish. Dredging would likely be necessary in
some areas to prepare for cable installation and would result in destruction of the existing
benthic habitat and temporary habitat loss until the benthic community could repopulate the
area. Increased vessel anchoring during survey activities, construction, installation, and
maintenance would increase turbidity and disturb the benthic environment. Accidental releases
of contaminants from fuel and chemical spills would also pose a hazard to the aquatic
environment and would be especially detrimental to nearshore, estuarine, and unique or
sensitive habitats (BOEM 2020b). During operation, fuel and chemical spills would remain a
potential hazard. The presence of permanent structures could lead to impacts on finfish and
aquatic invertebrates through entanglement from gear loss, hydrodynamic disturbance, fish
aggregation, habitat conversion, and migration disturbances. These impacts may arise from
buoys, meteorological towers, foundations, scour/cable protection, and transmission cable
infrastructure. However, structure-oriented or hard-bottom species could benefit from the new
structures because they would have new material upon which to anchor themselves and build
colonies. Bird and bat collisions would remain a concern for offshore wind projects, although
such effects are not well studied. Offshore wind projects are more likely to affect birds that
conduct transoceanic migrations.
Solar PV facilities occupy large areas of land that could reduce or preclude natural vegetation
communities and wildlife use. Misalignment of mirrors could also increase fire risk. Impacts on
terrestrial habitats could be largely avoided if solar installations were installed on the roofs of
existing residential, commercial, or industrial buildings or at existing standalone solar facilities.
Synthetic organic heat transfer fluids could affect surrounding vegetation. Utility-scale solar
facilities may also pose hazards to birds and their insect prey if individual birds or insects
mistake a facilities’ reflective panel arrays for water. Birds and insects may be injured or killed
by colliding with solar panels if they try to land on or enter what they interpret to be water, in
what has been termed by researchers as the “lake effect hypothesis” (Kosciuch et al. 2020).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is currently developing mitigation strategies and
BMPs related to birds and solar facilities (MASCWG 2016). Discussions with the FWS and other
relevant agencies during the planning phases of a new solar project could minimize impacts on
birds and other wildlife by incorporating mitigation and BMPs into the design of the facility and
D-33
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
construction plans. Solar projects are generally sited away from waterways. Therefore,
construction would be unlikely to disturb or otherwise affect aquatic habitats or features.
Operation would not require cooling or consumptive water use and, thus, would not affect
aquatic resources.
For hydroelectric power alternatives, construction of dams could fragment river and stream
habitat and convert these free-flowing ecosystems into lake-like ecosystems. As a result, native
riverine species could suffer because many typically cannot thrive in the altered environment.
Fish species that migrate through the area to feed and spawn would be prohibited from
migrating if fish passages are not installed. Temperature and nutrient stratification in the
reservoir and reduced levels of dissolved oxygen could result in hypoxic or anoxic conditions for
aquatic organisms. Aquatic biodiversity would likely decline before reaching some new, less
diverse equilibrium within the newly created reservoir. Terrestrial animals that feed on fish and
shellfish could experience reduced prey availability. Water use conflicts could affect
downstream conditions. Aquatic and riparian habitats and wetlands could experience fluctuating
water levels downstream of the dam. When river levels are low, aquatic organisms would
temporarily lose habitat or could become stranded. Downstream habitats would be affected by a
variety of other dam-induced conditions, such as changes in sediment transport and deposition
patterns and channel erosion or scouring.
D.4.6
Historic and Cultural Resources
If construction and operation of replacement energy alternatives require a Federal undertaking
(e.g., license, permit), the Federal agency would need to make a reasonable effort to identify
historic properties within the area of potential effect and consider the effects of the undertaking
on historic properties, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA; 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.). If historic properties are present and are affected by the
undertaking, adverse effects would be assessed, and resolved through the NHPA Section 106
process in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer, Indian Tribes that attach religious and cultural significance to identified historic
properties, and other parties that have a demonstrated interest in the undertaking. Additionally,
NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the potential effects of their actions on the
“affected human environment,” which includes “aesthetic, historic, and cultural resources.”
Construction – Construction impacts would be similar regardless of the energy alternative
considered. Most impacts on historic and cultural resources would occur primarily from both
onsite and offsite preparation-related ground-disturbing activities (e.g., land clearing, grading
and excavation, and road work) and the construction of power-generating facilities and
non-safety-related facilities such as administration buildings, parking lots, switchyards,
pipelines, access roads, and transmission lines. Any land needed to support an alternative
energy facility including roads, transmission corridors, rail lines, or other ROWs would also need
to be assessed. Before constructing a new replacement power plant at a greenfield, brownfield,
or existing nuclear power plant site, cultural resource surveys would need to be performed by a
qualified cultural resource professional.
Operations – Operation of a replacement energy alternative can affect historic and cultural
resources through (1) ground-disturbing activities associated with plant operations and
ongoing maintenance (e.g., construction of new parking lots or buildings), landscaping,
agricultural or other use of plant property; (2) activities associated with transmission line
maintenance (e.g., maintenance of access roads or removal of danger trees); and (3) changes
in the appearance of nuclear power plants and transmission lines. The appearance of the
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-34
Appendix D
power-generating facility and transmission lines could result in alterations to the visual setting,
which, whether temporary or permanent, could affect other types of historic and cultural
resources such as cultural landscapes, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties.
Impacts would vary with plant heights and associated exhaust stacks or cooling towers.
D.4.6.1
Fossil Energy Alternatives
Impacts from operations of a fossil fuel power plant would be the same as those described in
Section D.4.6.
D.4.6.2
New Nuclear Alternatives
Impacts from operations of a new nuclear power plant would be the same as those described in
Section D.4.6.
D.4.6.3
Renewable Alternatives
Impacts from operations of a new renewable energy facility would be the same as those
described in Section D.4.6.
D.4.7
Socioeconomics
Communities have the potential to be both directly and indirectly affected by the construction
and operation of a new power plant. The power plant and the communities that support it can be
described as a dynamic socioeconomic system. Communities provide the people, goods, and
services needed to construct and operate the new power plant. The power plant, in turn,
provides employment and income (wages, salaries, and benefits) and pays for goods and
services. The measure of a community’s ability to support the new power plant depends on its
ability to respond to changing environmental, social, economic, and demographic conditions.
Construction – The scale and duration of the socioeconomic impact is determined by the cost,
complexity, and size of the replacement energy-generating facility and the workforce needed to
construct the new power plant. Socioeconomic impacts may be greater at greenfield sites in
rural areas than at brownfield sites in urban areas. Overall, construction would have a
temporary effect on the local economy.
Some construction workers may temporarily relocate from outside the region depending on the
need for and the availability of skilled crafts and trades workers. Larger numbers of workers
would likely relocate to rural construction sites, while urban construction sites would likely see
workers commuting daily to the job site. Some construction material (e.g., sand, gravel, fill, etc.)
and equipment may be available locally. Other construction materials, equipment, and
components may need to be shipped in from outside the region. Transportation during
construction would include commuter vehicles and truck, barge, or rail material and equipment
delivery to and from the construction site.
Operations – Operating a new power plant would have a greater permanent effect on the local
economy than during construction. Socioeconomic impacts would be greater in rural areas and
may be less noticeable in urban areas. Local property values could be affected by the need for
permanent housing by power plant operations workers. Conversely, the visual industrial impact
of the power plant during operations, traffic, and noise could negatively affect property values.
D-35
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
Depending on location, an operating power plant could also negatively affect recreation and
tourism interests, resulting in reduced employment and income opportunities in these sectors of
the economy. Transportation during power plant operations includes commuter vehicle and
material and equipment truck deliveries and removal of waste.
The following sections briefly highlight the socioeconomic impacts of replacement energy
alternatives.
D.4.7.1
Fossil Energy Alternatives
Construction and operation of fossil fuel-fired power plants requires a very large workforce
compared to other types of power plants and renewable technologies. Differences between
natural gas- and coal-fired power plants include the transportation impacts associated with coal
deliveries (rail or barge) and the removal of coal ash, waste, and other byproducts that may
affect property values and, depending on location, recreation and tourism interests in the vicinity
of the power plant.
D.4.7.2
New Nuclear Alternatives
Similar to a fossil-fueled power plant, a large workforce would be required to construct and
operate a new nuclear power plant. The presence of a nuclear power plant could affect property
values and, depending on location, recreation and tourism interests in the vicinity of the power
plant.
D.4.7.3
Renewable Alternatives
Construction and Operations – Compared to fossil fuel and new nuclear energy, renewable
energy production would require a very small construction and operation workforce. In addition,
the construction of a new reservoir and dam for hydroelectric power generation would create
new recreational employment and income opportunities based on park, campground, and boat
ramp visitors. Traffic would increase on roads in the vicinity of the reservoir. Wind, solar, and
geothermal power generation could adversely affect recreation interests and property values in
rural communities. Transportation impacts would be limited due to the small size of the
workforce.
Conversely, local transportation networks could be affected by truck and rail traffic delivering
biomass fuel and removing waste to offsite disposal facilities. Property values, recreation, and
tourism interests could be adversely affected near the biomass and MSW, refuse-derived and
landfill gas-fired power plants.
Tourist and recreational interests and commerce on coastal beaches could be affected by the
visual impact of offshore wind turbines and ocean wave and current power-generating facilities.
Wave energy devices on the ocean surface could affect navigation and waterborne recreational
and commerce activities.
D.4.8
Human Health
Impacts on human health from construction of a replacement power station (including fossil
energy, new nuclear, and renewable or other energy replacement alternatives) discussed in this
section would be similar to those experienced during construction of any major industrial facility.
Compliance with worker protection rules, the use of personal protective equipment, training, and
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-36
Appendix D
placement of engineered barriers would limit those impacts on workers to acceptable levels.
Because the NRC staff expects that access to active construction areas would be limited to only
authorized individuals, the impacts on human health from construction are minimal.
D.4.8.1
Fossil Energy Alternatives
Operational human health impacts for fossil energy alternatives (i.e., natural gas, coal, and oil)
include significant impacts on air quality, as discussed in Section D.4.2.1. The operation of fossil
energy alternatives has a range of potential human health impacts such as risks from coal and
limestone mining; worker and public risk from coal, lime, and limestone transportation; worker
and public risk from disposal of coal-combustion waste; public risk from inhalation of stack
emissions; and noise both onsite and offsite (i.e., natural gas). There are also potential impacts
from nonradiological hazards, including exposure to microbiological organisms, occupational
safety risks, electric shock hazards, and exposure to chemicals used onsite by the workforce. In
addition, human health risks may extend beyond the facility workforce to the public depending
on their proximity to the facility or associated waste disposal site. The character and the
constituents of the waste depend on both the chemical composition and the technology used to
combust it. The human health impacts from the operation of a fossil energy power station
include public risk from inhalation of gaseous emissions. Regulatory agencies, including both
Federal and State agencies, base air emission standards and requirements on human health
impacts. These agencies also impose facility-specific emission limits to protect human health
(e.g., coal-combustion residuals) (40 CFR Part 257).
D.4.8.2
New Nuclear Alternatives
Operational human health impacts for a new nuclear plant (i.e., advanced light water reactors
and small modular reactors) would include radiation exposure to the public and to the
operational workforce at levels below regulatory limits, as discussed for current operating
reactors in Chapter 3, Section 3.9. In addition to radiological impacts, there are also potential
impacts from the same nonradiological hazards as discussed in Section 3.9.2 for current
reactors and described in Section D.4.8.1 above for fossil energy alternatives. Impacts on
human health for initial LR and SLR for operating nuclear plants, in most cases, were
determined to be SMALL. Similar human health impacts would be expected from the operation
of a new nuclear facility.
A detailed analysis of postulated accidents in currently operating reactors (affected by initial LR
or SLR) is provided in Chapter 4, Section 4.9.1.2 and Appendix E of this LR GEIS. Although the
analysis is specific to initial LR and SLR, the impacts are representative of the impacts expected
for new reactors. New reactor designs incorporate additional safety features not found in
currently operating reactors. As a result, the risks associated with the new reactors are
expected to be comparable to or less than the risks associated with current operating reactors.
Before a license is granted, the application for a new reactor would undergo a detailed safety
and environmental review to make sure that the plant, if constructed, would operate in
accordance with all applicable NRC rules and regulations.
D.4.8.3
Renewable Alternatives
The operational impacts of renewable and other energy replacement alternative technologies on
human health are similar to the impacts related to construction and current operations of
industrial facilities. Operational hazards for the workforce include potential exposure to toxic gas
or chemicals (i.e., geothermal, biomass, MSW, refuse-derived fuel, and landfill gas), working in
D-37
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
extreme weather (i.e., wind and ocean wave and ocean currents for offshore wind turbines), and
physical hazards that include working at heights, near energized or rotating systems, high
pressure water (i.e., hydroelectric), exposure to low-frequency sound, electromagnetic field
(EMF) exposure (i.e., wind and solar), and potential for electric shock. These operational
impacts are reduced by compliance with worker protection rules, the use of personal protective
equipment, and training, which would limit those impacts on workers to acceptable levels.
D.4.9
Environmental Justice
Construction and Operations – Minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes
could be directly or indirectly affected by the construction and operation of a new power plant.
However, the extent of human health or environmental effects is difficult to determine because it
depends on the location and type of power plant. For example, emissions from fossil fuel-fired
power plants may disproportionately affect human health conditions in minority populations,
low-income populations, and Indian Tribes. Power plant operations may also affect populations
that subsist on the consumption of fish, wildlife, and local produce.
New replacement power-generating facilities are often located at an existing power plant or
industrial brownfield site to make use of the existing infrastructure. These sites are also
frequently located in or near low-income and minority communities who may be
disproportionately affected by construction dust, noise, truck, and commuter traffic. In addition,
during construction, increased demand for temporary rental housing could disproportionately
affect low-income populations who rely on low-cost rental housing. Conversely, the construction
and operation of new power-generating facilities can create new employment and income
opportunities in these communities. Also, rental housing demand could be mitigated if the new
replacement power plant is located near a metropolitan area where construction workers could
commute to the job site.
Low-income populations can also benefit from DSM energy conservation and efficiency
weatherization and insulation programs. This would have a beneficial economic effect because
low-income households generally experience greater home energy cost burdens than the
average household. Conversely, higher utility bills due to increasing power-generating costs
could disproportionately affect low-income families. However, the Federal Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program and State energy assistance programs (if available) can help
low-income families pay for electricity.
D.4.10
Waste Management and Pollution Prevention
Construction – Construction-related wastes include various fluids from the onsite maintenance
of construction vehicles and equipment (e.g., used lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, glycol-based
coolants, spent lead-acid storage batteries) and incidental chemical wastes from the
maintenance of equipment and the application of corrosion control protective coatings
(e.g., solvents, paints, coatings), construction-related debris (e.g., lumber, stone, and brick), and
packaging materials (primarily wood and paper). All materials and wastes would be
accumulated onsite and disposed of or recycled through licensed offsite disposal and treatment
facilities. Life-cycle management of chemicals and wastes generated during construction and
pollution prevention initiatives (such as spill prevention plans) will serve to mitigate the impact of
wastes. The impacts of waste management are expected to be the same for greenfield,
brownfield, and existing nuclear power plant sites.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-38
Appendix D
Operations – Solid wastes would be generated throughout the period of plant operations. The
character of wastes would depend on chemical constituents of the fuel, efficiency of
combustion, and operational efficiencies of the various air pollution control devices. Wastes
routinely associated with the maintenance of mechanical and electrical equipment include used
lubricating oils and hydraulic fluids, cleaning solvents, corrosion control paints and coatings, and
dielectric fluids.
D.4.10.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives
Operations – Solid wastes in the form of coal-combustion waste (and, in some instances, flue
gas desulfurization sludge and spent catalysts) would be generated during plant operations. The
exact character of the coal-combustion waste would depend on the chemical constituents of the
coal, efficiency of the combustion device, and operational efficiencies of the various air pollution
control devices.
D.4.10.2 New Nuclear Alternatives
Operations – Liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management systems would be used
to collect and treat radioactive materials during operations. Waste processing systems would be
designed so that radioactive effluents released to the environment would meet the objectives of
Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. Low-level waste (LLW) disposal is assumed to occur at an offsite
location, while spent nuclear fuel would be stored onsite either in spent fuel pool storage or dry
cask storage.
Nonradioactive effluent and wastes include cooling water and steam condensate blowdowns
that contain various water treatment chemicals or biocides, wastes from the onsite treatment of
cooling water and steam cycle water, floor and equipment drain effluent, stormwater runoff,
laboratory waste, trash, hazardous waste, effluent from the sanitary sewer system,
miscellaneous gaseous emissions, and liquid and solid effluent. Wastes discharged to waters of
the United States would be regulated by NPDES permits. All other wastes would be properly
disposed of in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. Waste management
impacts for a nuclear plant are described in Chapter 4, Section 4.11.1. Impacts are expected to
be SMALL for all facilities, whether located on greenfield sites, brownfield sites, or at existing
nuclear plant sites.
D.4.10.3 Renewable Alternatives
Most renewable energy technologies would produce various wastes during operations.
Biomass-fired and waste-derived fuel-fired facilities would produce combustion wastes such
as fly ash and bottom ash. Toxic constituents in MSW or refuse-derived fuel could cause solid
wastes from air pollution devices to become hazardous due to leachability of toxic constituents.
Operational solid wastes from geothermal plants could include precipitates (scale) resulting
from cooling and depressurized hydrothermal fluids that must be periodically removed from
equipment; some precipitates may include naturally occurring radioactive material.
Concentrated solar thermal plants have the potential to release heat transfer fluids, requiring the
removal and disposal of affected soil. Sanitary and other wastewaters such as cooling water
blowdown and steam cycle blowdown may be discharged to the land surface, surface water, or
to surface impoundments in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
D-39
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
For all power-generating facilities, especially those with power substations, spills or leaks from
electrical components could create waste dielectric fluids (all assumed to be free of
polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs).
Most facilities would also produce small amounts of industrial solid wastes associated with
onsite maintenance of equipment and infrastructure. Such wastes could include used oils, used
glycol-based antifreeze, waste lead-acid storage batteries, spent cleaning solvents, and excess
corrosion control coatings, requiring proper characterization and disposal. However, normal
operational maintenance activities associated with solar PV facilities and wind farms (either
onshore or offshore) would generate minimal amounts of waste. For solar PV facilities, proper
precautions would have to be taken for the disposal of solar cells, although recycling of
materials would reduce impacts.
D.4.11
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
Construction – Sources of GHG emissions would include earthmoving equipment, non-road
vehicles, and worker and delivery vehicles. Operation of construction equipment (e.g.,
excavator, concrete batch plant, bulldozer, backhoe loader) releases GHG emissions during fuel
consumption (e.g., diesel). Similarly, employee and delivery vehicular exhaust will emit GHG
emissions. The GHG emissions from construction equipment can be minimized by reducing the
idling time of equipment and regularly maintaining diesel engines.
Operations – The impact from climate change as a result of GHG emissions from facility
operations for a replacement power alternative would depend on the energy technology
(e.g., nuclear, renewable, etc.). In general, fossil fuel power alternatives will emit more GHG
emissions than nuclear or renewable replacement power alternatives.
D.4.11.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives
Construction – The GHG impacts would be the same as those described in Section D.4.11
above.
Operations – The GHG emissions associated with operation of fossil fuel power plants can be
significant. Fossil fuel power plants can emit large amounts of carbon dioxide, particularly if they
are not equipped with carbon capture and storage devices. Table D.4-3 presents representative
carbon dioxide emission factors for various fossil fuel power plants with and without carbon
capture technology. In comparing these emission factors, it is apparent that NGCC power plants
would have lower carbon dioxide emissions than operation of an IGCC or SCPC plant, and that
installation of carbon capture technology reduces emissions significantly.
Table D.4-3
Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors(a) (CO2 kg/MWh [lb/MWh]) for
Representative Fossil Fuel Plants
NGCC
without carbon
with carbon
capture and
capture and
storage(b)
storage(c)
336 (741)
36 (80)
SCPC
without carbon with carbon
capture and
capture and
storage(d)
storage(e)
738 (1,627)
84 (185)
IGCC
without carbon
with carbon
capture and
capture and
storage(f)
storage(g)
602 (1,328)
73 (161)
CO2 = carbon dioxide; IGCC = integrated gasification combined cycle; kg/MWh = kilogram(s) per megawatt-hour;
lb/MWh = pound(s) per megawatt-hour; NGCC = natural gas combined cycle; SCPC = supercritical pulverized coal.
(a) Values based on gross output.
(b) Emission factors based on two combustion turbine-generators, and gross output of 740 MW.
(c) Emission factors based on two combustion turbine-generators, and gross output of 690 MW.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-40
Appendix D
(d) Emission factors based on gross output of 685 MW and bituminous coal.
(e) Emission factors based on gross output of 770 MW and bituminous coal.
(f) Emission factors based on two Shell gasifiers, total gross output of 765 MW, and bituminous coal.
(g) Emission factors based on two Shell gasifiers, total gross output of 696 MW, and bituminous coal.
Source: NETL 2019.
D.4.11.2 New Nuclear Alternatives
Construction – The GHG impacts would be the same as those described in Section D.4.11
above.
Operations – The GHG emissions from operation of a new nuclear alternative would be emitted
from onsite combustion sources (diesel generators, boilers, pumps) and worker vehicles. GHG
emissions would be intermittent and minor.
D.4.11.3 Renewable Alternatives
Construction – The GHG impacts would be the same as those described in Section D.4.11
above. For facilities without a power block (solar PV, onshore, and offshore wind) the amount of
heavy equipment and workforce, level of activities, and construction duration would be lower
and therefore GHG emissions would be less.
Operations – The GHG emissions associated with operation of renewable energy alternatives
are generally negligible because no direct fossil fuels are burned to generate electricity. Sources
of GHG emissions include engine exhaust from worker vehicles and equipment associated with
site inspections or maintenance activities. Biomass facilities, however, can emit significant GHG
emissions. For example, a biomass-fueled power plant can emit 2,650–3,852 lb of CO2eq/MWh
(NREL 1997, NREL 2004).
D.4.12
Replacement Energy Alternative Fuel Cycles
Most replacement energy alternatives employ, to varying degrees, a set of steps in the
utilization of their fuel sources. These steps may include extraction, transformation,
transportation, combustion, storage, and disposal; and result in associated environmental
impacts.
D.4.12.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives
The environmental consequences of the fuel cycle for a fossil fuel-fired plant result from the
initial extraction of the fuel from its natural setting, fuel cleaning and processing, transport of the
fuel to the facility, and management and ultimate disposal of solid wastes resulting from
combustion of the fuel.
The environmental impacts of coal mining vary with the location and type of mining technology
employed, but generally include:
•
Significant change in land uses, especially when surface mining is employed.
•
Degradation of visual resource values.
•
Air quality impacts, including release of criteria pollutants from vehicles and equipment,
release of fugitive dust from ground disturbance and vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces,
release of VOCs from the storage and dispensing of vehicle and equipment fuels and the
D-41
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
use of solvents and coatings in maintenance activities, and release of coalbed methane into
the atmosphere as coal seams are exposed and overburden is removed.
•
Noise impacts from the operation of vehicles and equipment and the possible use of
explosives.
•
Impacts on geology and soils due to land clearing, excavations, soil and overburden
stockpiling (for strip mining operations), and mining.
•
Water resources impacts, including degradation of surface water quality due to increased
sediment and runoff to surface waterbodies, possible degradation of groundwater resources
due to consumptive use and potential contamination (especially when shaft mining
techniques are employed), as well as generation of wastewater from coal cleaning
operations and other supporting industrial activities.
•
Ecological impacts, including extensive loss of natural habitat, loss of native vegetative
cover, disturbance of wildlife, possible introduction of invasive species, changes in surface
water hydrology, and degradation of aquatic systems.
•
Impacts on historic and cultural resources within the mine footprint, as well as additional
potential impacts resulting from auxiliary facilities and appurtenances (e.g., access roads,
rail spurs).
•
Direct socioeconomic impacts from employment of the workforce and indirect impacts from
increased employment in service and support industries.
•
Potential environmental justice impacts as a result of the presence of minority or low-income
populations in the surrounding communities and/or within the workforce.
•
Potential health impacts on workers from exposure to airborne dust, gases such as
methane, and exhaust from internal combustion engines on vehicles and mining machinery.
•
Generation of coal wastes and industrial wastes associated with the maintenance of
vehicles and equipment, increased potential for spills of fuels from onsite fuel storage and
dispensing.
D.4.12.2 New Nuclear Alternatives
Environmental impacts of the fuel cycle result from the initial extraction of the fuel from its
natural setting, transport of the fuel to the facility, and management and ultimate disposal of
solid wastes resulting from combustion of the fuel. For the fuel cycle associated with a nuclear
power plant, these activities include uranium mining and milling, the production of uranium
hexafluoride, isotopic enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing of irradiated fuel, transportation
of radioactive materials, and management of LLW and high-level waste (10 CFR Part 51). The
NRC has summarized environmental data associated with the uranium fuel cycle in Table S-3 of
10 CFR 51.51 (see Chapter 4, Table 4.14-1). The analysis provides a basis for evaluating the
environmental effects of the fuel cycle for all nuclear power plants, regardless of site location.
The information is based on a 1000 MW LWR with an 80 percent capacity factor. The impacts
associated with the transportation of fuel and waste to and from a power reactor are
summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52 (see Chapter 4, Table 4.14-2). Detailed analysis of
the uranium fuel cycle is also considered in Chapter 4, Section 4.14.1 of this LR GEIS. Although
the uranium fuel cycle analysis is specific to the impacts of license renewal, it is applicable to
new nuclear energy alternatives because the new LLWR designs use the same type of fuel as
existing operational designs. One difference may be that the new reactor may have a power
rating of greater than 1,000 MWe, which may exceed the power rating of the existing reactor. In
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-42
Appendix D
those cases, the impacts would be proportionally higher. However, all impacts associated with
the uranium fuel cycle, as discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.14.1.5, would still be SMALL.
D.4.12.3 Renewable Alternatives
The term “fuel cycle” has varying degrees of relevance for renewable energy facilities. Clearly,
the term has meaning for renewable energy technologies that rely on combustion of fuels such
as biomass grown or harvested for the express purpose of power production. The term is
somewhat more difficult to define for renewable technologies such as wind, solar, geothermal,
and ocean wave and current. This is because the associated natural resources continue to exist
(i.e., the resources are not consumed or irreversibly committed) regardless of any effort to
harvest them for electricity production. The common technological strategy for harvesting
energy from such natural resources is to convert the kinetic or thermal energy inherent in that
resource to mechanical energy or torque. The torque is then applied directly (e.g., as in the case
of a wind turbine) or indirectly (e.g., for the facilities that use conventional steam cycles to drive
turbines that drive generators) to produce electricity. However, because such renewable
technologies capture very small fractions of the total kinetic or thermal energy contained in the
resources, impacts from the presence or absence of the renewable energy technology are often
indistinguishable.
Environmental consequences of fuel cycles for biomass (e.g., energy crops, wood wastes,
MSW, refuse-derived fuel, landfill gas) include the following:
•
Land use impacts from the growing and harvesting of the energy crops.
•
Reduced impacts on land from the avoidance of land disposal of anthropogenic biomass
feedstocks such as MSW and refuse-derived fuel.
•
Visual impacts from the establishment of farm fields and forest areas and processing
facilities for the growing, harvesting, and preparation of biomass feedstocks.
•
Air impacts from operation of vehicles and equipment used in the planting, cultivating, and
harvesting of energy crops.
•
Reductions in GHG emissions from landfills as a result of the capture and destruction by
combustion of landfill gas for energy production.
•
Removal of GHGs from the air (e.g., CO2) by growing crops.
•
Noise impacts from the operation of agriculture and silviculture equipment and transport
vehicles in otherwise rural settings with low ambient noise levels.
•
Soil impacts from the cultivation of fields and the potential for increased sediment in
precipitation runoff.
•
Hydrologic impacts from irrigation of the energy crops; impacts on groundwater resources
from water removal for agricultural or silvicultural purposes or industrial water uses
associated with the preparation of biomass feedstocks.
•
Ecological impacts from the loss of habitat resulting from crop production; loss of hydrologic
resources due to diversion for irrigation purposes; potential intrusion of invasive species on
disturbed land surfaces; and potential contamination of adjacent habitat by pesticide and
fertilizer runoff.
•
Ecological impacts from the alteration of habitat due to human presence and activities in
agricultural and silvicultural areas.
D-43
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
•
Historic and cultural resource impacts from ground disturbing activities in areas that have
not undergone appropriate efforts to survey, identify, and relocate cultural resources that
may be present.
•
Human health impacts from the exposure of workers to pesticides and fertilizers used in
growing biomass fuels; work around mechanical planting, cultivating, and harvesting
equipment; work in weather extremes; and exposure to dangerous plants and wildlife.
•
Waste impacts in the form of residual wastes from the application of pesticides and fertilizers
and wastes associated with the routine maintenance of equipment and vehicles used in crop
production and transport (used lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, glycol-based coolants, and
battery electrolytes from maintenance of equipment and vehicles with internal combustion
engines).
•
Positive economic impacts from the creation of jobs in the agriculture, silviculture, and
transportation sectors.
D.4.13
Termination of Operations and Decommissioning of Replacement Power Plants
All electrical power-generating facilities will be shut down and decommissioned after the end of
their operating life or after a decision is made to terminate its operation. The termination of
operations and decommissioning of power-generating plants using alternative energy sources
would result in associated environmental impacts. Some of these impacts would be specific to
the alternative energy source employed, while others are anticipated to be common across all
technologies.
D.4.13.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives
The environmental consequences of terminating operations and decommissioning a fossil fuel
energy facility depends on planned decommissioning activities and other requirements.
Decommissioning plans may include the following elements and requirements, intended to
ensure site restoration to a condition equivalent in character and value to the greenfield or
brownfield site on which the power-generating facility was first constructed:
•
Removal of all unneeded structures and facilities to at least 3 ft (1 m) below grade (in order
to provide an adequate root zone for site revegetation).
•
Removal of fuel, all fuel combustion waste, and all flue gas desulfurization sludge and/or
byproducts.
•
Removal of water intake and discharge structures.
•
Dismantlement and removal of ancillary facilities, including rail spurs, fuel-handling and
preparation facilities, cooling towers, natural gas pipelines, onsite wastewater treatment
facilities, and access roads.
•
Removal of all surface water intake and discharge structures.
•
Removal of all accumulated sludge, and closure and removal of all surface water
impoundments.
•
Closure of all onsite groundwater wells.
•
Recycling of removed equipment and dismantled building components; materials awaiting
recycling would be stored at an offsite facility.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-44
Appendix D
•
Disposal of solid and hazardous wastes at approved facilities; as necessary, remediation of
waste handling and storage areas.
•
Cleanup and remediation of all incidental spills and leaks.
•
Execution of an approved revegetation plan for the site.
•
Other actions as necessary to ensure restoration of the site.
Environmental impacts (greenfield or brownfield site) would include:
•
Air quality and noise impacts from vehicles and equipment needed to deconstruct structures
and facilities; release of criteria pollutants, fugitive dust, and noise (e.g., from explosives);
impacts would be similar to those experienced during construction.
•
Land use and visual impacts; temporary land use holding areas for dismantled components
and deconstruction debris; restoration of land to its previous use and visual appearance by
removing human-made structures.
•
Reduction in water use and water quality impacts as water consumption decreases after
termination of operations. Some water use may continue, such as for dust control and
potable and sanitary needs during decommissioning. Surface water runoff would continue.
•
Increased truck and rail traffic delivering equipment and transporting dismantled material
and deconstruction debris.
•
Ecological resource impacts and disturbance during active decommissioning.
•
Increase in economic activity followed by economic downturn due to loss of jobs at the
former power-generating facility.
•
Health and safety risks during dismantlement and removal of facility and risk of
transportation-related accidents delivering equipment and transporting dismantled material
and deconstruction debris.
D.4.13.2 New Nuclear Alternatives
Decommissioning impacts for a nuclear power plant include all activities related to the safe
removal of the facility or site from service and the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level
that permits release of the property under restricted conditions or unrestricted use and
termination of the license. The process and activities during decommissioning would be similar
to those discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.14.2.1 of this LR GEIS.
D.4.13.3 Renewable Alternatives
The termination of operations and decommissioning of renewable energy systems would follow
a decommissioning plan and would involve removal of the power-generating facility, waste
material, and restoration of the land to its original state. Decommissioning involves the following
actions, as applicable:
•
Removal of unneeded power-generating facilities and support structures.
•
Removal of unspent biomass fuel and wastes from combustion.
•
Removal of water intake and discharge structures (if present).
D-45
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
•
Dismantlement and removal of ancillary facilities, including rail spurs, fuel-handling facilities,
cooling towers, onsite wastewater treatment facilities, and/or access roads.
•
Removal of surface water intake and discharge structures.
•
Removal of sludge and surface water impoundments.
•
Closure of onsite groundwater wells.
•
Recycling of equipment and dismantled components.
•
Disposal of hazardous wastes; remediation of waste handling and storage areas, as
necessary.
•
Cleanup and remediation of incidental spills and leaks.
•
Ancillary facilities (access roads, utilities, pipelines, electrical transmission towers) would be
removed unless it is determined that they can serve other purposes; buried utilities and
pipelines could be abandoned in place if their removal would result in significant disruption
to ecosystems.
•
Other site restoration actions, as necessary.
Termination of operations and decommissioning of offshore power-generating facilities involve
the following actions:
•
Wind turbine tower foundations and communication and power cables buried in the seafloor
could remain to avoid ecological disruption that would result if removed.
•
Underwater structures that served as electrical service platforms could remain in place to
serve as artificial reefs and fish habitats.
The termination of operations and the decommissioning of hydroelectric facilities may result in
various environmental impacts. For large store-and-release hydroelectric facilities, eliminating
the dam and reservoir and restoring the river to its natural flow would have a dramatic effect on
upstream and downstream ecosystems. Turbines, generators, and electric power-generating
equipment would be removed. Devices that control the release of water from the reservoir could
remain functional, requiring a reduced workforce.
Small-scale, low-impact, run-of-the-river hydro facilities, causing limited impact on upstream
water levels and downstream water flow rates, would be dismantled and removed during
decommissioning.
D.5
References
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.”
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-46
Appendix D
18 CFR Part 157. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 18, Conservation of Power and Water
Resources, Part 157, “Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and for
Orders Permitting and Approving Abandonment Under Section of the Natural Gas Act.”
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 257. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 257,
“Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices.”
85 FR 24040. April 30, 2020. “Notice To Conduct Scoping and Prepare an Advanced Nuclear
Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement.” Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
88 FR 3287. January 19, 2023. “NuScale Small Modular Reactor Design Certification.” Final
Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act).
33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2008. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States, Volume 1: Programmatic
Analysis. FES08-44, Washington, D.C. October. Accessed April 12, 2023, at
https://permanent.fdlp.gov/LPS123922/LPS123922/www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geother
mal/geothermal_nationwide/Documents/Final_PEIS.html.
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2019. National Environmental Policy Act
Documentation for Impact-Producing Factors in the Offshore Wind Cumulative Impacts
Scenario on the North Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf. OCS Study, BOEM 2019-036,
Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/environmental-stewardship/EnvironmentalStudies/Renewable-Energy/IPFs-in-the-Offshore-Wind-Cumulative-Impacts-Scenario-on-the-NOCS.pdf.
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2020a. Comparison of Environmental Effects
from Different Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations. OCS Study, BOEM 2020-041, Washington,
D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/environment/Wind-Turbine-FoundationsWhite%20Paper-Final-White-Paper.pdf.
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Office of Renewable Energy Programs). 2020b.
Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project: Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2020-025. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Accessed April 27, 2023, at https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewableenergy/Vineyard-Wind-1-Supplement-to-EIS.pdf.
D-47
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). 2021. Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and
Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina, Draft
Supplemental Environmental Assessment. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/lease-issuance-wind-ocs-activities-north-carolinadraft-supplemental-ea.
BOEM (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management). Undated. “Renewable Energy on the Outer
Continental Shelf: Ocean Wave Energy.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Renewable-Energy-Guide/Ocean-WaveEnergy.aspx.
Ciferno, J.P., and J.J. Marano. 2002. Benchmarking Biomass Gasification Technologies for
Fuels, Chemicals and Hydrogen Production. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netl-file/BMassGasFinal_0.pdf.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1997. Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations,
Topical Report TR-109496. Washington, D.C. December. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2021. Hydrogen Shot: An Introduction. Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Technology Office. Washington,
D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/articles/hydrogen-shotintroduction.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2022a. “Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): Office
of Nuclear Energy.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2022b. Offshore Wind Energy Strategies. Washington, D.C.
Accessed April 27, 2023, at https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-01/offshore-windenergy-strategies-report-january-2022.pdf.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated-a. “Vogtle Loan Program Office.” Washington, D.C.
Accessed April 27, 2023, at https://www.energy.gov/lpo/vogtle.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated-b. “WINDExchange: Wind Energy State
Information.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://windexchange.energy.gov/states.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated-c. “Types of Hydropower Plants.” Washington, D.C.
Accessed April 27, 2023, at https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/types-hydropower-plants.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated-d. “Geothermal Basics: Geothermal.” Washington,
D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/geothermal-basics.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). Undated-e. “Fuel Cell Basics: Hydrogen and Fuel Cell
Technologies Office.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cell-basics.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-48
Appendix D
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2015a. Levelized
Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook
2015. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo15/pdf/electricity_generation_2015.pdf.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2015b. Annual
Energy Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040. DOE/EIA-0383(2015), Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML16172A121.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2017. “Today in
Energy: Oil-fired Power Plants Provide Small Amounts of U.S. Electricity Capacity and
Generation.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31232.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Association). 2019a. “More new
natural gas combined-cycle power plants are using advanced designs.” Washington, D.C.
Accessed April 27, 2023, at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39912.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2019b. “Today In
Energy: Demand-side Management Programs Save Energy and Reduce Peak Demand.”
Washington, D.C. Accessed April 12, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38872.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Association). 2020. Annual Energy
Outlook 2020, with projections to 2050. AEO2020. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 12, 2023,
at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2020%20Full%20Report.pdf.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2021a. “Today in
Energy: Less Electricity Was Generated by Coal than Nuclear in the United States in 2020.”
Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47196.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2021b. “Today in
Energy: U.S. Large-Scale Battery Storage Capacity Up 35% in 2020, Rapid Growth to
Continue.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49236.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2021c. “Today in
Energy: Solar Generation Was 3% of U.S. Electricity in 2020, But We Project It Will Be 20% by
2050.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50357.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2021d. “Electric
Power Monthly with Data for August 2021, Table 6.07.B Capacity Factors for Utility Scale
Generators Primarily Using Non-Fossil Fuels.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/archive/august2021.pdf
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022a. Electric
Power Annual 2020. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 12, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/archive/2020/pdf/epa.pdf.
D-49
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022b. “Today in
Energy: EIA Projects That Renewable Generation Will Supply 44% of U.S. Electricity by 2050.”
Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022c. “Nuclear
explained, U.S. Nuclear Industry.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-industry.php.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022d. “Today in
Energy: U.S. nuclear electricity generation continues to decline as more reactors retire.”
Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51978#.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022e. “Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQS).” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022f. “Annual
Energy Outlook 2022.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/narrative/electricity/sub-topic-04.php.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022g. “U.S. battery
storage capacity will increase significantly by 2025.” Washington, D.C. Accessed May 1, 2023,
at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=54939.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022h. Annual
Energy Outlook 2022 with Projections to 2050, Narrative. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 12,
2023, at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2022_Narrative.pdf.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022i. “Hydrogen
Explained, Use of Hydrogen.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydrogen/use-of-hydrogen.php.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2022j. Cost and
Performance Characteristics of New Generating Technologies, Annual Energy Outlook 2021.
Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2023a. “What is U.S.
electricity generation by energy source?” Washington, D.C. Accessed May 1, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). 2023b. “Annual
Energy Outlook 2023.” Washington, D.C. Accessed May 1, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2023_Narrative.pdf.
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). Undated-a. “Electric
Power Annual, With Data for 2021, Table 1.2. Summary Statistics for the United States, 20112021. Utility Scale Capacity: Solar Photovoltaic.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 27, 2023, at
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_02.html.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-50
Appendix D
DOE/EIA (U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration). Undated-b. Form
EIA-861 Annual Electric Power Industry Report Instructions. Washington, D.C. Accessed
April 27, 2023, at https://www.eia.gov/survey/form/eia_861/instructions.pdf.
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. Public Law No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10.
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 2015. Technology Assessment, Nuclear Reactors,
Status and Challenges in Development and Deployment of New Commercial Concepts.
Washington, D.C. July. Accessed April 27, 2023, at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-15-652.pdf.
Georgia Power. 2024. “Vogtle Unit 4 Enters Commercial Operation.” Atlanta, Georgia. Accessed
April 29, 2024, at https://www.georgiapower.com/company/news-hub/press-releases/vogtle-unit4-enters-commercial-operation.html.
Johnson, D.H., S.R. Loss, K.S. Smallwood, and W.P. Erickson. 2016. “Avian Fatalities at Wind
Energy Facilities in North America: A Comparison of Recent Approaches.” Human-Wildlife
Interactions 10(1):7-18. DOI:10.26077/a4ec-ed37. Logan, UT. Accessed April 28, 2023, at
https://doi.org/10.26077/a4ec-ed37.
Kagel, A., D. Bates, and K. Gawell. 2005. A Guide to Geothermal Energy and the Environment.
Geothermal Energy Association, Washington, D.C. Accessed April 28, 2023, at
https://doi.org/10.2172/897425.
Kosciuch, K., D. Riser-Espinoza, M. Gerringer, and W. Erickson. 2020. “A Summary of Bird
Mortality at Photovoltaic Utility Scale Solar Facilities in the Southwestern U.S.” PLOS ONE
15(4):e0232034. Accessed April 28, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232034.
Kristmannsdottir, H., and H. Armannsson. 2003. “Environmental Aspects of Geothermal Energy
Utilization.” Geothermics 32(4-6):451–461. DOI:10.1016/S0375-6505(03)00052-X. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands. Accessed April 28, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-6505(03)00052-X.
Loss, S.R., T. Will, and P.P. Marra. 2015. “Direct Mortality of Birds from Anthropogenic Causes.”
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 46:99–120. DOI:10.1146/annurevecolsys-112414-054133. Palo Alto, CA. Accessed May 1, 2023, at
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054133.
Maize, K. 2019. “Waste-to-Energy: A Niche Market in Decline?” POWER, Rockville, MD.
Accessed May 1, 2023, at https://www.powermag.com/waste-to-energy-a-niche-market-indecline/.
MASCWG (Multiagency Avian-Solar Collaborative Working Group). 2016. Multiagency AvianSolar Science Coordination Plan. Multiagency Avian-Solar Collaborative Working Group,
Washington, D.C. Accessed April 14, 2023, at https://blmsolar.anl.gov/related/aviansolar/docs/Final_Avian-Solar_Science_Coordination_Plan.pdf.
Michaels, T., and K. Krishnan. 2019. Energy Recovery Council, 2018 Directory of Waste-toEnergy Facilities. Washington, D.C. Accessed February 22, 2024, at https://wtert.org/2018directory-of-waste-to-energy-facilities-energy-recovery-council/#.
D-51
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
MMS (Minerals Management Service). 2007. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
for Alternative Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer
Continental Shelf, Volume II, Chapter 5. OCS EIS/EA, MMS 2007-046, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. Accessed April 21, 2023 at
https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/renewable-energy-program/RegulatoryInformation/Alt_Energy_FPEIS_VolIIFrontMatter.pdf.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.
NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory). 2019. Cost and Performance Baseline for
Fossil Energy Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. NETL-PUB22638, Pittsburgh, PA. Accessed April 21, 2023, at https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1569246.
NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory). Undated. “High Temperature Material Supply
Chain.” Pittsburgh, PA. Accessed May 15, 2023, at
https://netl.doe.gov/high_temp_materials_supply_chain.
NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2010. Sixth Northwest Conservation and
Electric Power Plan. Portland, OR. ADAMS Accession No. ML14093A352.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004. “Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to
Certification of the AP1000 Standard Design (NUREG-1793, Initial Report).” Washington, D.C.
Accessed May 1, 2023, at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1793/initial/index.html.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [GEIS]. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Package Accession No. ML13107A023.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018. Environmental Impact Statement for an
Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Clinch River Nuclear Site, Draft Report for Comment.
NUREG-2226, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18100A220.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020. 2020–2021 Information Digest.
NUREG-1350, Volume 32, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20282A632.
NRC (U.S. Regulatory Commission). 2022. “Design Certification Application for New Reactors.”
Washington, D.C. Accessed April 28, 2023, at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors/design-cert.html.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023a. 2022-2023 Information Digest.
NUREG-1350, Volume 34. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML23047A371.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2023b. “Design Certification Application –
NuScale.” Washington, D.C. Accessed May 1, 2023, at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/newreactors/smr/nuscale.html.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-52
Appendix D
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Memorandum from C.M. Safford to
R.V. Furstenau, dated April 17, 2024, regarding “Staff Requirements - SECY-21-0098 –
Proposed Rule: Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement (RIN
3150-AK55; NRC-2020-0101).” Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML24108A199.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 1997. The Environmental Costs and Benefits
of Biomass Energy Use in California. NREL/SR-430-22765, UC Category 600, DE97000254,
Golden, CO. Accessed May 1, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.2172/481490.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2003. Biopower Technical Assessment: State
of the Industry and the Technology. NREL/TP-510-33123, U.S. Department of Energy, Golden,
CO. March. Accessed May 1, 2023, at https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33123.pdf.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2004. Biomass Power and Conventional Fossil
Systems with and without CO2 Sequestration – Comparing the Energy Balance, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Economics. NREL/SR-430-22765, Golden, CO. Accessed May 1, 2023, at
https://doi.org/10.2172/15006537.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2011. A Review of Operational Water
Consumption and Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies. NREL/TP–6A20–
50900, Golden, CO. ADAMS Accession No. ML14286A088.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures Study.
NREL/TP-6A20-52409, 4 Volumes, Golden, CO. Accessed May 1, 2023, at
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/52409-ES.pdf.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Undated. “Concentrating Solar Power.”
Golden, CO. Accessed May 1, 2023, at https://www.nrel.gov/csp/index.html.
NuScale (NuScale Power LLC). 2022. “Frequently Asked Questions: NuScale FAQS.” Portland,
OR. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWH01ImMkyk.
NuScale (NuScale Power LLC). 2023. “Standard Power.” Portland, OR. Accessed November 9,
2023, at https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/projects.
Orsted. Undated. “Our Offshore Wind Projects in the U.S.” Boston, MA. Accessed May 1, 2023,
at https://us.orsted.com/wind-projects.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2008. Assessment of Moderate- and High-Temperature
Geothermal Resources of the United States. Fact Sheet 2008–3082, Menlo Park, CA. Accessed
May 11, 2023, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/pdf/fs2008-3082.pdf.
Weaver, S.P., A.K. Jones, C.D. Hein, and I. Castro-Arellano. 2020. “Estimating bat fatality at a
Texas wind energy facility: implications transcending the United States–Mexico border.” Journal
of Mammalogy 101(6):1533–1541. DOI:10.1093/jmammal/gyaa132. Oxford, United Kingdom.
Accessed May 11, 2023, at https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyaa132.
Wiser, R., and M. Bolinger. 2019. 2018 Wind Technologies Market Report. Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, D.C. Accessed May 11, 2023, at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2018-wind-technologies-market-report.
D-53
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix D
Zimmerling, J.R., A.C. Pomeroy, M.V. d’Entremont, and C.M. Francis. 2013. “Canadian
Estimate of Bird Mortality Due to Collisions and Direct Habitat Loss Associated with Wind
Turbine Developments.” Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):10. DOI:10.5751/ACE-00609080210. Nova Scotia, Canada. Accessed May 11, 2023, at http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE00609-080210.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
D-54
APPENDIX E
–
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS
APPENDIX E
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS
E.1
Introduction
Under the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) license renewal rule in Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54), applicants for initial license renewal
(initial LR) and subsequent license renewal (SLR) must take adequate steps to account for
aging during the period of extended operation either through updating time-limited aging
analyses or implementing aging management plans. Based on these activities, the NRC
expects that operation during an initial LR or SLR term would continue to provide a level of
safety equivalent to that during the current license term. Consequently, the following
discussions of accident risk, which generally consider the additional risk posed by 20 years of
additional operation, would apply to initial LR or SLR.
Chapter 5 of the 1996 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants, NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2 (1996 LR GEIS; NRC 1996, NRC 1999)1 assessed the
impacts of postulated accidents at nuclear power plants on the environment. Postulated
accidents include design-basis accidents and severe accidents (e.g., those involving core
damage). The impacts considered included the following:
• dose and health effects of accidents (Sections 5.3.3.2 through 5.3.3.4 of the 1996 LR GEIS),
• economic impacts of accidents (Section 5.3.3.5 of the 1996 LR GEIS), and
• effect of uncertainties on the results (Section 5.3.4 of the 1996 LR GEIS).
The estimated impacts were based on the analysis of postulated severe accidents at 28 nuclear
power plant sites2 as reported in the environmental impact statements (EISs) and/or final
environmental statements (FESs) prepared for each of the 28 plants in support of their
operating licenses. With few exceptions, the severe accident analyses were limited to
consideration of reactor accidents caused by internal events. The 1996 LR GEIS addressed the
impacts of external events qualitatively.3 The severe accident analysis for the 28 sites was
extended to the remainder of plants whose EISs did not consider severe accidents (because
such analyses were not required at the time the other plants’ EISs were prepared). The
estimates of environmental impact contained in the 1996 LR GEIS used 95th percentile upper
confidence bound (UCB) estimates whenever available. This approach provides conservatism
to cover uncertainties, as described in Section 5.3.3.2.2 of the 1996 LR GEIS. The 1996
1
The LR GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Any reference in this document to the 1996 LR GEIS
includes the two-volume set published in May 1996 (NRC 1996) and Addendum 1 to the LR GEIS
published in August 1999 (NRC 1999).
2 The 28 sites are listed in Table 5.1 of the 1996 LR GEIS. A total of 44 units are included in the list (at the
28 sites), but four of them never operated (Grand Gulf 2, Harris 2, Perry 2, and Seabrook 2). For the
purpose of this appendix, the list is referred to as containing 28 nuclear power plants, but when mean
values are calculated for this subset of nuclear power plants, all 40 units that operated are considered.
3 Section 5.3.3.1 of the 1996 LR GEIS includes a brief discussion of the external event risk assessments
conducted by the NRC staff prior to 1996, which included assessments for Zion 1 and 2, Indian Point 2
and 3, Limerick 1 and 2, Surry 1, Peach Bottom 2, and Millstone 3.
E-1
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
LR GEIS concluded that the probability-weighted consequences4 were small compared to other
risks to which the populations surrounding nuclear power plants are routinely exposed.
Specifically, in Section 5.5.2.5 of the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the generic
analysis “applies to all plants and that the probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric
releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and
economic impacts of severe accidents are of small significance for all plants.” The term
probability-weighted consequences in the remainder of this revised LR GEIS refers to
probability-weighted consequences to the public and environment as a result of a severe
accident.
The focus of the 2013 LR GEIS (NRC 2013b) was on severe accidents because the impacts of
design-basis accidents are SMALL and, as stated in Section E.3 of the 2013 LR GEIS, the
NRC’s assessment remains unchanged. Similarly, this LR GEIS revision focuses on severe
accidents, because this LR GEIS also concludes that the impacts of design-basis accidents are
unchanged as discussed below and therefore would be SMALL for both an initial LR and
SLR term.
The NRC’s understanding of severe accident risk has evolved since issuance of the 1996 and
2013 LR GEISs due in part to improvements in plant safety, improved plant operational
performance, and lessons learned and knowledge gained. This appendix assesses more recent
information and updates the analysis presented in Chapter 4.9 and Appendix E of the 2013
LR GEIS regarding severe accidents. This revision considers how these developments would
affect the Chapter 5 conclusions in the 1996 LR GEIS and provides comparative data where
appropriate. The 1996 LR GEIS provided quantitative estimates of severe accident impacts with
estimated population projections, meteorology, and exposure indices to support the
conclusions, and the estimates remain unchanged for the purposes of this analysis. This
LR GEIS is more focused on SLR since it is assumed that nuclear power plants using this
LR GEIS will have had a severe accident mitigation alternative (SAMA) or severe accident
mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) analysis approved in an EIS. However, the following
analysis would also apply to a plant applying for initial LR; although if the plant had not
previously been the subject of a SAMA or SAMDA analysis in a National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) document, the applicant would
need to submit a SAMA analysis.
The format of this appendix follows a format similar to that provided in the 2013 LR GEIS,
including a discussion of uncertainties and SAMAs.
E.2
Nuclear Power Plant Accidents
General characteristics of postulated accidents (design-basis and severe accidents) are
described in Section 5.2 of the 1996 LR GEIS, which covered
• the general characteristics of accidents
• fission product characteristics
• meteorological considerations
The correct terminology is “frequency-weighted consequences” because the accident consequences are
multiplied by the core damage frequency. However, the 1996 LR GEIS used the term
“probability-weighted consequences” when referring to frequency-weighted consequences. To avoid
confusion, this LR GEIS continues use of the 1996 LR GEIS terminology but also uses these two terms
interchangeably.
4
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-2
Appendix E
• exposure pathways
• adverse health effects
• avoiding adverse health effects
• accident experience and observed impacts
• mitigation of accident consequences
• emergency preparedness
These characteristics of postulated accidents are still valid.
Accident experience and observed impacts are described in Section 5.2.2 of the 1996 LR GEIS.
The Fukushima Dai-ichi accident information is described in Section E.2.1 of the 2013 LR GEIS
and is updated in Section E.2.1 of this appendix. Specifically, the section addresses the
Fukushima accident experience, observed impacts, and mitigation since the issuance of the
1996 LR GEIS and 2013 LR GEIS. The discussion provides an example of how NRC initiatives
continue to focus on safety (which can improve safety and reduce environmental impacts of
releases that may or may not be modeled in probabilistic risk assessment [PRAs]).
Operating experience and lessons learned have contributed to NRC initiatives to provide
reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety and to promote the
common defense and security. Based on earlier lessons learned from operating experience and
accidents in the 1996 LR GEIS, the Commission noted that all licensees had undergone, or
were in the process of undergoing, more detailed site‐specific severe accident mitigation or
regulatory programs through processes separate from license renewal, specifically the
Containment Performance Improvement (CPI), Individual Plant Examination (IPE), and
Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) programs (61 FR 28467, 28481;
June 5, 1996) (lessons learned from the Three Mile Island accident). As discussed in greater
detail in Section E.4, in light of these studies and severe accident initiatives outside of license
renewal, the Commission stated that it did not expect future SAMA analyses to uncover “major
plant design changes or modifications that will prove to be cost‐beneficial” (61 FR 28467,
28481; June 5, 1996). The NRC’s experience in reviewing SAMA analyses in plant-specific
license renewal proceedings has confirmed this prediction. These plant-specific reviews further
illustrate the magnitude of mitigation as a result of the agency’s ongoing and robust safety
oversight.
Other examples of mitigation initiatives and regulatory programs to improve safety since
publication of the 1996 LR GEIS include the following:
• implementation of plant improvements identified through the IPE program (e.g., improved
reliability and/or redundancy of alternating current and direct current power; improved core
cooling or injection reliability) (NRC 1997a) and the IPEEE program (e.g., strengthened
seismic supports; enhanced fire brigade training) (NRC 2002c)
• NRC staff actions related to generic safety issues and generic issues (e.g., Generic Safety
Issue 191 on sump performance, Generic Issue 199 on seismic risk [NRC 2011b])
E-3
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
• implementation of the NRC’s Interim Compensatory Measures (ICMs) Orders following the
September 2001 terrorist attacks,5 most of which have subsequently been codified into NRC
regulations6
• implementation of the NRC Orders and information requests under 10 CFR 50.54(f)
(NRC 2012d) following the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident initiated by the
March 2011 Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent tsunami; the requirements for two of
these Orders have subsequently been incorporated into NRC regulations7 (see discussion in
Section E.2.1)
• implementation of plant improvements and severe accident management guidelines required
by 10 CFR 50.155 for mitigation of beyond-design-basis events, including under
circumstances associated with loss of large areas of the plant affected by the event, that
provide for the maintenance or restoration of core cooling, containment, and spent fuel pool
(SFP) cooling capabilities, and for the acquisition and use of offsite assistance and resources
to support these functions8
The NRC recently presented an assessment of safety trends over the last 20–30 years in
currently operating nuclear power plants regulated by the NRC (2022b). The assessment
investigated trends in numerous safety indicators, including some of the topics discussed in
Section E.3 of this appendix. The result of the assessment was that almost all key trends and
developments for the 51 safety measures evaluated, with one exception (loss of offsite power
recovery time), are either favorable (i.e., show improved plant safety or performance) or flat
(i.e., show no discernible change in plant safety or performance). The assessment concluded
that a large reduction in average core damage frequency (CDF) for internal events and a
reduction in plant performance issues have also been observed, but external event hazards and
uncertainties need to be considered when evaluating safety goal impacts.
These examples of mitigation to improve severe accident risk since publication of the 1996
LR GEIS demonstrate the magnitude of mitigation as a result of the agency’s ongoing and
robust safety oversight. Furthermore, operating experience and lessons learned from accidents
have further contributed to NRC initiatives to provide reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of public health and safety and to promote the common defense and security. The
discussion of these initiatives provides context and perspective for the analysis and conclusions
presented in this appendix.
5
The safety evaluations for the operating license amendments associated with implementation of
Section B.5.b. of Commission Order EA-02-026 provide background related to the implementation of
particular portions of the ICMs. As an example, the reader is referred to the safety evaluations associated
with Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2007d).
6 Final Rule on Power Reactor Security Requirements dated March 27, 2009 (74 FR 13926) and Final
Rule on Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations dated November 23, 2011
(76 FR 72560).
7 The NRC, subsequent to issuance of the NRC Orders, amended its regulations to require mitigation
strategies for beyond-design-basis events at nuclear power plants. The Final Rule on Mitigation of
Beyond-Design-Basis Events, dated August 9, 2019 (84 FR 39684), makes generically applicable the
requirements of Order EA-12-049 (NRC 2012c) and Order EA-12-051 (NRC 2012a).
8 Implementation of these plant improvements and guidelines is required by 10 CFR 50.155, “Mitigation of
beyond-design-basis events.”
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-4
Appendix E
E.2.1
Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident
On March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake—referred to as the Great Tohoku Earthquake—that
occurred off the eastern coast of Honshu Island, Japan, produced a devastating tsunami that
struck the coastal town of Fukushima. The six-unit Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant was
directly impacted by these events. The resulting damage caused the failure of several of the
units’ safety systems needed to maintain cooling water flow to the reactors. As a result of the
loss of cooling, the fuel overheated and major fuel melting occurred in three of the reactors.
Damage to the systems and structures containing reactor fuel resulted in the release of
radioactive material to the surrounding environment.
In response to the earthquake, tsunami, and resulting reactor accidents at Fukushima Dai-ichi
(hereafter referred to as the “Fukushima events”), the Commission directed the NRC staff to
convene an agency task force of senior leaders and experts to conduct a methodical and
systematic review of the relevant NRC regulatory requirements, programs, and processes,
including their implementation, and to recommend whether the agency should make near-term
improvements to its regulatory system. As part of the short-term review, the task force (referred
to as the Near-Term Task Force [NTTF]), concluded that while improvements are expected to
be made as a result of the lessons learned from the Fukushima events, the continued operation
of nuclear power plants and licensing activities for new plants do not pose an imminent risk to
public health and safety (NRC 2011a).
On July 21, 2011, the NRC staff provided the NTTF report, “Recommendations for Enhancing
Reactor Safety in the 21st Century: The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the
Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident” to the Commission in SECY-11-0093, “Near-Term Report and
Recommendations for Agency Actions Following the Events in Japan” (NRC 2011a). On
October 3, 2011, the staff prioritized the NTTF recommendations into three tiers in
SECY-11-0137, “Prioritization of Recommended Actions to be Taken in Response to Fukushima
Lessons Learned” (NRC 2011c). The Commission approved the staff’s prioritization, with
comment, in the Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) to SECY-11-0137 (NRC 2011d). A
complete discussion of the prioritization of the recommendations from the NTTF report,
additional issues that were addressed subsequent to the NTTF report, and the disposition of the
issues that were prioritized as Tier 2 or Tier 3 are provided in SECY-17-0016, “Status of
Implementation of Lessons Learned from Japan’s March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake
and Subsequent Tsunami” (NRC 2017d).
The NRC undertook the following regulatory activities to address the majority of the Tier 1
recommendations:
• On March 12, 2012, the NRC issued Orders EA-12-049, “Order Modifying Licenses with
Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events,”
EA-12-050, “Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened Containment
Vents,” and EA-12-051, “Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool
Instrumentation,” and a request for information under 10 CFR 50.54(f) (hereafter referred to
as the 50.54(f) letter) to licensees (NRC 2012c, NRC 2012h, NRC 2012a, and NRC 2012d,
respectively).
• On June 6, 2013, the NRC issued Order EA-13-109, “Order Modifying Licenses with Regard
to Reliable Hardened Containment Vents Capable of Operation Under Severe Accident
Conditions” (NRC 2013g), which superseded Order EA-12-050, replacing its requirements
with modified requirements.
E-5
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
• In addition to the three orders and the 50.54(f) letter, the NRC completed rulemaking, 10 CFR
50.155, “Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events,” that made generically applicable the
requirements of Orders EA-12-049 and EA-12-051. The draft final rule and supporting
documentation were provided to the Commission for approval in SECY-16-0142, “Draft Final
Rule – Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events (RIN 3150-AJ49)” (MBDBE) (NRC 2017e,
2017f). The MBDBE rulemaking effort consolidated several of the recommendations from the
NTTF report.
• On January 24, 2019, the Commission, via SRM-M190124A (NRC 2019a), approved the final
MBDBE rule, with edits. The final rule approved by the Commission contains provisions that
make generically applicable the requirements imposed by Orders EA-12-049 and EA-12-051
and supporting requirements. The Commission’s direction in the SRM makes it clear that the
NRC will continue to follow a site-specific approach to resolving the interaction between the
hazard reevaluation and mitigation strategies using information gathered in the 50.54(f) letter
process. The NRC staff made conforming changes to the final rule package (NRC 2019b) as
directed by the Commission, which included changes to two regulatory guides (NRC 2019c
and NRC 2019d). The final rule was published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2019
(84 FR 39684), with an effective implementation date of September 9, 2019.
• Subsequent to Commission approval of the final MBDBE rule, the staff engaged with
stakeholders to pursue the expeditious closure of the remaining post-Fukushima 50.54(f)
letter responses on a timeframe commensurate with each item’s safety significance.
• In a draft discussion paper (NRC 2019e), the NRC staff outlined the process to be used to
review the reevaluated hazard and mitigation strategies assessment information provided by
licensees, considering the differences between the draft final MBDBE rule and the approved
final MBDBE rule. Subsequently, the NRC staff provided a screening letter (also called a
“binning” letter) for both seismic and flooding hazard reevaluations (NRC 2019f and
NRC 2019g), which categorized sites based on available information and the status of any
commitments made in prior reports and assessments.
The NRC staff has concluded that each operating nuclear power plant has implemented the
NRC-mandated safety enhancements resulting from the lessons learned from the Fukushima
Dai-ichi accident through its implementation of Orders EA-12-049 and EA-12-051. The staff
further concluded that all licensees have completed their response to the 50.54(f) letter for their
nuclear power plants and that no further regulatory decisionmaking is required for nuclear power
plants related to the Fukushima lessons learned.
In the context of the LR GEIS, the Fukushima events are considered a severe accident (i.e., a
type of accident in which substantial damage is done to the reactor core) and more specifically,
a severe accident initiated by an event external to the plant. The 1996 LR GEIS concluded that
risks from severe accidents initiated by external events (such as an earthquake) could have
potentially high consequences but found that external events are adequately addressed through
a consideration of a severe accident initiated by an internal event (such as a loss of cooling
water). Section E.3 assesses the impact of new information obtained in the responses to the
NTTF recommendations. The conclusion from these assessments of the impact of the new
information is that the risk of severe accidents, specifically, probability-weighted consequences
reported in the 1996 LR GEIS, remains bounding.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-6
Appendix E
No additional revisions to NRC regulatory requirements are expected as a result of lessons
learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident. If additional changes are identified, they would be
made applicable to operating nuclear power reactors regardless of whether they have a
renewed license. Information collected and mitigation measures implemented as part of the
agency’s response to the Fukushima event are considered in the section below. If the NRC
identifies further information from the Fukushima events or analysis of steps taken in response
to those events that constitutes new and significant information with respect to the
environmental impacts of license renewal (initial LR or SLR), the NRC will evaluate that
information in its plant-specific supplemental EISs (SEISs) to the LR GEIS, as it does with all
such new and potentially significant information. Separate from the NRC’s license renewal
process, the NRC requires all licensees to take into account changes in seismic hazard in order
to maintain safe operating conditions at all nuclear power plants.
In conclusion, operating experience and lessons learned from accidents have further
contributed to NRC initiatives to provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public
health and safety, to promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment
outside of NEPA. Because these initiatives have led operating plants to take action to reduce
the likelihood of postulated accidents or to mitigate the potential consequences of such
accidents, the NRC concludes that these initiatives have likely lowered the overall risk of
postulated accidents compared to the assessment of that risk in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Further, as noted above, under Commission policy, license renewal applicants that had not
previously completed a SAMA review were required to do so for initial LR. Several severe
accident and mitigation programs outside of the environmental review, as described above,
were in process but not completed before the implementation of SAMA in the environmental
review. Thus, the Commission noted that all licensees had undergone, or were in the process of
undergoing, more detailed site‐specific SAMA analyses through processes separate from
license renewal, specifically the CPI, IPE, and IPEEE programs (61 FR 28467, 28481; June 5,
1996) (Three Mile Island lessons learned). In light of these studies, the Commission stated that
it did not expect future SAMA analyses to uncover “major plant design changes or modifications
that will prove to be cost‐beneficial” (61 FR 28467, 28481; June 5, 1996). The NRC’s
experience in completed license renewal proceedings has confirmed this prediction as
explained in Section E.4. This observation lends further support that ongoing agency activities
suggest that the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are, if anything, lower
than originally estimated in 1996 LR GEIS.
E.3
Accident Risk and Impact Assessment
The environmental impacts of design-basis accidents and severe accidents are assessed in
Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of the 1996 LR GEIS, respectively. As stated in Section 5.3.2, the
environmental impact of design-basis accidents was assessed in the individual plant-specific
licensing documents at the time of the initial licensing process and determined to be within
regulatory limits. Because licensees are required to maintain the plant within acceptable design
and performance criteria consistent with the current licensing basis, regardless of initial LR or
SLR term, these impacts are not expected to change. Specifically, 10 CFR 54.21(a)(3) requires
a license renewal application, for either the initial LR or SLR term, to “demonstrate that the
effects of aging will be adequately managed [for structures and components identified in
10 CFR 54.21(a)(1)] so that the intended function(s) will be maintained consistent with the
[current licensing basis] for the period of extended operation.” Furthermore, 10 CFR 54.29(a)(1)
requires that a renewed license may be issued if the Commission, in part, finds that actions
E-7
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to managing the effects of
aging during the period of extended operation such that there is reasonable assurance that
activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with
the current licensing basis. Therefore, additional assessment of the environmental impacts of
design-basis accidents is not necessary and the remainder of this evaluation is focused on the
environmental impact of severe accidents similar to the analysis in the 1996 LR GEIS.
To assess the impacts of severe accidents from the airborne pathway, representing the most
likely pathway for significant doses to the public, the 1996 LR GEIS relied on severe accident
analyses provided in the plant-specific licensing documents where available. Table 5.1 in the
1996 LR GEIS lists the 28 nuclear power plants, representing 44 units, that included severe
accident analyses in their original (plant-specific) EISs.9 These original EISs used plant-specific
meteorology, land topography, population distributions, and offsite emergency response
parameters, along with generic or plant-specific source terms, to calculate offsite health and
economic impacts. The offsite health effects included those from airborne releases of
radioactive material and contamination of surface water and groundwater.
The 1996 LR GEIS used information from the 28 plant-specific EISs and a metric called the
exposure index (EI) to (1) scale up the radiological impact of severe accidents on the population
due to demographic changes from the time each original EIS was done until the year
representing the mid-license renewal period, and (2) estimate the severe accident
environmental impacts for the other plants (whose EISs did not include a quantitative
assessment of severe accidents). The EI method uses the projected population distribution
around each nuclear power plant site at the middle of its license renewal period and
meteorology data for each site to provide a measure of the degree to which the population
would be exposed to the release of radioactive material resulting from a severe accident
(i.e., the EI method weights the population in each of 16 sectors around a nuclear power plant
by the fraction of time the wind blows in that direction on an annual basis; see Section E.3.9.2 of
this appendix for further information about population density). The EI metric was also used to
project economic impacts at the mid-point of the license renewal period. A more detailed
description of the EI method is contained in Appendix G of the 1996 LR GEIS. The plant-specific
exposure indices (which are a function of population and wind direction), in conjunction with the
plant-specific total probability-weighed consequences or risk values from the original EIS severe
accident analyses, were used to predict the 95 percent UCB consequences for 74 nuclear
power plants, representing 118 units, from atmospheric releases due to severe accidents. In
Section 5.3.3.2.4 of the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC concluded that the risk of early and latent
fatalities from individual nuclear power plants is small. It represents only a small fraction of the
risk to which the public is exposed from other sources. The probability-weighted consequences
or risk is the product of the probability (i.e., CDF) and the consequences (e.g., total population
dose) of a severe accident.
The term “original EIS” describes a plant-specific EIS, FES, or similar environmental review document
issued by the NRC that is associated with the issuance of a plant’s original operating license. This term is
used in this appendix to differentiate it from a SEIS to the LR GEIS prepared in conjunction with a license
renewal environmental review.
9
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-8
Appendix E
Predicted 95 percent UCB values were developed for early fatalities per reactor-year (RY),
latent fatalities/RY, and total population dose/RY.10 The results of this assessment for each plant
for each of these impact metrics are provided in 1996 LR GEIS Table 5.10, Table 5.11, and
Table 5.6, respectively. These results are repeated in Table E.3-1 in the columns titled
“Predicted Total Early Fatalities/RY (95% UCB),” “Non-normalized Predicted Latent Total
Fatalities/RY (95% UCB),” and “Non-normalized Predicted Total Dose (person-rem/RY)
(95% UCB),” respectively. In Section 5.5.2.5 of the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC staff concluded that
the generic analysis “applies to all plants and that the probability-weighted consequences of
atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal
and economic impacts of severe accidents are of small significance for all plants.”
Table E.3-1
Comparison of 1996 LR GEIS-Predicted Risks to License Renewal
Estimated Risks
1996 LR
1996 LR GEIS
GEISNonPredicted
normalized
Total Early
Predicted
LR GEIS
Fatalities/
Latent Total
Nuclear Power Supplement RY (95%
Fatalities/RY
Plant
Number
UCB)(a)
(95% UCB)(a)
1
2.3 × 10⁰
Calvert Cliffs 1 & 2
1.8 × 10⁻³
2
1.0 × 10⁰
Oconee 1, 2, & 3
1.1 × 10⁻²
3
3.3 × 10⁻³
1.7 × 10⁻¹
Arkansas 1
4
Hatch 1 & 2
2.6 × 10⁻³
5.7 × 10⁻¹
5
Turkey Point 3 & 4
6.0 × 10⁻²
2.0 × 10⁻¹
6
Surry 1 & 2
1.6 × 10⁻²
9.0 × 10⁻¹
7
1.1 × 10⁰
North Anna 1 & 2
9.4 × 10⁻⁴
8
1.4 × 10⁰
McGuire 1 & 2
1.0 × 10⁻²
9
1.4 × 10⁰
Catawba 1 & 2
1.7 × 10⁻²
Peach Bottom 2
10
2.0 × 10⁰
4.2 × 10⁻³
&3
11
St. Lucie 1
3.2 × 10⁻²
6.3 × 10⁻¹
11
St. Lucie 2
3.2 × 10⁻²
6.3 × 10⁻¹
12
Fort Calhoun
1.7 × 10⁻³
8.0 × 10⁻²
Robinson
13
3.1 × 10⁻³
7.0 × 10⁻¹
14
Ginna
3.9 × 10⁻³
1.5 × 10⁻¹
15
1.0 × 10⁰
Summer
1.3 × 10⁻³
16
1.1 × 10⁰
Quad Cities 1 & 2
4.5 × 10⁻³
Dresden 2 & 3
17
4.6 × 10⁻³
1.4 × 10⁰
18
Farley 1 & 2
1.5 × 10⁻³
2.4 × 10⁻¹
19
Arkansas 2
3.3 × 10⁻³
1.7 × 10⁻¹
20
1.8 × 10⁰
D.C. Cook 1 & 2
8.4 × 10⁻³
Browns Ferry 1
21
4.3 × 10⁻³
9.7 × 10⁻¹
&2
1996 LR
Ratio of
GEIS NonLicense
GEIS 95%
normalized Renewal
UCB
Predicted
SAMA
Population
Total Dose
Total
Dose to
(personPDR
License
rem/RY)
(personRenewal
(95% UCB)(a) rem/RY)(b) Total PDR
2,995
69
44
1,311
5
266
238
1
216
855
4
244
278
22
13
1,200
36
33
1,496
50
30
1,806
14
134
1,880
31
60
2,950
15
201
2,724
2,724
111
926
203
1,381
1,588
1,991
334
238
2,311
1,446
31
28
20
11
16
2
17
51
4
9
85
3
89
97
5
87
12
691
95
39
92
28
27
441
10
Predicted 95 percent UCB values were also developed for economic impacts from severe accidents.
Economic impacts are addressed in later sections.
E-9
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
1996 LR
1996 LR GEIS
GEISNonPredicted
normalized
Total Early
Predicted
LR GEIS
Fatalities/
Latent Total
Nuclear Power Supplement RY (95%
Fatalities/RY
Plant
Number
UCB)(a)
(95% UCB)(a)
21
Browns Ferry 3
4.3 × 10⁻³
9.7 × 10⁻¹
22
3.1 × 10⁰
Millstone 2
2.5 × 10⁻²
22
2.5 × 10⁻²
3.1 × 10⁰
Millstone 3
23
Point Beach 1 & 2
2.5 × 10⁻³
2.3 × 10⁻¹
24
Nine Mile Point 1
3.8 × 10⁻³
6.7 × 10⁻¹
24
Nine Mile Point 2
3.8 × 10⁻³
6.7 × 10⁻¹
25
Brunswick 1 & 2
3.5 × 10⁻³
4.7 × 10⁻¹
26
Monticello
4.1 × 10⁻³
5.0 × 10⁻¹
27
1.3 × 10⁰
Palisades
4.2 × 10⁻³
28
7.4 × 10⁻³
1.5 × 10⁰
Oyster Creek
29
Pilgrim
3.7 × 10⁻³
6.0 × 10⁻¹
30
Vermont Yankee
4.6 × 10⁻³
9.0 × 10⁻¹
31
FitzPatrick
3.8 × 10⁻³
5.0 × 10⁻¹
32
Wolf Creek
4.7 × 10⁻⁴
3.3 × 10⁻¹
33
Harris
2.8 × 10⁻³
7.3 × 10⁻¹
34
Vogtle 1 & 2
1.6 × 10⁻⁴
7.3 × 10⁻¹
Susquehanna 1
35
2.8 × 10⁰
6.0 × 10⁻³
&2
36
1.3 × 10⁰
Beaver Valley 1
2.5 × 10⁻²
36
1.3 × 10⁰
Beaver Valley 2
2.5 × 10⁻²
Three Mile Island
37
3.3 × 10⁰
2.8 × 10⁻²
1
38
7.7 × 10⁰
Indian Point 2
6.5 × 10⁻²
38
7.7 × 10⁰
Indian Point 3
6.5 × 10⁻²
39
Prairie Island 1
3.7 × 10⁻³
1.7 × 10⁻¹
39
3.7 × 10⁻³
1.7 × 10⁻¹
Prairie Island 2
40
Kewaunee
8.9 × 10⁻⁴
2.2 × 10⁻¹
41
Cooper
2.6 × 10⁻³
6.3 × 10⁻¹
42
Duane Arnold
8.0 × 10⁻³
3.7 × 10⁻¹
Palo Verde 1, 2,
43
1.1 × 10⁻⁴
2.6 × 10⁻¹
&3
44
Crystal River
1.5 × 10⁻³
5.0 × 10⁻¹
45
5.0 × 10⁰
Salem 1 & 2
2.9 × 10⁻³
45
4.1 × 10⁻³
2.5 × 10⁰
Hope Creek
46
Seabrook
1.1 × 10⁻²
6.0 × 10⁻¹
(c)
47
Columbia
2.3 × 10⁻³
4.3 × 10⁻¹
48
South Texas 1 & 2
3.3 × 10⁻⁴
8.0 × 10⁻¹
49
3.1 × 10⁰
Limerick
1.1 × 10⁻²
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-10
1996 LR
Ratio of
GEIS NonLicense
GEIS 95%
normalized Renewal
UCB
Predicted
SAMA
Population
Total Dose
Total
Dose to
(personPDR
License
rem/RY)
(personRenewal
(95% UCB)(a) rem/RY)(b) Total PDR
1,446
4
371
3,988
23
176
3,988
20
195
309
4
84
996
23
44
996
51
20
704
59
12
730
76
10
1,691
64
27
2,125
72
30
873
68
13
1,314
50
26
728
7
112
466
7
71
1,001
58
17
983
3
315
4,010
4
1,055
1,720
1,720
4,381
58
56
593
30
31
7
9,727
9,727
237
237
303
955
561
369
332
521
6
17
60
6
46
34
29
19
40
14
5
149
12
11
700
6,059
3,604
819
649
1,063
4,461
48
156
156
79
26
2
56(d)
15
39
23
10
25
611
79
Appendix E
1996 LR
1996 LR GEIS
GEISNonPredicted
normalized
Total Early
Predicted
LR GEIS
Fatalities/
Latent Total
Nuclear Power Supplement RY (95%
Fatalities/RY
Plant
Number
UCB)(a)
(95% UCB)(a)
50
Grand Gulf
2.8 × 10⁻³
9.7 × 10⁻¹
51
Callaway
6.9 × 10⁻⁴
3.6 × 10⁻¹
52
1.4 × 10⁻³
1.5 × 10⁰
Davis-Besse
53
1.1 × 10⁰
Sequoyah 1
6.6 × 10⁻³
53
1.1 × 10⁰
Sequoyah 2
6.6 × 10⁻³
54
2.2 × 10⁰
Byron 1 & 2
2.3 × 10⁻³
55
3.3 × 10⁰
Braidwood 1 & 2
3.6 × 10⁻³
56
1.9 × 10⁰
Fermi 2
6.8 × 10⁻³
57
2.0 × 10⁰
LaSalle 1 & 2
3.6 × 10⁻³
58
4.1 × 10⁻³
8.0 × 10⁻¹
River Bend
59
Waterford 3
1.4 × 10⁻²
3.3 × 10⁻¹
Comanche Peak 1
N/A
2.3 × 10⁻³
3.3 × 10⁻¹
&2
Diablo Canyon 1
N/A
1.5 × 10⁻³
2.5 × 10⁻¹
&2
N/A
Watts Bar 1
1.8 × 10⁻³
1.2 × 10⁰
N/A
Watts Bar 2
1.8 × 10⁻³
1.2 × 10⁰
N/A
1.8 × 10⁰
Clinton
3.0 × 10⁻³
Perry
N/A
6.9 × 10⁻³
1.7 × 10⁰
1996 LR
Ratio of
GEIS NonLicense
GEIS 95%
normalized Renewal
UCB
Predicted
SAMA
Population
Total Dose
Total
Dose to
(personPDR
License
rem/RY)
(personRenewal
(95% UCB)(a) rem/RY)(b) Total PDR
1,441
7
215
509
21
24
2,021
12
170
1,474
131
11
1,474
114
13
2,867
92
31
4,418
342
13
2,722
54
50
2,898
40
73
1,168
8
138
477
61
8
466
16(e)
29
346
101(f)
3
1,540
1,540
2,549
2,544
5(g)
46(h)
N/A
N/A
291
34
N/A
N/A
LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; N/A = not applicable
(a license renewal application has not been submitted or was withdrawn); PDR = population dose risk;
RY = reactor-year; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative; UCB = upper confidence bound.
(a) Data were obtained from NRC 1996.
(b) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, unless otherwise noted.
Where applicable, the SAMA PDR was adjusted using the external events multiplier.
(c) Referred to as WNP-2 (Washington Nuclear Project 2) in the 1996 LR GEIS.
(d) Data were obtained from the SAMA analysis included in NUREG-0974, Supplement (NRC 1989b), which was
then adjusted using the internal events CDF and external events multiplier from NUREG-1437, Supplement 49
(NRC 2014b).
(e) The SAMA PDR is from the severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) analysis included in
NUREG-0775, Supplement (NRC 1989a). No external events multiplier was assumed in the SAMDA analysis.
(f) The SAMA PDR is from PG&E 2015, which was then adjusted using the external events multiplier from this
same document.
(g) The SAMA PDR is from the SAMDA analysis included in NUREG-0498, Supplement 1 (NRC 1995b). No external
events multiplier was assumed in the SAMDA analysis.
(h) The SAMA PDR is from the SAMDA analysis included in NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 (NRC 2013a), which was
then adjusted using the external events multiplier from this same document.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
As of 2023, almost all the currently operating nuclear plants have submitted license renewal
applications and been approved for initial LR. Per the Commission’s regulations, applicants are
required to include a plant-specific SAMA analysis in the environmental report if one has not
been previously considered. A SAMA analysis is “a cost-benefit analysis that addresses
whether the expense of implementing a mitigation measure not mandated by the NRC is
E-11
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
outweighed by the expected reduction in environmental cost it would provide in a core damage
event” (Massachusetts v. NRC, 708 F.3d 63, 68 [1st Cir. 2013]). Similar to the 1996 LR GEIS,
the consequence analysis software that was typically used for the SAMA analysis was the
MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS) code (SNL 2021).11 Thus, most
operating plants have submitted an initial LR application that includes a more recent
plant-specific estimate of the total PDR due to severe accidents, which is an update of the
non-normalized predicted total dose (person-rem/RY) (95 percent UCB) consequences provided
in the 1996 LR GEIS. This consequence analysis includes plant-specific updated CDFs for
internal and, for most plants, external event hazards, plant-specific updated analyses of
containment performance under severe accident conditions, and updated consequence
analyses using plant-specific information about radionuclide source terms, radionuclide
releases, projected population distribution during the license renewal period, meteorological
data, and emergency response.
The estimated PDR developed for the SAMA analyses, at a minimum, included the contribution
from severe accidents due to internally initiated events, which also generally included events
initiated by internal flooding. Several SAMA analyses also included the contribution from
externally initiated events in the PDR estimate. Most SAMA analyses, however, accounted for
externally initiated events by developing an external events multiplier in accordance with the
methodology in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) publication NEI 05-01 (NEI 2005), which has
been endorsed by the NRC (2013d). The external events multiplier is the ratio of the total plant
CDF (both internally initiated and externally initiated) to the CDF for internally initiated events.
This multiplier is multiplied by the estimated PDR for internally initiated events to develop the
estimate of the total plant PDR that is included in Table E.3-1.12
In summary, PDR is the numerical value for the probability-weighted consequences using a
Level 3 PRA. As shown in Table E.3-1, the estimated total PDR from the license renewal SAMA
analyses, for all plants having available information, is less than the corresponding predicted
95 percent UCB values from the 1996 LR GEIS and, in most cases, is orders of magnitude less.
Table E.3-1 demonstrates the 1996 LR GEIS assumption that, “The use of the 95 percent upper
prediction confidence bounds provides even greater assurance that the [1996] GElS does not
underestimate potential future environmental impacts.” Specifically, the predicted 95 percent
UCB population dose values from the 1996 LR GEIS are higher by factors ranging from 3 to
over 1,000 and are on average a factor of 120 higher than the corresponding total PDR values
from the license renewal SAMA analyses. Thus, the probability-weighted environmental
consequences of a severe accident were demonstrated for all plants having a SAMA analysis to
be lower than predicted in the 1996 LR GEIS. In isolated cases, updated plant-specific hazard
11
MACCS was developed at and continues to be maintained by Sandia National Laboratories for the
NRC. It is used to model estimates of the health risks and economic impacts of offsite radiological
releases from potential severe accidents at nuclear facilities. See Section E.3.9 of this appendix for a
relatively recent application by the NRC of the MACCS code for performing a state-of-the art assessment
of the consequences of severe accidents at nuclear power plants.
12 Information from several of the SAMA analyses (i.e., for the Oconee, McGuire, Catawba, and Columbia
plants) show that the PDR for different hazards is not linear relative to their contribution to CDF. For
example, these analyses show that the relative contribution to total plant PDR is somewhat higher than
the relative contribution to total plant CDF for seismic events and is somewhat lower for internal events.
This result is consistent with NRC staff experience with the risk results from plant-specific seismic PRAs
where the contribution to large early release is generally higher than the corresponding results from
internal events PRAs. However, this non-linear relationship likely introduces a small non-conservatism in
the total plant PDR. This non-conservatism is not significant to the conclusions of this LR GEIS
supplement because of the significant conservatism in the 1996 LR GEIS analyses.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-12
Appendix E
PRAs may show that the 1996 LR GEIS underpredicted a site-specific value. Because of the
significant margin below the health criteria and the conservatisms in the overall values in the
1996 LR GEIS, the probability-weighted consequences to the public and environment are still
predicted to be SMALL.
The license renewal SAMA analyses did not include estimates of the early fatality risk or latent
fatality risk. However, the 1996 LR GEIS 95 percent UCB predicted values for early fatalities
and latent fatalities are derived from the estimated radiological doses to the population.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the 1996 LR GEIS-predicted 95 percent UCB results
for early fatalities and latent fatalities are also very conservative based on the updated
information from the license renewal SAMA analyses regarding PDR and the fatality risk results
from the state-of-the-art reactor consequence analysis (SOARCA). The plant-specific LRcalculated values presented in Table E.3-1 demonstrate the magnitude of conservatism used in
the 1996 LR GEIS-predicted values, both from the standpoint of reduced consequences using
more recent plant-specific information and the conservatism built into the 1996 LR GEIS
methodology, and demonstrate the conclusion that the probability-weighted consequences due
to severe accidents to the public and environment are smaller than predicted in the 1996
LR GEIS.
Since publication of the 1996 LR GEIS and 2013 LR GEIS and the completion of the license
renewal SAMA analyses, developments or new information regarding plant operation and
accident analysis have occurred that could affect the assumptions made in these analyses.
These changes are grouped into the following areas and are each covered in the indicated
section of this LR GEIS revision:
• internal event risk (Section E.3.1)
• external event risk (Section E.3.2)
• updates in the quantification of accident source terms (Section E.3.3)
• increases in licensed reactor power levels, i.e., power uprates (Section E.3.4)
• increases in fuel burnup levels (Section E.3.5)
• consideration of reactor accidents at low power and shutdown conditions (Section E.3.6)
• consideration of accidents in SFPs (Section E.3.7)
• the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII report on the risk of fatal cancers posed
by exposure to radiation (Section E.3.8)
Sections discussing uncertainties (Section E.3.9), SAMAs (Section E.4), and conclusions are
also provided. New information regarding the above topics is also evaluated in plant-specific
license renewal applications to determine its significance. This revised LR GEIS also evaluates
new information regarding severe accidents for each of the above topics and considers whether
the information would, collectively, change the conclusions in the 1996 LR GEIS and 2013
LR GEIS. As explained below, while several of these factors may result in modest increases to
severe accident risk, other new information regarding these factors suggests that the risk of
severe accidents may be, on average, substantially lower than previously estimated. As a result,
the following analysis further supports the overall findings from the 1996 and 2013 LR GEIS that
the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents would be SMALL.
As discussed in Section 5.3.3.1 of the 1996 LR GEIS, the environmental impacts of
security-related events were not considered. As stated, these types of events are addressed via
E-13
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
deterministic criteria in 10 CFR Part 73 rather than by risk assessments. The regulatory
requirements under 10 CFR Part 73 provide reasonable assurance that the risk from sabotage
is small. This section goes on to state:
Although the threat of sabotage events cannot be accurately quantified, the
Commission believes that acts of sabotage are not reasonably expected.
Nonetheless, if such events were to occur, the Commission would expect that
resultant core damage and radiological releases would be no worse than those
expected from internally initiated events.
The NRC continues to take this position. As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, the NRC conducted a comprehensive review of the agency’s security program and made
further enhancements to security at a wide range of NRC-regulated facilities. These
enhancements included significant reinforcement of the defense capabilities of nuclear facilities,
better control of sensitive information, enhancements in emergency preparedness to further
strengthen the NRC’s nuclear facility security program, and implementation of mitigating
strategies to deal with postulated events potentially causing loss of large areas of the plant due
to explosions or fires, including those that an aircraft impact might create. These measures are
outlined in greater detail in NUREG/BR-0314 (NRC 2004), NUREG-1850 (NRC 2006), Sandia
National Laboratories’ Mitigation of Spent Fuel Pool Loss-of-Coolant Inventory Accidents and
Extension of Reference Plant Analyses to Other Spent Fuel Pools (SNL 2006), and
Section E.3.7.
The NRC routinely assesses threats and other information provided by a variety of Federal
agencies and sources. The NRC also ensures that licensees meet appropriate security-level
requirements. The NRC will continue to focus on prevention of terrorist acts for all nuclear
facilities and will not focus on plant-specific evaluations of speculative environmental impacts
resulting from terrorist acts. While these are legitimate matters of concern, the NRC will
continue to address them through the ongoing regulatory process as a current and generic
regulatory issue that affects all nuclear facilities and many of the activities conducted at nuclear
facilities. The issue of security and risk from malevolent acts at nuclear power facilities is not
unique to facilities that have requested a renewal of their licenses (NRC 2006).
The NRC’s position is that malevolent acts remain speculative and beyond the scope of a NEPA
review. NEPA requires that there be a “reasonably close causal relationship” between the
Federal agency action and the environmental consequences. The environmental impact of a
terrorist attack is too far removed from the natural or expected consequences of a license
renewal action to warrant consideration under NEPA. However, as noted above, in the event of
a terrorist attack, the consequences of such an attack would be no worse than an internally
initiated severe accident, which has already been analyzed.
In a decision dated June 2, 2006, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016,
1028 (9th Cir. 2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the NRC could not
categorically refuse to consider the consequences of a terrorist attack under NEPA and
remanded the case to the NRC. On remand, the Commission adjudicated the intervenors’ claim
that the NRC staff had not adequately assessed the environmental consequences of a terrorist
attack on the Diablo Canyon Power Plant’s proposed facility for storing spent nuclear fuel in dry
casks. See Pacific Gas & Electric Co., (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation), CLI-08-26, 68 NRC 509 (PG&E 2008). The Commission ultimately
determined that an EIS was not required to address land contamination and latent health effect
issues (Diablo Canyon, CLI-08-26, 68 NRC at 521). Further, the Commission concluded that the
staff’s final, supplemental environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact,
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-14
Appendix E
the adjudicatory record of the case, and its supervisory review of the non-public information
underlying portions of the staff’s analyses satisfied the agency’s NEPA obligations (Id. at
525-26). The staff had found that even the most severe, plausible terrorist attack of those
examined would not cause immediate or latent health effects. The staff also found that such an
attack was improbable, but if one occurred, the likelihood of significant radioactive release was
very low because the nature of the Diablo Canyon casks and site (Id. at 521). The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the Commission’s determination on appeal. See San Luis
Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 635 F.3d 1109, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2011).
The Commission stated that it will adhere to the Ninth Circuit decision when considering
licensing actions for facilities subject to the jurisdiction of that Circuit. See Pacific Gas and
Electric Co., (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation),
CLI-07-11, 65 NRC 148 (NRC 2007b). However, the Commission decided against applying that
holding to all licensing proceedings nationwide. In one such proceeding, Amergen Energy
Co. LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-07-8, 65 NRC 124, 128-29
(NRC 2007b), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection contended that NEPA
requires an analysis of a terrorist attack. The NRC found that NEPA “imposes no legal duty on
the NRC to consider intentional malevolent acts” because such acts are “too far removed from
the natural or expected consequences of agency action” (Id. at 129 [quoting the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board decision]). The NRC also found that a terrorism review would be redundant
because (1) “the NRC has undertaken extensive efforts to enhance security at nuclear facilities,”
which it characterized as the best mechanism to protect the public (Id. at 130); and (2) the
LR GEIS had addressed the issue and concluded that “the core damage and radiological
release from [terrorist] acts would be no worse than the damage and release to be expected
from internally initiated events.” On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed with the NRC and denied
the petition. See New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. NRC and Amergen
Energy Co, LLC (Case No. 07-2271), 561 F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2009). The Court found that, “the
NRC correctly concluded that the relicensing of Oyster Creek does not have a ‘reasonably close
causal relationship’ with the environmental effects that would be caused in the event of a
terrorist attack” (Id.).
The Third Circuit disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s application of the relevant Supreme Court
decisions. Instead, as the Commission had originally held, the Third Circuit concluded that the
issuance of a facility license—here, the issuance of the 20-year extension for the Oyster Creek
license—would not be the “proximate cause” of a terrorist attack on the facility (Id. at 141-43).
Moreover, the Third Circuit noted that the 1996 LR GEIS had reviewed the possible impacts of a
sabotage event, which is a form of terrorism (Id. at 134). The LR GEIS found that the
consequences of a sabotage event would be no worse than those expected from an internally
initiated severe accident (Id. [quoting “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” Final Report, Vol. I (May 1996), at 5-18]). The Third Circuit noted
that the petitioner in the case before it (the State of New Jersey) had failed to demonstrate that
the results of a terrorist attack would be any different from those of a severe accident, which had
already been analyzed (Id. at 144). The Third Circuit also noted that the NRC had prepared a
plant-specific SEIS addressing the mitigation of severe accidents at Oyster Creek (Id. at
143-144). As a result, the Third Circuit found that, even if the Commission were required to
analyze the impacts of a terrorist attack, the NRC had prepared both generic and plant-specific
analyses of the impacts of a terrorist attack at Oyster Creek, and that the petitioner had not
shown that the NRC could evaluate the risks more meaningfully than it had already done
(Id. at 144).
E-15
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
After the Third Circuit’s determination, the Commission overturned the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board’s decision to admit a NEPA terrorism contention in the Diablo Canyon License
Renewal proceeding, a facility located in the Ninth Circuit. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant), CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427. The Commission reaffirmed that “the
staff’s determination in the [LR] GEIS that the environmental impacts of a terrorist attack were
bounded by those resulting from internally initiated events, was sufficient to address the
environmental impacts of terrorism” (PG&E 2011) (Id. at 456).
In sum, the Commission has found that the issuance of a facility license is not the “proximate
cause” of a terrorist attack at that facility. Thus, it is not required to prepare an EIS discussion of
the potential impacts of a terrorist attack (Id. at 455-456). However, due to the decision of the
Ninth Circuit, the NRC will prepare an analysis of the environmental impacts of a terrorist attack
for licensing actions of facilities within the geographical boundaries of the Ninth Circuit (Id. at
456). In addition, the Third Circuit has held that the LR GEIS constitutes such an analysis for
license renewals (Id. at 455).
NUREG-1935 (NRC 2012g) explained that the NRC did not include security events as part of
SOARCA to avoid providing any specific information that may materially assist in planning or
carrying out a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant. However, the NRC has stated that the
security-related studies conducted after September 11, 2001, led it to conclude that previous
risk studies used conservative radionuclide source terms and that plant improvements, plus
improved modeling, would confirm that radionuclide releases and early fatalities were
substantially smaller than suggested by earlier studies.
E.3.1
Impact of New Information about Accidents Initiated by Internal Events
With few exceptions, the severe accident analyses formulating the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS
were limited to consideration of reactor accidents caused by internal events. The 1996 LR GEIS
addressed the impacts of external events qualitatively, and external events are covered in more
detail in Section E.3.2 of this LR GEIS revision. The impacts from the 1996 LR GEIS were
based on the original EISs for the 28 nuclear power plant sites identified in Table E.3-2 and
Table E.3-3. The source terms13 and their likelihood used in the plant-specific original EISs to
calculate the airborne pathway environmental impacts of accidents were, in turn, usually based
upon information contained in NUREG-0773 (NRC 1982d). NUREG-0773 updates the source
terms used in the original Reactor Safety Study – An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1975). These source terms and frequencies were used
along with plant-specific meteorology, population distributions, and emergency planning
characteristics to calculate the airborne pathway environmental impacts. These EISs were
issued in the 1981 to 1986 timeframe. Thus, while the LR GEIS was published in 1996, it was
primarily based on information from the 1980s.
Since the publication of NUREG-0773, many additional studies have been completed on the
likelihood and consequences of reactor accidents initiated by internal events at full power.
These studies include the NRC’s risk study of five plants documented in NUREG-1150
(NRC 1990), the NRC’s integrated risk assessment to address phenomenology and uncertainty
documented in NUREG/CR-5305 (SNL 1992), and licensee responses to Generic Letter 88-20
and associated supplements (i.e., the IPE program), as summarized in NUREG-1560
13
Source term refers to the magnitude and mix of the radionuclides released from the fuel, expressed as
fractions of the fission product inventory in the fuel, as well as their physical and chemical form, and the
timing of their release.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-16
Appendix E
(NRC 1997a). Licensees have further updated their IPE-vintage PRA models to support various
risk-informed licensing applications and the identification and analysis of potentially
cost-effective SAMA alternatives evaluated in plant license renewal applications. In addition, the
NRC has developed standardized plant analysis risk models for all operating plants, which can
be used to calculate CDFs and large early release frequencies (LERFs) for internal events;
completed the SOARCA project, which performed a detailed examination of accident
progression, source term, and offsite consequences for select accident scenarios for three
nuclear plants (NRC 2012g, NRC 2019h); and started publishing the results of the Level 3
PRA project to develop a full-scope Level 3 PRA14 for a nuclear plant site using current
state-of-practice methods, tools, and data (NRC 2022a).
The purpose of Section E.3.1 is to assess how results from updated internal event information
compare to those on which the 1996 LR GEIS was based. The evaluation contained in
Sections E.3.1.1 through E.3.1.3 compares the CDFs and offsite doses obtained directly from
the 1996 LR GEIS to the updated information for the 28 nuclear power plant sites that included
severe accident analyses in their original (plant-specific) EISs. A similar comparison is not made
for the other operating nuclear plants because severe accident analyses were not performed in
the original (plant-specific) analyses for these other plants. The comparison is done for
pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs), and covers each of the
plants listed in Table 5.1 of the 1996 LR GEIS. Changes in source terms (i.e., the quantity, form,
and timing of radioactive material released to the environment) are assessed in Section E.3.3.
E.3.1.1
Airborne Pathway Impacts
As a first step in the comparison, the internal event-initiated CDFs from the original EISs are
compared to the CDFs reported in the plant-specific IPEs and in the license renewal SAMA
analyses for the PWRs and BWRs considered by the 1996 LR GEIS. Before making this
comparison, it is notable that the CDFs from the original EISs are for severe accidents initiated
by internal events, while the CDFs from the IPEs and SAMA analyses, in many cases, also
include severe accidents initiated by internal flooding events.15 Table E.3-2 and Table E.3-3
show these comparisons. The data in these tables show that CDFs have been steadily declining
since the original estimates in the EISs. Specifically, as can be seen in Table E.3-2 and
Table E.3-3, for many plants, the IPE CDFs are smaller than those from the original EISs,
particularly for BWRs. The mean value of the IPE CDFs listed in Table E.3-2 and Table E.3-3
are lower than the corresponding mean of the 1996 LR GEIS CDFs by 30 percent for PWRs
and by about a factor of 3.5 for BWRs. Furthermore, the SAMA internal event CDFs are smaller
than those from the original EISs for all plants except one and smaller than those from the IPE
for most of the plants. Specifically, the mean value of the SAMA CDFs listed in Table E.3-2 and
Table E.3-3 are a factor of almost 4 lower than the corresponding mean of the 1996 LR GEIS
CDFs for PWRs (i.e., from Table E.3-2, 8.4 × 10-5/yr for the 1996 LR GEIS mean CDF divided
by 2.2 × 10-5/yr for the SAMA mean CDF) and more than a factor of 6 lower for BWRs (i.e., from
Table E.3-3, 5.4 × 10-5/yr for the 1996 LR GEIS mean CDF divided by 8.7 × 10-6/yr for the
SAMA mean CDF). Information from recent risk-informed license amendment requests (LARs)
submitted to the NRC show that these CDFs are, on average, further reduced from what were
reported in the license renewal SAMA analyses. Accordingly, the likelihood of an accident that
14
A Level 3 PRA is an assessment of the offsite public risks attributable to a spectrum of possible
accident scenarios involving a nuclear power plant.
15 Internal events are accidents that are initiated by the failure of plant systems or operator actions.
Internal flooding events are accidents that are initiated by a ruptured water pipe inside the plant and for
which the resulting water spray or flood damages plant equipment.
E-17
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
leads to core damage, based on just internally initiated events, is significantly less for both
PWRs and BWRs than that used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS.
Table E.3-2
Pressurized Water Reactor Internal Event (Full Power) Core Damage
Frequency Comparison
Nuclear Power Plant
Beaver Valley 2
Braidwood 1
Braidwood 2
Byron 1
Byron 2
Callaway 1
Catawba 1, 2
Comanche Peak 1, 2
Harris 1
Indian Point 2
Indian Point 3
Millstone 3
Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
San Onofre 2, 3
Seabrook 1
South Texas 1, 2
St. Lucie 2
Summer 1
Vogtle 1, 2
Waterford 3
Wolf Creek 1
Mean value
Median value
1996 LR GEIS
Estimated CDF(a)
1.0 × 10-4/yr
1.0 × 10-4/yr
Same as Unit 1
4.8 × 10-5/yr
Same as Unit 1
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
3.5 × 10-4/yr
3.4 × 10-4/yr
2.0 × 10-4/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.4 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.9 × 10-5/yr
1.0 × 10-4/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
8.4 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
IPE CDF(b)
1.9 × 10-4/yr(d)
2.7 × 10-5/yr(d)
Same as Unit 1
3.1 × 10-5/yr(d)
Same as Unit 1
5.9 × 10-5/yr(d)
5.8 × 10-5/yr(d)
5.7 × 10-5/yr(d)
7.0 × 10-5/yr(d)
3.1 × 10-5/yr
4.4 × 10-5/yr(d)
5.6 × 10-5/yr
9.0 × 10-5/yr
3.0 × 10-5/yr
6.1 × 10-5/yr(g)
4.3 × 10-5/yr
2.6 × 10-5/yr
2.0 × 10-4/yr
4.9 × 10-5/yr(d)
1.8 × 10-5/yr
4.2 × 10-5/yr(d)
5.9 × 10-5/yr
4.9 × 10-5/yr
SAMA CDF(c)
9.5 × 10-6/yr(d)
3.6 × 10-5/yr(d)
3.5 × 10-5/yr(d)
4.0 × 10-5/yr(d)
3.8 × 10-5/yr(d)
1.7 × 10-5/yr
4.7 × 10-5/yr(d)
4.8 × 10-5/yr(e)
9.2 × 10-6/yr(d)
1.8 × 10-5/yr(d)
1.2 × 10-5/yr(d)
2.6 × 10-5/yr
5.1 × 10-6/yr
Not Available(f)
7.8 × 10-6/yr(d)
3.9 × 10-6/yr
2.4 × 10-5/yr(d)
5.6 × 10-5/yr
1.6 × 10-5/yr(d)
1.1 × 10-5/yr
3.0 × 10-5/yr
2.2 × 10-5/yr
1.7 × 10-5/yr
CDF = core damage frequency; IPE = Individual Plant Examination; LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative.
(a) The estimated CDF was obtained by summing individual atmospheric release sequences, including intact
containment sequences, provided in the original (plant-specific) environment impact statement (EIS). Similar
data for the other operating nuclear plants are not available because their original EISs did not include an
assessment of severe accidents.
(b) Data were obtained from NRC 1997a, unless otherwise noted.
(c) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, unless otherwise noted.
(d) The internal events-initiated CDF value includes contribution from internal flooding events.
(e) Data are from the severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) analysis included in NUREG-0775,
Supplement (NRC 1989a).
(f) The San Onofre plant was permanently shut down in 2012.
(g) Data were obtained from the licensee’s Individual Plant Examination of External Events submittal.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-18
Appendix E
Table E.3-3
Boiling Water Reactor Internal Event (Full Power) Core Damage Frequency
Comparison
Plant
Clinton 1
1996 LR GEIS
Estimated CDF(a)
IPE CDF(b)
SAMA CDF(c)
2.4 × 10-5/yr
2.7 × 10-5/yr(d)
Not Available(e)
10-5/yr
5.7 ×
10-6/yr
1.5 × 10-6/yr(d)
Fermi 2
2.4 ×
Grand Gulf 1
2.4 × 10-5/yr
1.7 × 10-5/yr(d)
2.9 × 10-6/yr(d)
Hope Creek
1.0 × 10-4/yr
4.6 × 10-5/yr(d)
4.4 × 10-6/yr(d)
Limerick 1, 2
8.9 × 10-5/yr
4.3 × 10-6/yr
3.2 × 10-6/yr
Nine Mile Point 2
1.1 × 10-4/yr
3.1 × 10-5/yr
5.8 × 10-5/yr(d)
Perry 1
2.4 × 10-5/yr
1.3 × 10-5/yr(d)
Not Available(e)
River Bend
9.5 × 10-5/yr
1.6 × 10-5/yr
2.8 × 10-6/yr
Susquehanna 1
2.4 × 10-5/yr
5.6 × 10-7/yr(d,f)
2.0 × 10-6/yr(d)
Susquehanna 2
2.4 × 10-5/yr
5.6 × 10-7/yr(d,f)
1.9 × 10-6/yr(d)
Columbia(g)
2.4 × 10-5/yr
1.8 × 10-5/yr(d)
7.4 × 10-6/yr(d)
Mean value
5.4 × 10-5/yr
1.5 × 10-5/yr
8.7 × 10-6/yr
Median value
2.4 × 10-5/yr
1.45 × 10-5/yr
3.1 × 10-6/yr
CDF = core damage frequency; IPE = Individual Plant Examination; LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative.
(a) Data were obtained by summing individual atmospheric release sequences, including intact containment
sequences, provided in the original (plant-specific) environment impact statement (EIS). Similar data for the other
operating nuclear plants are not available because their original EISs did not include an assessment of severe
accidents.
(b) Data were obtained from NRC 1997a, unless otherwise noted.
(c) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, unless otherwise noted.
(d) Internal events-initiated CDF value includes contribution from internal flooding events.
(e) A license renewal application and associated SAMA analysis has not been submitted for this plant.
(f) The IPE CDF was obtained from Appendix G of NRC 2009.
(g) Referred to as WNP-2 (Washington Nuclear Project 2) in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
Additional comparisons can be made of the estimated total population dose from severe
accidents initiated by internal events, which were estimated in both the 1996 LR GEIS for the
28 nuclear power plant sites that included severe accident analyses in their original
(plant-specific) EISs (referred to as the predicted or Expected Total Population Dose –
non-normalized) and in the license renewal SAMA analyses. These comparisons are shown in
Table E.3-4 and Table E.3-5 for the same PWR and BWR plants, respectively, included in
Table E.3-2 and Table E.3-3. The data in these tables show that the estimated PDRs in the
SAMA analyses are significantly less than the predicted or expected value estimates in the
1996 LR GEIS. Specifically, as shown in Table E.3-4 and Table E.3-5, the SAMA PDR is less
than the expected value of the PDR reported in the 1996 LR GEIS for all of the plants (both
PWRs and BWRs), and for most plants the SAMA PDR is substantially less. This is the case
even when considering the assumptions included in the SAMA analyses that would, in isolation,
increase the PDR relative to the estimates in the 1996 LR GEIS, such as increases in the
estimated population surrounding the plant sites, or increases in source terms due to planned or
approved power uprates.
The means of the SAMA PDR estimates listed in Table E.3-4 and Table E.3-5 are lower than
the corresponding mean of the 1996 LR GEIS expected value PDRs by more than a factor of
E-19
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
30 for PWRs (i.e., from Table E.3-4, 986 person-rem/RY for the 1996 LR GEIS mean population
dose divided by 31.3 person-rem/RY for the SAMA mean PDR) and just under a factor of 30 for
BWRs (i.e., from Table E.3-5, 577 person-rem/RY for the 1996 LR GEIS mean population dose
divided by 19.4 person-rem/RY for the SAMA Internal Event mean PDR), and ranges from a
factor of less than 2 (Braidwood 1, 2) to almost 600 (River Bend). Accordingly, the risk of severe
accidents that result in core damage and a subsequent offsite release of radioactive materials,
based on only the risk of severe accidents initiated by internal events, is significantly less for
both PWRs and BWRs than that used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS.
Table E.3-4
Pressurized Water Reactor Internal Event (Full Power) Population Dose
Risk Comparison
Nuclear Power Plant
Beaver Valley 2
Braidwood 1, 2
Byron 1, 2
Callaway 1
Catawba 1, 2
Comanche Peak 1, 2
Harris 1
Indian Point 2
Indian Point 3
Millstone 3
Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
San Onofre 2, 3
Seabrook 1
South Texas 1, 2
St. Lucie 2
Summer 1
Vogtle 1, 2
Waterford 3
Wolf Creek 1
Mean value
Median value
1996 LR GEIS Estimated Expected Total
Population Dose – Non-normalized
(person-rem/reactor-year)(a)
230
180
218
126
170
58
114
10,400
Same as Unit 2
1,000
67
380
105
250
78
130
310
69
99
986
175
SAMA PDR (personrem/reactor-year)(b)
55.8(c)
114(d)
35.5(d)
4.6
31.4(c)
16.0(e)
29.0(d)
87.4(d)
94.8(d)
12.8
13.6
Not Available(f)
37.8(g)
1.74(h)
14.0(d)
1.0
1.56(d)
17.1
3.27
31.3
16.0
LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; PDR = population dose
risk; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative.
(a) Data were obtained from NRC 1996.
(b) The SAMA PDR was obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, unless otherwise
noted.
(c) Includes the contribution from internal events, internal flooding events, and external events.
(d) Includes the contribution from internal events and internal flooding events.
(e) Data are from the severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) analysis included in NUREG-0775,
Supplement (NRC 1989a).
(f) The San Onofre plant was permanently shut down in 2012.
(g) Includes contribution from internal events, internal flooding events, and some external events.
(h) Includes contribution from internal events and external events.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-20
Appendix E
Table E.3-5
Boiling Water Reactor Internal Event (Full Power) Population Dose Risk
Comparison
Nuclear Power Plant
Clinton 1
Fermi 2
Grand Gulf 1
Hope Creek
Limerick 1, 2
Nine Mile Point 2
Perry 1
River Bend
Susquehanna 1, 2
Columbia(g)
Mean value
Median value
1996 LR GEIS Estimated Expected Total
Population Dose – Non-normalized
(person-rem/reactor-year)(a)
320
520
100
1,000
1,360
300
470
700
360
99
577
415
SAMA PDR
(person-rem/reactor-year)(b)
Not Available(c)
4.91(d)
0.61(d)
22.9(d)
28.2(e)
50.9(f)
Not Available(c)
1.21
1.9(d)
5.5
19.4
5.21
LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; PDR = population dose
risk; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative.
(a) Data were obtained from NRC 1996.
(b) The SAMA PDR was obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, unless otherwise
noted.
(c) A license renewal application and associated SAMA analysis has not been submitted for this plant.
(d) Includes the contribution from internal events and internal flooding events.
(e) Data are from the severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) analysis included in NUREG-0974,
Supplement (NRC 1989b), which was then linearly scaled by the ratio of the CDF reported in NUREG-1437
Supplement 49 (NRC 2014b).
(f) Includes the contribution from internal events, internal flooding events, and external events.
(g) Referred to as WNP-2 (Washington Nuclear Project 2) in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
To summarize, based on only the contribution to plant risk from internally initiated events, the
general contribution to decreased estimated dose risks are a factor of 4 to 6 lower due to the
conservatism in the 1996 LR GEIS estimated CDF values in comparison to license renewal
SAMA internal event CDF values. The total decrease in the plant site-specific calculated SAMA
PDR values compared to the 1996 LR GEIS-predicted value PDR estimates includes additional
conservatism that results in the calculated dose risks from the SAMA analyses being about a
factor of about 30 less than those from the 1996 LR GEIS.
E.3.1.2
Other Pathway Impacts
Any change in the likelihood of accidents that release substantial amounts of radioactive
material to the environment not only affects the airborne pathway but also the surface water and
groundwater pathways, and the resulting economic impacts from any pathway. The information
in Table E.3-2, Table E.3-3, Table E.3-4, and Table E.3-5 indicates that the likelihood and
impacts of airborne pathway releases are smaller than those used in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Because this pathway directly affects the surface water pathway, it is reasonable to conclude
that the likelihood of the surface pathway impacts would also be smaller and would continue to
be bounded by the airborne pathway. The decreased likelihood of any pathway impacts would
indicate the reduced likelihood of any subsequent economic impacts. This assumption is
consistent with the results of the 1996 LR GEIS.
E-21
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Furthermore, some information is available regarding basemat melt-through sequences, which
could affect the groundwater pathway:
• WASH-1400 (NRC 1975) used a frequency of 4 × 10-5/yr for basemat melt-through
sequences.
• NUREG-0773 (NRC 1982d) used a generic frequency of 3 × 10-5/yr and a plant-specific
frequency of 1.1 × 10-5/yr for Indian Point Units 2 and 3.
• NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990) calculated the basemat melt-through frequencies for the Surry and
Sequoyah plants to be 2.4 × 10-6/yr and 1 × 10-5/yr, respectively.
• A sample of IPE results showed basemat melt-through frequencies ranging from 1 × 10-6/yr to
4 × 10-6/yr.
• A sample of license renewal application results showed basemat melt-through frequencies
ranging from 2 × 10-7/yr to 6 × 10-6/yr.
For the 1996 LR GEIS, a conservative value of 1 × 10-4/yr was used (see Section 5.3.3.4 of the
1996 LR GEIS), which is higher than any of the values cited above. As such, it is concluded that
the basemat melt-through frequencies used in the 1996 LR GEIS to assess the groundwater
pathway are bounding.
Basemat melt-through sequences are low contributors to estimates of severe accident risk due
to their long-developing nature. In other words, they occur late in accident sequences due to the
time required for the melted core to penetrate the basemat, which is several feet thick. By the
time a melted core penetrates the basemat, it is anticipated that actions such as providing an
alternative water source in accordance with emergency procedures, along with accident
mitigation strategies, would mitigate the basemat melt-through sequences and result in a stable
configuration within the intact containment.
E.3.1.3
Conclusion
The PWR and BWR internal event accident frequencies that form the basis for the
environmental impacts shown in the 1996 LR GEIS are, on average, a factor of 4 for PWRs
higher and a factor of 6 for BWRs higher than the updated accident frequencies from the license
renewal SAMA analyses (i.e., plant-specific SEISs to NUREG-1437) shown in Table E.3-2 and
Table E.3-3. Furthermore, the internal event accident frequencies for these same plants have
further decreased as reported in recent risk-informed LARs to the NRC. In addition, the 1996
LR GEIS-predicted or expected PDR estimates presented in Table E.3-4 and Table E.3-5 are, in
all cases, higher than the updated PDRs from the license renewal SAMA analyses. On average,
the expected PDR estimates in the 1996 LR GEIS are about a factor of 30 higher for both
PWRs and BWRs relative to the estimates from the license renewal SAMA analyses. These
results demonstrate the conservatism in the 1996 LR GEIS values, both from the standpoint of
reduced PDR from more recent estimates and the conservatism built into the 1996 LR GEIS
methodology.
E.3.2
Impact of Accidents Initiated by External Events
The 1996 LR GEIS included a qualitative assessment of the environmental impacts of accidents
initiated by external events (see Section 5.3.3.1 of the 1996 LR GEIS). The purpose of this
section is to consider updated information regarding the contribution to CDF from accidents
initiated by external events and potential external event impacts. The sources of information
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-22
Appendix E
used in this assessment are the SAMA analyses provided by nuclear plant licensees in the
environmental reports provided with plant-specific license renewal applications and in the
plant-specific SEISs to NUREG-1437. Most of the license renewal SAMA analyses submitted
and reviewed by the NRC staff explicitly considered the impact of external events in the
assessment of SAMAs.
Typically, the external events that contribute the most to plant risk are seismic and fire events.
In some cases, high winds, floods, tornadoes, and other external hazards may also contribute to
plant risk; however, these contributions are generally, but not always, much lower than those
from seismic and fire events. Therefore, the assessment of the environmental impact from
external events provided here explicitly considers seismic and fire events, but also considers the
impact of other external events as applicable. This is consistent with the results obtained from
the license renewal SAMA analyses.
E.3.2.1
Airborne Pathway Impacts
The assessment in this section is based on the cumulative assessment of the risks and
environmental impacts of severe accidents initiated by external events and those initiated by
internal events, based on the aforementioned information sources. As with the previous section
that addressed updated information with regard to internal events risk, the evaluation contained
in this section compares the CDFs that formed the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS, and offsite
doses directly from the 1996 LR GEIS, to the newer license renewal SAMA information. The
comparison is done for PWRs and BWRs and covers each of the plants listed in Table 5.1 of the
1996 LR GEIS, and in Table E.3-2, Table E.3-3, Table E.3-4, and Table E.3-5.
Level 1 Comparison (CDF)
As was done in Section E.3.1 for internally initiated events, the first step in the evaluation is to
compare the internal events initiated CDFs considered in the 1996 LR GEIS for the 28 nuclear
power plant sites that included analyses in their original (plant-specific) EISs to the CDFs
reported in the license renewal SAMA analyses for the same PWRs and BWRs. For the
comparison in this section, the total plant CDF (referred to as the All Hazards CDF) is used from
the SAMA analyses, which is the summation of the CDFs for internally initiated events, including
internal flood events, and external events. For a small number of early SAMA analyses, the
contribution to CDF from external events was not explicitly provided for each hazard type but
rather was reported as being approximately the same as the CDF contribution from internal
events. In these cases, the internal events CDF was multiplied by 2 to obtain the All Hazards
CDF.16 As noted in Section E.3.1, the CDFs from the original plant EISs are for severe accidents
initiated by internal events. However, it was the NRC staff's judgment in these original EISs that
the additional risk of severe accidents initiated by natural events is within the uncertainty of risks
presented for the sequences considered.17 It is therefore appropriate to compare the All
Hazards CDF from the SAMA analyses with the CDFs from the original EISs. Table E.3-6 and
Table E.3-7 show these comparisons for the PWRs and BWRs, respectively.
16
This was the case for St. Lucie Unit 2 and Summer Unit 1 in Table E.3-6 and Limerick Units 1 and 2
and Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 in Table E.3-7.
17 See, for example, Section 5.9.4.5 of NUREG-0895, the FES related to the operation of Seabrook
Station Units 1 and 2 (NRC 1982a), and Section 5.9.4.1.4.2 of NUREG-0854, the FES related to the
operation of Clinton Power Station Unit 1 (NRC 1982c).
E-23
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
The data in these tables show that after accounting for the CDF contribution from all hazards,
the total plant CDFs are generally lower than the original estimates in the EISs, which only
considered internal events. Specifically, as can be seen in Table E.3-6 and Table E.3-7, the All
Hazards CDFs are smaller than those from the original EISs for over 50 percent of the PWR
units and all but one BWR unit. In the most sensitive case (Summer Unit 1), the All Hazards
CDF exceeds the original estimate in the EIS by a factor of about 2.2. In the positive direction,
the largest reduction in All Hazards CDF compared to the original estimate in the EIS for PWRs
occurred at Indian Point Units 2 and 3, where the reduction was over a factor of 4, and for
BWRs occurred at Limerick Units 1 and 2, where the reduction was over a factor of 10. The
mean of the All Hazards CDFs listed in Table E.3-6 and Table E.3-7 is lower than the
corresponding mean of the CDFs used in the 1996 LR GEIS, by 40 percent for PWRs and by
more than 60 percent for BWRs. Accordingly, the likelihood of an accident that leads to core
damage, including accounting for the contribution from external events, is generally less for both
PWRs and BWRs than the likelihood used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS, and all are
appreciably less than the highest estimated CDF used in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Table E.3-6
Pressurized Water Reactor All Hazards (Full Power) Core Damage
Frequency Comparison
Nuclear Power Plant
Beaver Valley 2
Braidwood 1, 2
Byron 1, 2
Callaway 1
Catawba 1, 2
Comanche Peak 1, 2
Harris 1
Indian Point 2
Indian Point 3
Millstone 3
Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
San Onofre 2, 3
Seabrook 1
South Texas 1, 2
St. Lucie 2
Summer 1
Vogtle 1, 2
Waterford 3
Wolf Creek 1
Mean value
Median value
1996 LR GEIS Estimated CDF(a)
1.0 × 10-4/yr
1.0 × 10-4/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
3.5 × 10-4/yr
3.4 × 10-4/yr
2.0 × 10-4/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.4 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.9 × 10-5/yr
1.0 × 10-4/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
8.4 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
SAMA All Hazards CDF(b)
2.4 × 10-5/yr
1.05 × 10-4/yr
1.0 × 10-4/yr
7.6 × 10-5/yr
5.9 × 10-5/yr
Not Available(c)
2.2 × 10-5/yr
6.7 × 10-5/yr
6.4 × 10-5/yr
4.1 × 10-5/yr
1.3 × 10-5/yr
Not Available(d)
2.5 × 10-5/yr
1.0 × 10-5/yr
4.9 × 10-5/yr
1.1 × 10-4/yr
2.6 × 10-5/yr
3.7 × 10-5/yr
5.8 × 10-5/yr
5.1 × 10-5/yr
4.5 × 10-5/yr
CDF = core damage frequency; LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants; PDR = population dose risk; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative.
(a) Data were obtained by summing individual atmospheric release sequences, including intact containment
sequences.
(b) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437. Where applicable, the SAMA
PDR was adjusted using the external events multiplier.
(c) The severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) analysis included in NUREG-0775, Supplement
(NRC 1989a) did not account for external events.
(d) The San Onofre plant was permanently shut down in 2012.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-24
Appendix E
Table E.3-7
Boiling Water Reactor All Hazards (Full Power) Core Damage Frequency
Comparison
Nuclear Power Plant
Clinton 1
Fermi 2
Grand Gulf 1
Hope Creek
Limerick 1, 2
Nine Mile Point 2
Perry 1
River Bend
Susquehanna 1, 2
Columbia(d)
Mean value
Median value
1996 LR GEIS Estimated CDF(a)
2.4 × 10-5/yr
2.4 × 10-5/yr
2.4 × 10-5/yr
1.0 × 10-4/yr
8.9 × 10-5/yr
1.1 × 10-4/yr
2.4 × 10-5/yr
9.5 × 10-5/yr
2.4 × 10-5/yr
2.4 × 10-5/yr
5.4 × 10-5/yr
2.4 × 10-5/yr
SAMA All Hazards CDF(b)
Not Available(c)
1.65 × 10-5/yr
2.2 × 10-5/yr
3.0 × 10-5/yr
6.4 × 10-6/yr
6.2 × 10-5/yr
Not Available(c)
1.9 × 10-5/yr
3.9 × 10-6/yr
3.4 × 10-5/yr
2.0 × 10-5/yr
1.8 × 10-5/yr
CDF = core damage frequency; LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative.
(a) Data were obtained by summing individual atmospheric release sequences, including intact containment
sequences.
(b) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, which was then adjusted, if
applicable, using the external events multiplier.
(c) A license renewal application and associated SAMA analysis has not been submitted for this plant.
(d) Referred to as WNP-2 (Washington Nuclear Project 2) in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
The above comparison of CDF estimates is between those used in the 1996 LR GEIS and those
provided in license renewal SAMA analyses. To further show the reduction in CDF estimates
over the last 20 to 30 years, Figure E.3-1 provides a comparison of CDF estimates provided in
SAMA analyses and risk-informed LAR submittals to CDF estimates provided in the IPE and
IPEEE submittals (NRC 2016a). This figure shows more than a factor of 2.5 reduction in the
mean of the total CDF estimates between the more recent estimates and the estimates
developed for the IPE and IPEEE submittals (the estimates include the contribution from
internally initiated events and external events).
Figure E.3-1 Comparison of Recent and Past Estimates for Total Core Damage
Frequency. Source: NRC 2016a.
E-25
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Level 3 Comparison (Offsite Consequences)
Additional comparisons can be made for the estimated total PDR from severe accidents initiated
by internal events and external events, as estimated in the license renewal SAMA analyses,
with the estimated total PDR from severe accidents initiated by only internal events, as
estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS. For this comparison, the 95 percent UCB PDR estimates from
the 1996 LR GEIS are used. The estimated total PDR from the SAMA analyses, in some cases,
included the contribution from both internal events and external events directly. For most of the
SAMA analyses, however, the PDR estimates reported in the plant-specific SEISs to the
LR GEIS were estimated based on the contribution from internal events and internal flooding
events only. In these cases, the impact of external events was addressed in the license renewal
SAMA analyses by multiplying the plant-specific environmental impacts, which include the
estimated PDR in addition to other impacts, by an external events multiplier. The external
events multiplier is the ratio of the All Hazards CDF to the internal events CDF, including
internal flooding CDF.18 This approach to addressing external events in the license renewal
SAMA analyses is in accordance with the guidance contained in NEI 05-01, Revision A
(NEI 2005), which is endorsed by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1
(NRC 2013d). Given the existing information about the contribution to risk from external events,
the approach described in NEI 05-01 continues to be a reasonable approach to addressing the
external event risk contribution.
The comparisons are shown in Table E.3-8 and Table E.3-9 for the same PWR and BWR plants
included in Table E.3-6 and Table E.3-7, respectively, and assessed in the 1996 LR GEIS. The
data in these tables show that the estimated PDR in the SAMA analyses, accounting for the risk
from all hazards, is significantly less than the 95 percent UCB estimates in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Specifically, as shown in Table E.3-8 and Table E.3-9, the SAMA analyses are more than a
factor of 10 less than the corresponding 95 percent UCB estimates for all but one PWR plant
(Waterford 3, which is almost a factor of 8 less) and for all but one BWR plant (Limerick, which
is a factor of 7 less). For BWRs, excluding the Limerick plant, the All Hazards PDR from the
SAMA analyses is more than a factor of 20 less than the corresponding 95 percent UCB
estimates for all but one plant (Nine Mile Point 2, which is just under a factor of 20 less). As
discussed previously, the PDR estimate for the Limerick plant is from the 1989 SAMDA analysis
performed for the original EIS, so it does not reflect updated risk information considered in the
license renewal SAMA analyses. Furthermore, the mean All Hazards PDR from the SAMA
analyses is substantially less than the 95 percent UCB PDR reported in the original GEIS for all
of the plants (both PWRs and BWRs). The means of the All Hazards PDR estimates listed in
Table E.3-8 and Table E.3-9 are lower than the corresponding 95 percent UCB 1996 LR GEIS
PDR by more than a factor of 20 for PWRs and more than a factor of 17 for BWRs. For BWRs,
the reduction factor is over 70 if the PDR estimate for the Limerick plant is not included.
18
For some SAMA analyses, the internal events CDF did not include the contribution from internal
flooding events. In these cases, the contribution to CDF from internal flooding events was included in the
determination of the external events multiplier.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-26
Appendix E
Table E.3-8
Pressurized Water Reactor All Hazards (Full Power) Population Dose Risk
Comparison
Nuclear Power Plant
Beaver Valley 2
Braidwood 1, 2
Byron 1, 2
Callaway 1
Catawba 1, 2
Comanche Peak 1, 2
Harris 1
Indian Point 2
Indian Point 3
Millstone 3
Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
San Onofre 2, 3
Seabrook 1
South Texas 1, 2
St. Lucie 2
Summer 1
Vogtle 1, 2
Waterford 3
Wolf Creek 1
Mean value
Median value
1996 LR GEIS Estimated Predicted Total
Population Dose – Non-normalized 95%
UCB (person-rem/reactor-year)(a)
1,720
4,418
2,867
509
1,880
466
1,001
9,727
9,727
3,988
369
3,099
819
1,063
2,724
1,381
983
477
466
2,294
1,222
SAMA All Hazards PDR
(person-rem/reactor-year)(b)
55.8
342
92.3
21.0
31.4
16.0(c)
58.0
332
521
20.5
34.0
Not Available(d)
79.4
1.74
28.0
2.0
3.1
61.0
6.5
89.8
34.0
LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; PDR = population dose
risk; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative; UCB = upper confidence bound.
(a) Data were obtained from NRC 1996.
(b) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437 and multiplied by the external
events multiplier from the same plant-specific SEIS to NUREG-1437, if applicable.
(c) The severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) analysis included in NUREG-0775, Supplement
(NRC 1989a) did not account for external events.
(d) The San Onofre plant was permanently shut down in 2012.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
E-27
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Table E.3-9
Boiling Water Reactors All Hazards (Full Power) Population Dose Risk
Comparison
Nuclear Power Plant
Clinton 1
Fermi 2
Grand Gulf 1
Hope Creek
Limerick 1, 2
Nine Mile Point 2
Perry 1
River Bend
Susquehanna 1, 2
Columbia(e)
Mean value
Median value
1996 LR GEIS Estimated Predicted Total
Population Dose – Non-normalized 95%
UCB (person-rem/reactor-year)(a)
2,549
2,722
1,441
3,604
4,461
996
2,544
1,168
4,010
649
2,718
2,636
SAMA All Hazards PDR
(person-rem/reactor-year)(b)
Not Available(c)
54.0
6.7
156
48.6(d)
50.9
Not Available(c)
8.5
3.8
25.9
41.0
37.3
LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; PDR = population dose
risk; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative; UCB = upper confidence bound.
(a) Data were obtained from NRC 1996.
(b) Data were obtained from the SAMA PDR reported in Section E.3.1 and multiplied by the external events
multiplier from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437.
(c) A license renewal application and associated SAMA analysis has not been submitted for this plant.
(d) Data were obtained from the severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) analysis included in
NUREG-0974 Supplement (NRC 1989b), which was then linearly scaled by the ratio of the CDF reported in
NUREG-1437 Supplement 49 (NRC 2014b).
(e) Referred to as WNP-2 (Washington Nuclear Project 2) in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
Accordingly, based on the license renewal SAMA analyses, the risk of severe accidents that
result in core damage and a subsequent offsite release of radioactive materials, considering
accidents initiated by all hazards, is significantly less for both PWRs and BWRs than that used
as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS.
Fire Events
Since publication of the 1996 LR GEIS, the NRC and nuclear industry collaborated to develop
updated PRA standards and guidance (methods, tools, and data) for the development of quality
fire probabilistic risk assessment (FPRA) models. The updated guidance was published as
NUREG/CR-6850 and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Report 1011989,
EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities (EPRI/NRC 2005a,
EPRI/NRC 2005b), and has subsequently been enhanced by numerous additional reports about
specific FPRA and fire modeling topics. The documented methods are intended to support
applications of FPRA in risk-informed regulatory applications. Subsequently, FPRAs have been
developed for most nuclear power plants using these updated guidance documents.
Furthermore, to be used in risk-informed regulatory activities, these FPRAs must be shown to
be acceptable to the NRC. Regulatory Guide 1.200, Rev. 3 (NRC 2020a), describes one
approach acceptable to the NRC staff for demonstrating the acceptability of PRA models for
risk-informed activities.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-28
Appendix E
In recent years, many nuclear plant licensees have submitted to the NRC risk-informed LARs
for their plants, in which risk results and risk insights from FPRAs have been included. In
addition, since about 2010, many of the SAMA analyses for license renewal applications have
included risk results and insights from their newly developed FPRAs. Table E.3-10 provides the
plant-specific fire core damage frequencies (FCDFs) obtained from FPRAs summarized in
various risk-informed LARs. Results are provided for about three-fourths of the current nuclear
reactor operating fleet. Each of the FPRAs for which FCDFs are reported in this table were
determined to be technically acceptable by the NRC for specific risk-informed LARs in
accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.200 (NRC 2020a). Probabilistic health consequences,
such as PDR, are not available because this information is not used in the NRC staff
assessment of risk-informed LARs. Table E.3-10 also compares these FCDFs to those used in
the license renewal SAMA analyses, where available. The results in Table E.3-10 show that the
FCDF values are higher for the FPRAs than in the corresponding license renewal SAMA
analyses for about 80 percent of the plants for which both values are available. The results also
show that, on average, the FCDF values from the plant-specific FPRAs are about a factor of
2.5 higher than the FCDF values used in the license renewal SAMA analyses. However, given
the significant margin between the cumulative PDR results from the license renewal SAMA
analyses and the cumulative 95th percentile UCB PDR results from the 1996 LR GEIS, as
reported in Table E.3-1, the updated FCDFs do not challenge the 95th percentile estimates
used in the 1996 LR GEIS (even if a factor of 2.5 increase in FCDF were uniformly applied to all
of the nuclear power units).
Table E.3-10 Fire (Full Power) Core Damage Frequency Comparison
Nuclear Power Plant
Arkansas 1
Arkansas 2
Beaver Valley 1
Beaver Valley 2
Braidwood 1
Braidwood 2
Browns Ferry 1
Browns Ferry 2
Browns Ferry 3
Brunswick 1
Brunswick 2
Byron 1
Byron 2
Callaway 1
Calvert Cliffs 1
Calvert Cliffs 2
Catawba 1
Catawba 2
Clinton 1
Columbia(d)
Comanche Peak 1
Comanche Peak 2
D.C. Cook 1
SAMA FCDF(a)
Not Estimated(c)
2.8 × 10-5/yr
4.0 × 10-6/yr
4.8 × 10-6/yr
5.9 × 10-5/yr
5.9 × 10-5/yr
Not Estimated(c)
Not Estimated(c)
Not Estimated(c)
3.6 × 10-5/yr
3.6 × 10-5/yr
5.4 × 10-5/yr
5.4 × 10-5/yr
2.0 × 10-5/yr
7.3 × 10-5/yr
7.3 × 10-5/yr
1.2 × 10-6/yr
1.2 × 10-6/yr
No SAMA Available
1.4 × 10-5/yr
Not Estimated(e)
Not Estimated(e)
3.8 × 10-6/yr
E-29
FPRA FCDF(b)
3.7 × 10-5/yr
4.4 × 10-5/yr
4.6 × 10-5/yr
5.9 × 10-5/yr
5.5 × 10-5/yr
6.6 × 10-5/yr
2.8 × 10-5/yr
3.2 × 10-5/yr
2.7 × 10-5/yr
3.2 × 10-5/yr
4.0 × 10-5/yr
5.6 × 10-5/yr
6.1 × 10-5/yr
1.2 × 10-5/yr
4.2 × 10-5/yr
4.0 × 10-5/yr
2.4 × 10-5/yr
2.5 × 10-5/yr
7.8 × 10-5/yr
4.1 × 10-5/yr
5.6 × 10-5/yr
4.3 × 10-5/yr
3.1 × 10-5/yr
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Nuclear Power Plant
D.C. Cook 2
Diablo Canyon 1
Diablo Canyon 2
Davis-Besse
Farley 1, 2
FitzPatrick
Ginna
Harris 1
Hatch 1
Hatch 2
Hope Creek
LaSalle 1
LaSalle 2
Limerick 1, 2
McGuire 1
McGuire 2
Monticello
Nine Mile Point 1
Nine Mile Point 2
Oconee 1, 2
Oconee 3
Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
Peach Bottom 2
Peach Bottom 3
Point Beach 1
Point Beach 2
Prairie Island 1, 2
Robinson 2
Sequoyah 1
Sequoyah 2
St. Lucie 1
St. Lucie 2
Summer 1
Susquehanna 1
Susquehanna 2
Turkey Point 3
Turkey Point 4
Vogtle 1, 2
Waterford 3
Mean value
Median value
SAMA FCDF(a)
3.8 × 10-6/yr
5.4 × 10-5/yr(f)
5.4 × 10-5/yr(f)
2.9 × 10-5/yr
5.0 × 10-5/yr
8.5 × 10-6/yr
1.1 × 10-5/yr
1.1 × 10-5/yr
Not Estimated(c)
Not Estimated(c)
1.7 × 10-5/yr
8.9 × 10-6/yr
9.4 × 10-6/yr
Not Reported(g)
2.9 × 10-6/yr
2.9 × 10-6/yr
7.8 × 10-6/yr
1.3 × 10-5/yr
3.7 × 10-6/yr
4.5 × 10-6/yr
4.5 × 10-6/yr
2.7 × 10-6/yr
Not Estimated(c)
Not Estimated(c)
1.2 × 10-5/yr
1.2 × 10-5/yr
1.0 × 10-5/yr
Not Estimated(c)
5.8 × 10-6/yr
5.8 × 10-6/yr
Not Estimated(c)
Not Estimated(c)
Not Estimated(c)
2.0 × 10-6/yr
2.0 × 10-6/yr
Not Estimated(c)
Not Estimated(c)
1.0 × 10-5/yr
1.8 × 10-5/yr
1.8 × 10-5/yr
9.4 × 10-5/yr
FPRA FCDF(b)
2.6 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
5.2 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
7.7 × 10-5/yr
1.9 × 10-5/yr
3.8 × 10-5/yr
3.2 × 10-5/yr
5.7 × 10-5/yr
5.0 × 10-5/yr
3.7 × 10-5/yr
1.0 × 10-5/yr
7.8 × 10-6/yr
5.2 × 10-6/yr
2.8 × 10-5/yr
3.3 × 10-5/yr
5.8 × 10-5/yr
3.4 × 10-5/yr
3.1 × 10-5/yr
6.0 × 10-5/yr
6.1 × 10-5/yr
4.9 × 10-5/yr
2.8 × 10-5/yr
4.0 × 10-5/yr
5.9 × 10-5/yr
6.9 × 10-5/yr
6.6 × 10-5/yr
4.6 × 10-5/yr
6.2 × 10-5/yr
6.6 × 10-5/yr
4.2 × 10-5/yr
3.6 × 10-5/yr
5.1 × 10-5/yr
5.0 × 10-5/yr
6.3 × 10-5/yr
8.7 × 10-5/yr
7.7 × 10-5/yr
5.2 × 10-5/yr
2.0 × 10-5/yr
4.5 × 10-5/yr
4.6 × 10-5/yr
FCDF = fire core damage frequency; FPRA = fire probabilistic risk assessment; SAMA = severe accident mitigation
alternative.
(a) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, unless otherwise noted.
(b) Data were obtained from risk-informed license amendment requests.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-30
Appendix E
(c) The FCDF was not provided but was considered to be included within the scope of the external events multiplier
(if applicable).
(d) Referred to as WNP-2 (Washington Nuclear Project 2) in the 1996 LR GEIS.
(e) The FCDF was not provided in the severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) analysis in
NUREG-0775, Supplement (NRC 1989a).
(f) Data were from a license renewal application that was later withdrawn.
(g) The FCDF was not separately reported in the NUREG-0974, Supplement (NRC 1989b), but was included in the
total CDF of 4.2 × 10-5/yr that included internal events, internal flooding, and fire.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
In February 2002, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the NRC issued Order
EA-02-026, “Order for Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures” (NRC 2002b),
which modified current operating licenses for commercial power reactor facilities to require
compliance with specified interim safeguards and security compensatory measures. The Order
required licensees to adopt mitigation strategies using readily available resources to maintain or
restore core cooling, containment, and SFP cooling capabilities to cope with the loss of large
areas of the facility due to large fires and explosions from any cause, including from both
design-basis and beyond-design-basis events. By August 2007, all operating power reactor
licensees had implemented the guidance via commitments and in new conditions of their
operating licenses. By December 2008, the NRC staff had completed licensing reviews and
onsite inspections to verify implementation of the licensee actions as documented by NRC staff
in “The Evolution of Mitigating Measures For Large Fire and Explosions” (NRC 2010c).19
Additionally, licensees for more than 40 percent of currently operating nuclear power plants
submitted LARs to transition the plant-specific fire protection programs from 10 CFR Sections
50.48(a) and (b) to 10 CFR 50.48(c), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 805,
Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Electric Generating
Plants, 2001 Edition. In addition to developing FPRAs that were necessary to support this
transition, which are all represented in Table E.3-10, many of these licensees committed to
making plant modifications to reduce the risk of fires. Based on statements made in subsequent
risk-informed LARs, most of these committed plant modifications have been implemented.
When considered in isolation, based on the large margin between the PDR estimates from the
SAMA analyses compared to the estimates in the 1996 LR GEIS reported in Table E.3-1, the
updated FCDFs reported in Table E.3-10 do not challenge the 95th percentile UCB for
population dose estimates used in the 1996 LR GEIS. For this reason, and because of the fire
mitigation and plant modifications that have been made to reduce fire risk and to cope with the
loss of large areas of the plant due to large fires and explosions that may not be modeled in
PRAs, the NRC staff concludes that the new information from the FPRAs is not significant for
the purposes of the LR GEIS.
19
Portions of NRC Order EA-02-026 have been rescinded because those requirements were
subsequently incorporated into NRC regulations by the 2009 Final Rule on Power Reactor Security
Requirements (79 FR 13926).
E-31
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Seismic Events
As previously discussed in Section E.2.1, in response to the March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku
Earthquake and subsequent tsunami that initiated severe reactor accidents at three units of the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant that resulted in major fuel melting, the NRC issued
information requests under 10 CFR 50.54(f) (NRC 2012d). With respect to seismic design,
licensees were requested to reevaluate the seismic hazards at their sites relative to present-day
NRC requirements and guidance (NRC 2012d).
As further background, prior to the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, the results of NRC staff
analyses had determined that the probability of exceeding the safe shutdown earthquake at
some currently operating sites in the Central and Eastern United States is higher than
previously understood and that, therefore, further study was warranted. As a result, it was
concluded that the issue of increased seismic hazard estimates in the Central and Eastern
United States should be examined under the NRC’s Generic Issues Program (GIP).
GI-199 was established on June 9, 2005 (NRC 2005a). The initial screening analysis for GI-199
suggested that estimates of the seismic hazard for some currently operating plants in the
Central and Eastern United States have increased. The NRC staff completed the initial
screening analysis of GI-199 and concluded that GI-199 should proceed to the safety/risk
assessment stage of the GIP. For the GI-199 safety/risk assessment, the NRC staff
evaluated the potential risk significance of the updated seismic hazards on seismic core
damage frequency (SCDF) estimates. The changes in the SCDF estimate in the safety/risk
assessment for some plants lie in the range of 10-4 per year to 10-5 per year, which met the
numerical risk criterion for an issue to continue to the regulatory assessment stage of the GIP.
After the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, resolution of GI-199 was subsumed into NTTF
Recommendation 2.1, which pertained to reassessing seismic hazard.
To implement NTTF Recommendation 2.1, the NRC staff used the general process developed
for GI-199. This process asked each licensee to provide information about the current hazard
and potential risk posed by seismic events using a progressive screening approach. This
screening approach is defined in EPRI Report 1025287 (EPRI 2012), which is endorsed by the
NRC (2013c). In the first phase of this screening approach, a seismic hazard reevaluation was
performed for each nuclear power plant site, which included development of new plant-specific
seismic hazard curves using up-to-date models representing seismic sources, ground motion
equations, and site amplification. For screening purposes, a Ground Motion Response
Spectrum (GMRS) was developed, which provides an estimate of the structural response of the
plant structures (the magnitude of building shaking or movement) to ground motion caused by
plant-specific postulated earthquakes. The GMRS estimate was then compared to the plant
design-basis safe shutdown earthquake. If the amount by which the GMRS exceeds the safe
shutdown earthquake in the 1 to 10 hertz20 frequency range of the response spectrum and/or
peak spectral acceleration was considered significant by the NRC staff, then performance of a
detailed seismic risk evaluation was necessary. Furthermore, if these considerations were
determined to not be significant, additional consideration was given to a general estimate of the
plant’s SCDF and on insights related to the conditional containment failure probability for the
plant’s specific type of containment. If either of these considerations was considered significant
by the NRC staff, then performance of a detailed seismic risk evaluation was necessary. Based
on the licensee seismic hazard reevaluation submittals provided in response to NTTF
20
This response spectrum frequency range has the greatest potential effect on the performance of
equipment and structures important to safety.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-32
Appendix E
Recommendation 2.1 that addressed each of these considerations, the NRC issued a final
determination of which nuclear power plants were required to perform a full power seismic PRA
(NRC 2015b).21
Table E.3-11 provides the updated plant-specific SCDFs obtained predominantly from these
Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessments (SPRAs). Each of the SPRAs reported in this table
have been independently peer reviewed in accordance with NRC guidance (see, for example,
NRC 2020a). Probabilistic health consequences, such as PDR, are not available because this
information was not requested in the response to NTTF Recommendation 2.1. Table E.3-11
also compares these updated SCDFs to those used in the license renewal SAMA analyses
where available. The results in Table E.3-11 show that the SCDF values are higher for the
SPRAs than in the corresponding license renewal SAMA analyses for about two-thirds of the
plants for which both values are available. The results also show that, on average, the SCDF
values from the plant-specific SPRAs are about 70 percent higher than the SCDF values used
in the license renewal SAMA analyses. Because these SPRA results are representative of just
one-third of the reactor fleet, and specifically those that were determined by the NRC staff to
have reevaluated seismic hazards that are potentially risk-significant, these results are
inconclusive for the remaining two-thirds of the current operating reactor fleet. Given the
significant margin between the cumulative PDR results from the license renewal SAMA
analyses and the cumulative 95th percentile UCB PDR results from the 1996 LR GEIS, as
discussed in Section E.3, the reevaluated SCDFs do not challenge the 95th percentile estimates
used in the 1996 LR GEIS (even if a 70 percent increase in SCDF were uniformly applied to all
of the nuclear power units).
Table E.3-11 Seismic (Full Power) Core Damage Frequency Comparison
Nuclear Power Plant
Beaver Valley 1
Beaver Valley 2
Browns Ferry 1
Browns Ferry 2
Browns Ferry 3
Callaway 1
Columbia(c)
D.C. Cook 1, 2
Diablo Canyon 1, 2
Dresden 2
Dresden 3
Hatch 1
Hatch 2
North Anna 1, 2
Oconee 1, 2, 3
Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
Peach Bottom 2, 3
SAMA SCDF(a)
SPRA Mean SCDF(b)
1.2 × 10-5/yr
9.7 × 10-6/yr
2.5 × 10-6/yr
2.5 × 10-6/yr
2.5 × 10-6/yr
5.0 × 10-6/yr
4.9 × 10-6/yr
3.2 × 10-6/yr
1.3 × 10-5/yr
Not Estimated(d)
Not Estimated(d)
Not Estimated(d)
Not Estimated(d)
Not Estimated(d)
3.9 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-6/yr
Not Estimated(d)
1.3 × 10-5/yr
8.8 × 10-6/yr
1.5 × 10-5/yr
1.6 × 10-5/yr
1.7 × 10-5/yr
7.3 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
5.5 × 10-5/yr
2.8 × 10-5/yr
8.8 × 10-6/yr
8.7 × 10-6/yr
6.8 × 10-7/yr(e)
5.6 × 10-7/yr(e)
6.3 × 10-5/yr
5.7 × 10-5/yr
1.7 × 10-5/yr(f)
2.1 × 10-5/yr
21
Several plants (i.e., Catawba Units 1 and 2, Indian Point Units 2 and 3, McGuire Units 1 and 2,
Palisades, and Pilgrim) were subsequently removed from the list requiring SPRAs, because either the
plant has permanently ceased operation or the licensee provided additional information that resulted in a
revised determination by the NRC staff that a detailed seismic risk assessment was not necessary.
E-33
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Nuclear Power Plant
Robinson 2
Sequoyah 1
Sequoyah 2
Summer 1
Vogtle 1, 2
Watts Bar 1
Watts Bar 2
Mean value
Median value
SAMA SCDF(a)
Not Estimated(d)
5.1 × 10-5/yr
5.1 × 10-5/yr
Not Estimated(d)
Not Estimated(d)
Not Estimated(d)
1.8 × 10-5/yr(g)
1.7 × 10-5/yr
7.35 × 10-5/yr
SPRA Mean SCDF(b)
1.3 × 10-4/yr
1.3 × 10-5/yr
1.5 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
3.6 × 10-6/yr
3.1 × 10-6/yr
3.1 × 10-6/yr
3.0 × 10-5/yr
1.7 × 10-5/yr
SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative; SCDF = seismic core damage frequency; SPRA = seismic
probabilistic risk assessment.
(a) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, unless otherwise noted.
(b) Data were obtained from the applicable licensee-submitted seismic PRA report and NRC staff evaluation, unless
otherwise noted.
(c) Referred to as WNP-2 (Washington Nuclear Project 2) in the 1996 LR GEIS.
(d) The seismic CDF was not provided but was considered to be included within the scope of the external events
multiplier (if applicable).
(e) Data were obtained from the license amendment request (SN 2021).
(f) Data were obtained from the license amendment request (APS 2018).
(g) Data were obtained from the severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) analysis included in
NUREG-0498, Supplement 2 (NRC 2013a).
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
In March 2012, after the severe reactor accidents at three units of the Fukushima Dai-ichi
nuclear power plant, the NRC issued Order EA-12-049, “Order Modifying Licenses with
Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design Basis External Events”
(NRC 2012b). The Order was effective immediately and directed all nuclear power plants to
provide diverse and flexible coping strategies (FLEX) to enhance their ability to mitigate
conditions resulting from beyond-design-basis external events. The Final Integrated Plans for
each nuclear power plant developed in response to the Order provide strategies for
maintaining or restoring core cooling, containment cooling, and SFP cooling capabilities for a
beyond-design-basis external event. The FLEX strategies and equipment, when coupled with
plant procedures, can also provide a safety benefit, or additional mitigation capability, for certain
design-basis events. The NRC completed the rulemaking, 10 CFR 50.155, “Mitigation of
Beyond-Design-Basis Events,” that made generically applicable the requirements of Orders
EA-12-049 and EA-12-051.
Based on its review of each of the SPRA reports submitted in response to NTTF
Recommendation 2.1, the NRC staff determined in each case that no further response or
regulatory actions, including the need for additional strategies to mitigate seismic events, were
necessary with regard to seismic risk.
When considered in isolation, based on the large margin between the PDR estimates from the
SAMA analyses compared to the estimates in the 1996 LR GEIS reported in Table E.3-1, the
updated SCDFs do not challenge the 95th percentile UCB for population dose estimates used in
the 1996 LR GEIS. For this reason, and because of the plant modifications that have been
made to reduce seismic risk, the NRC staff concludes that the new information from the SPRAs
is not significant for the purposes of the LR GEIS.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-34
Appendix E
The recent SOARCA studies (published 2012–2022) add to the NRC staff’s updated
understanding of the consequences that may result from seismic initiators. SOARCA did no new
work on quantifying CDFs. But SOARCA did analyze the conditional consequences; in other
words, it modeled the consequences if a challenging seismic initiating event were to occur.
SOARCA analyzed three plants, each representing one of the most common types of operating
U.S. nuclear plants: Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania, Surry Power Station
in Virginia, and Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant in Tennessee. Peach Bottom is a General
Electric-designed BWR with a Mark I containment, Surry is a Westinghouse-designed PWR with
a large dry containment, and Sequoyah is a Westinghouse-designed PWR with an ice
condenser containment. For Peach Bottom, Surry, and Sequoyah, the team modeled loss of all
alternating current electrical power or “station blackout (SBO)” scenarios caused by
earthquakes more severe than anticipated in the plant’s design—in other words, beyond-design
basis earthquakes. The SOARCA reports present results of an earthquake and SBO in terms of
radiological releases, which are discussed further and summarized in Section E.3.3, and in
terms of individual latent cancer fatality (LCF) risk and early (or prompt) fatality risk, as
summarized in Section E.3.9.
Integrated Assessment of New Information on All Hazards
The new information about internal events and external events CDFs discussed above from
the license renewal SAMA analyses, risk-informed LARs, and in responses to NTTF
Recommendation 2.1 about seismic risk are integrated in this section to develop the current,
best available information about total All Hazards CDFs for comparison to the 1996 LR GEIS
internal events CDFs and the license renewal SAMA total All Hazards CDFs. This comparison is
made for the PWRs and BWRs evaluated in the 1996 LR GEIS that have CDFs and also having
updated CDF information for all hazards. For the plants for which a SPRA is not available, the
risk-informed LARs report a bounding estimate of the SCDF that is based on the updated
seismic hazard, or GMRS, and a plant-level seismic fragility that is generally obtained from
the plant-specific IPEEE. Because risk-informed LARs and the responses to NTTF
Recommendation 2.1 about seismic risk do not report PDR, the comparison in this section is
limited to CDFs, which is an important parameter used in the development of PDR.
The total All Hazards CDF from the LARs is provided in Table E.3-12, as are the internal events
CDF from the 1996 LR GEIS and the All Hazards CDF from the license renewal SAMA
analyses. The mean of the SAMA All Hazards CDFs listed in Table E.3-12 is less than the
corresponding mean of the EIS CDFs by about 30 percent, while the mean of the LAR All
Hazards CDFs is essentially the same as the mean of the EIS CDFs. Furthermore, the mean of
the LAR All Hazards CDFs is about 35 percent greater than the mean of the SAMA All Hazards
CDFs. These are relatively small differences that do not affect the conclusions of the
1996 LR GEIS. Specifically, as discussed previously in Section E.3, on average, the SAMA All
Hazards PDR is over a factor of 120 less than the mean of the 95th percentile UCB for
population dose estimates reported in the 1996 LR GEIS. Further, in accordance with NEI 05-01
(NEI 2005), which is endorsed by the NRC (NRC 2013d), the impact of external events was
addressed in the license renewal SAMA analyses either directly or by multiplying the
plant-specific environmental impacts, which includes the estimated PDR in addition to other
impacts, by an external events multiplier, which is the ratio of the All Hazards CDF to the
internal events CDF. The approach described in NEI 05-01 continues to be a reasonable
approach to addressing the external event risk contribution. Based on this, an average
35 percent increase in the All Hazards CDFs reported in the risk-informed LARs will not
challenge the 95th percentile UCB for population dose estimates used in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Furthermore, because of the plant modifications that have been made to reduce fire and seismic
E-35
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
risk and to cope with the loss of large areas of the plant due to large fires and explosions, the
NRC staff concludes that the new information from the FPRAs, SPRAs, and risk-informed LARs
is not significant for the purposes of this LR GEIS.
Table E.3-12 Pressurized Water Reactor and Boiling Water Reactor All Hazards (Full
Power) Core Damage Frequency Comparison
Nuclear Power
Plant
Beaver Valley 2
Braidwood 1
Braidwood 2
Byron 1
Byron 2
Callaway 1
Catawba 1
Catawba 2
Clinton
Columbia(d)
Comanche Peak 1
Comanche Peak 2
Harris 1
Hope Creek
Limerick 1, 2
Nine Mile Point 2
Palo Verde 1, 2, 3
St. Lucie 2
Summer 1
Susquehanna 1
Susquehanna 2
Vogtle 1, 2
Waterford 3
Mean value
Median value
1996 LR GEIS Estimated
CDF(a)
1.0 × 10-4/yr
1.0 × 10-4/yr
Same as Unit 1
4.8 × 10-5/yr
Same as Unit 1
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
Same as Unit 1
2.4 × 10-5/yr
2.4 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
Same as Unit 1
4.8 × 10-5/yr
1.0 × 10-4/yr
8.9 × 10-5/yr
1.1 × 10-4/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
4.9 × 10-5/yr
2.4 × 10-5/yr
Same as Unit 1
1.0 × 10-4/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
6.1 × 10-5/yr
4.8 × 10-5/yr
SAMA All Hazards
CDF(b)
2.4 × 10-5/yr
1.1 × 10-4/yr
1.1 × 10-4/yr
1.0 × 10-4/yr
1.0 × 10-4/yr
7.6 × 10-5/yr
5.9 × 10-5/yr
5.9 × 10-5/yr
Not Available(e)
9.6 × 10-6/yr
Not Available(f)
Not Available(f)
2.2 × 10-5/yr
3.0 × 10-5/yr
6.4 × 10-6/yr
6.2 × 10-5/yr
1.3 × 10-5/yr
4.9 × 10-5/yr
1.1 × 10-4/yr
3.9 × 10-6/yr
3.9 × 10-6/yr
2.6 × 10-5/yr
3.7 × 10-5/yr
4.4 × 10-5/yr
2.8 × 10-5/yr
LAR All Hazards
CDF(c)
7.8 × 10-5/yr
7.1 × 10-5/yr
8.2 × 10-5/yr
7.5 × 10-5/yr
8.0 × 10-5/yr
8.3 × 10-5/yr
6.3 × 10-5/yr
5.9 × 10-5/yr
8.8 × 10-5/yr
6.0 × 10-5/yr
6.3 × 10-5/yr
5.0 × 10-5/yr
3.9 × 10-5/yr
4.3 × 10-5/yr
1.2 × 10-5/yr
3.3 × 10-5/yr
7.2 × 10-5/yr
4.1 × 10-5/yr
8.9 × 10-5/yr
5.4 × 10-5/yr
6.6 × 10-5/yr
7.8 × 10-5/yr
2.8 × 10-5/yr
6.1 × 10-5/yr
6.6 × 10-5/yr
CDF = core damage frequency; EIS = environmental impact statement; LAR = license amendment request;
LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; SAMA = severe
accident mitigation alternative.
(a) Data were estimated by summing individual atmospheric release sequences, including intact containment
sequences.
(b) Data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437.
(c) Data were obtained from the applicable risk-informed LAR.
(d) Referred to as WNP-2 (Washington Nuclear Project 2) in the 1996 LR GEIS.
(e) A license renewal application and associated SAMA analysis has not been submitted for this plant.
(f) The severe accident mitigation design alternative (SAMDA) analysis included in NUREG-0775, Supplement
(NRC 1989a) did not account for external events.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-36
Appendix E
E.3.2.2
Other Pathway Impacts
With respect to the other pathways (open bodies of water and groundwater), the IPEEE,
NUREG-1150, NUREG/CR-5305, and later analysis (e.g., SOARCA) did not address their
impacts on human health. The 1996 LR GEIS estimated these impacts for reactor accidents
from full power (internal events only) using the results from plant-specific site information about
surface water and groundwater areas, volumes, flow rates, and geology to assess
contamination of water by comparing the plant-specific site characteristics information to that
used in NUREG-0440 (NRC 1978), which assessed the contamination of surface water and
groundwater from reactor accidents.
With the airborne pathway impacts from external events being less than or similar to the internal
event airborne pathway impacts in the 1996 LR GEIS, it is reasonable to conclude that the
probability-weighted impact of accidents caused by external events on surface water and
groundwater contamination would also be much less than the impacts contained in the
1996 LR GEIS. Because of the longer time before the population is exposed and the effects of
the interdiction of contaminated food, only latent cancer fatalities are expected to result from
these pathways. Therefore, the environmental impacts of surface and groundwater
contamination caused by accidents initiated by external events are bounded by the impacts
stated in the 1996 LR GEIS. This same conclusion can also be drawn with respect to the
economic impacts that are caused by the environmental contamination.
E.3.2.3
Conclusion
In summary, it is concluded that the CDFs from severe accidents initiated by all hazards
(i.e., internal and external events), as quantified in recent risk-informed LARs and the other
sources cited above, are, in some cases, higher than the internal events CDFs that formed the
basis for the 1996 LR GEIS and, on average, are about 35 percent higher than the All Hazards
CDFs used in the license renewal SAMA analyses. However, the environmental impacts from
events initiated by all hazards (specifically, consequence-weighted population dose) are
generally significantly lower (one to two orders of magnitude) than those used in the 1996
LR GEIS. In addition, as cited above, plant improvements made in response to NRC Orders and
industry initiatives have contributed to the improved safety of all plants during both power
operation and low power and shutdown operation. The NRC staff concludes that the new
information from the external events PRAs is not significant for the purposes of this LR GEIS
revision, that external event risk is being effectively addressed and reduced by the various NRC
Orders and other initiatives, and therefore, external event risk is not expected to challenge the
1996 LR GEIS 95th percentile UCB risk metrics during the initial LR or SLR time period.
E.3.3
Impact of New Source Term Information
The 1996 LR GEIS used information from 28 original plant-specific EISs to project the
environmental impact from all 118 plants analyzed (see Table 5.5 in the 1996 LR GEIS). The
28 sites chosen were those for which the impacts from severe accidents were analyzed in their
plant-specific EISs. As stated in Section 5.3.3.1 of the 1996 LR GEIS, the accident source terms
(i.e., the magnitude, timing, and characteristics of the radioactive material released to the
environment) used in the EIS analyses for the 28 sites (and subsequently used to estimate the
environmental impacts from all plants) were generally based on those documented in
NUREG-0773 (NRC 1982d). The NUREG-0773 source terms represented an update
(re-baseline) of the source terms used in WASH-1400 (NRC 1975). The source terms in
NUREG-0773 were developed for PWRs and BWRs and are shown in Tables 13 and 14A,
E-37
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
respectively, of that document. NUREG-0773 states that the provided source terms are based
on models that have “known deficiencies which would tend to give overestimates of the
magnitude of the releases.” The 1996 LR GEIS used updated WASH-1400 source terms taken
from the Byron FES (NRC 1982b) to be representative of PWRs and updated WASH-1400
source terms taken from the Clinton FES (NRC 1982c) to be representative of BWRs.
Since completion of NUREG-0773, additional information about source terms has been
developed through experimental and analytical programs. The purpose of this section is to
assess the impact of new source term information about the environmental impacts described in
the 1996 LR GEIS. In the 2013 LR GEIS, using source term information in NUREG-1150
(NRC 1990) as updated and simplified in NUREG/CR-6295 (NRC 1997e), the NRC staff
concluded the following:
More recent source term information indicates that the timing from dominant
severe accident sequences, as quantified in NUREG/CR-6295 (NRC 1997b), is
comparable to the analysis forming the basis of the 1996 GEIS. In most cases,
the release frequencies and release fractions are significantly lower for the more
recent estimate. Thus, the environmental impacts used as the basis for the 1996
GEIS (i.e., the frequency-weighted consequences) are higher than the impacts
that would be estimated using the more recent source term information.
This LR GEIS revision confirms the 2013 source term conclusions by comparing the historical
source term information with more recent realistic source term information developed in the
NRC’s SOARCA research project.
E.3.3.1
Airborne Pathway Impact
SOARCA calculated the realistic outcomes of severe nuclear power plant accidents that could
release radioactive material into the environment for three representative plants: Peach Bottom
and Surry, which are representative of a BWR and PWR, respectively, and Sequoyah, which is
representative of a PWR with an ice condenser containment. The SOARCA-developed source
terms for these plants are compared to the re-baselined WASH-1400 largest source term
category, referred to as siting source term 1 (SST1),22 provided in NUREG/CR-2239, Technical
Guidance for Siting Criteria Development, commonly referred to as the 1982 Siting Study
(Aldrich et al. 1982). SST1 assumes severe core damage, loss of all safety systems, and loss of
containment after 1.5 hours (hrs).
The computer models that produced the SOARCA calculations incorporated decades of
research into reactor accidents as well as the current design and operation of nuclear power
plants. The NRC considers SOARCA a state-of-the-art project because (1) it models accidents
with the latest plant-specific and associated site characteristics information, (2) it uses an
improved understanding of how radioactive material behaves during an accident, (3) it examines
emergency response comprehensively, and (4) it combines modern computer-modeling
capabilities and detailed computerized plant models. The SOARCA project sought to focus its
resources on the more important severe accident scenarios for Peach Bottom and Surry. The
project narrowed its approach by using an accident sequence’s possibility of damaging reactor
fuel, or CDF, as a surrogate for risk. The SOARCA scenarios were selected from the results of
22
NUREG/CR-2239 defines a spectrum of five source term categories—SST1 through SST5. Category
SST1 is the largest source term category of the five categories in that it represents the radiological
releases from severe core damage accident sequences in which essentially all installed safety features
are assumed to be lost (not functional) and there is a direct breach of the containment.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-38
Appendix E
existing PRAs. Unlike the modeling of SST1 from NUREG/CR-2239, SOARCA modeled
mitigation measures, including those in emergency operating procedures, severe accident
management guidelines (SAMGs), and the additional equipment and strategies required by
10 CFR 50.155 for the mitigation of beyond-design-basis events.
For both Peach Bottom and Surry, the SOARCA modeled loss of all AC electrical power,
referred to as SBO, caused by earthquakes more severe than anticipated in the plant’s design
and by flood and fire scenarios. Two SBO scenarios were analyzed: (1) the LTSBO (long-term
SBO) where it is assumed that backup battery systems are available to operate safety systems
for several hours until the batteries are exhausted, and (2) the STSBO (short-term station
blackout) where it is assumed that all safety systems become inoperable immediately and core
damage occurs in the short-term. For the Peach Bottom plant, the STSBO scenario is analyzed
assuming a reactor core isolation cooling blackstart is successful and assuming a reactor core
isolation cooling blackstart is not successful. In addition, SOARCA analyzed two scenarios for
Surry in which radioactive material could potentially reach the environment by bypassing
containment features: (1) an interfacing systems loss-of-coolant accident in which a random
failure of valves ruptures low-pressure system piping outside containment that connects with the
high-pressure reactor system inside containment, and (2) a thermally induced steam generator
tube rupture, which is a low-probability variation of STSBO, in which a steam generator (SG)
tube is ruptured due to overheating and boiling of reactor coolant system water.
Brief descriptions of the source terms (timing and duration of atmospheric release of radioactive
material, and integral release fractions or fractional release to the environment of the original
core inventory by chemical class23) for each of the Peach Bottom and Surry accident scenarios
are provided in Table 7-1 of the respective SOARCA studies, which are reproduced,
respectively, in Table E.3-13 (NRC 2013e) and
Table E.3-14 (NRC 2013f). For comparison, the largest source term, SST1, from the 1982 Siting
Study, or NUREG/CR-2239, is also shown. The radionuclide inventory used in these analyses is
presented in Appendix A of the Peach Bottom SOARCA report and Appendix B of the Surry
SOARCA report. The inventory data were evaluated specifically for the SOARCA work and
reflect realistic fuel cycle data from the two plants.
In comparison, the SST1 source term is significantly larger in magnitude, especially for the
cesium chemical class, than all but one of the Peach Bottom source terms (i.e., barium) for the
STSBO without blackstart) and all of the Surry source terms. Moreover, the release begins just
1.5 hrs after accident initiation, which is much earlier than for any of the SOARCA scenarios.
23
The chemical classes are defined in Appendix A of the Peach Bottom SOARCA report and in
Appendix B of the Surry SOARCA report.
E-39
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Scenario
PB LTSBO
PB STSBO
w/RCIC BS
PB STSBO
w/o RCIC BS
SST1
CDF
(Events/yr)
3 × 10-6
Xe
0.978
Cs
0.005
Ba
0.006
I
0.020
Te
0.022
Ru
0.000
Mo
0.001
Ce
0.000
La
0.000
Start
(hr)
20.0
End
(hr)
48.0
3 × 10-7
0.979
0.004
0.007
0.013
0.015
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
16.9
48.0
3 × 10-7
0.947
0.017
0.095
0.115
0.104
0.000
0.002
0.007
0.000
8.1
48.0
1 × 10-5
1.000
0.670
0.070
0.450
0.640
0.050
0.050
0.009
0.009
1.5
3.5
Ba = barium; BS = blackstart; CDF = core damage frequency; Ce = cerium; Cs = cesium; hr = hour; I = iodine; La = lanthanum; LTSBO = long-term station
blackout; Mo = molybdenum; PB = Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station; RCIC = reactor core isolation cooling; Ru = ruthenium; SST = siting source term;
STSBO = short-term station blackout; Te = tellurium; Xe = xenon; yr = year.
(a) The integral release fractions are presented by chemical class. Also presented are the atmospheric release timing start and end times.
E-40
Table E.3-14 Brief Source Term Description for Unmitigated Surry Accident Scenarios and the SST1 from the 1982 Siting
Study(a)
Scenario
Surry STSBO
Surry STSBO
w/TISGTR
Surry Mitigated
STSBO w/
TISGTR
Surry LTSBO
Surry ISLOCA
SST1
CDF
(Events/yr)
2 × 10-6
4 × 10-7
Xe
Cs
Ba
I
Te
Ru
Mo
Ce
La
0.000
0.000
Start
(hr)
25.5
3.6
End
(hr)
48.0
48.0
0.518
0.592
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.009
0.006
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
4 × 10-7
0.085
0.004
0.000
0.005
0.004
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
3.6
48.0
2 × 10-5
3 × 10-8
1 × 10-5
0.537
0.983
1.000
0.000
0.020
0.670
0.000
0.000
0.070
0.003
0.154
0.450
0.006
0.132
0.640
0.000
0.000
0.050
0.000
0.003
0.050
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.009
45.3
12.8
1.5
72.0
48.0
3.5
Ba = barium; CDF = core damage frequency; Ce = cerium; Cs = cesium; hr = hour; I = iodine; ISLOCA = interfacing systems loss-of-coolant accident;
La = lanthanum; LTSBO = long-term station blackout; Mo = molybdenum; Ru = ruthenium; STSBO = short-term station blackout; SST = siting source term;
Te = tellurium; TISGTR = thermally induced steam generator tube rupture; Xe = xenon; yr = year.
(a) The integral release fractions are presented by chemical class. Also presented are the atmospheric release timing start and end times.
Appendix E
NUREG–1437, Revision 2
Table E.3-13 Brief Source Term Description for Unmitigated Peach Bottom Accident Scenarios and the SST1 from the 1982
Siting Study(a)
Appendix E
These same source term results for the iodine (I) and cesium (Cs) chemical classes are shown
graphically in Figure E.3-2 and Figure E.3-3, respectively (which are reproduced Figures ES-1
and ES-2 from the Peach Bottom and Surry SOARCA studies). In addition to showing the
significant delayed radiological releases relative to the 1982 Siting Study SST1 case, the
SOARCA study demonstrates that the amount of radioactive material released is much smaller
for both Peach Bottom and Surry. The cesium (predominantly Cs-137) and iodine
(predominantly I-131) chemical classes were chosen for this comparison because of their
generally recognized importance to total risk from severe reactor accidents that result in core
damage.
Figure E.3-2 Iodine Release to the Environment for SOARCA Unmitigated Scenarios and
the 1982 Siting Study SST1 Case. Source: NRC 2012g.
Figure E.3-3 Cesium Release to the Environment for SOARCA Unmitigated Scenarios
and the 1982 Siting Study SST1 Case. Source: NRC 2012g.
Figure E.3-4 compares the cesium and iodine source terms from these studies with those from
the older severe accident studies and with the 1982 Siting Study SST1 case (NRC 2020c). As
was observed for the earlier SOARCA studies, the SOARCA unmitigated release of Cs-137 and
I-131, for each of the modeled scenarios, are much smaller than estimated in the earlier 1982
Siting Study SST1 case. Figure E.3-4 also compares the source terms relative to the source
terms released during the historical severe accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. All the
releases from the SOARCA studies are much smaller than those from the Chernobyl accident.24
24
The Chernobyl accident release data are estimated at 20–40 percent for Cs-137 and 50–60 percent for
I-131. The Three Mile Island accident released an extremely small quantity of I-131 (~ 15 curies) and zero
Cs-137. The Fukushima Dai-ichi accident releases are estimated to be approximately one-tenth of
releases from the Chernobyl accident. Source: NRC 2020c.
E-41
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Figure E.3-4 Percentages of Cesium and Iodine Released to the Environment for
SOARCA Unmitigated Scenarios, the 1982 Siting Study SST1 Case, and
Historical Accidents. Source: NRC 2020c.
As discussed previously, the SOARCA project’s offsite consequence analyses focused on the
same radiation-induced fatality risks as those defined by the quantitative health objectives
(QHOs), namely the risk of early fatalities from radiation exposure and the risk of long-term
cancer fatalities from radiation exposure. All mitigated cases for the Peach Bottom and Surry
SOARCA scenarios, except for one, result in prevention of core damage and/or no offsite
release of radioactive material. The only mitigated case still leading to an offsite release was the
Surry thermally induced steam generator tube rupture scenario. In this scenario, mitigation is
still beneficial in that it keeps most radioactive material inside containment and delays the onset
of containment failure by about 2 days. For the Sequoyah analyses, only hydrogen igniters after
core damage were considered. The Sequoyah results show that early containment failure
caused by hydrogen burns can be eliminated if igniters are operational within 3 hrs. As a result,
the mitigated scenarios show zero risk of early fatalities from radiation exposure and result in
either zero risk or very small risk of a long-term cancer fatality for an individual.
The unmitigated scenarios result in very low risk of early fatality for an individual. Although these
unmitigated scenarios result in core damage and release of radioactive material to the
environment, the release is often delayed, which allows the population to take protective actions
(including evacuation and sheltering). Therefore, the public would not be exposed to
concentrations of radioactive material in excess of NRC regulatory limits. This result holds even
when uncertainties are considered—all three uncertainty analyses continued to show extremely
low risk of early fatalities.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-42
Appendix E
For the unmitigated scenarios, the individual risk of a long-term cancer fatality is calculated to
be very small—regardless of which distance interval (e.g., 0–10 mi, 0–20 mi, 0–50 mi) is
considered. This result holds even when uncertainties are considered.
Table E.3-15 summarizes the results for the mitigated and unmitigated scenarios based on the
linear-no-threshold (LNT) dose-response model25 for estimating the risk of a long-term cancer
fatality for individuals located within 10 mi of each plant (NRC 2020c).
Table E.3-15 SOARCA Results: Long-Term Cancer Fatality Risk
Accident Scenario
Peach Bottom LTSBO
Peach Bottom STSBO
Surry LTSBO
Surry STSBO
Surry Steam Generator
Tube Rupture
Surry ISLOCA
Sequoyah LTSBO
Sequoyah STSBO
About how likely is
the accident to
occur?
1 event in 300,000
reactor years
1 event in 3 million
reactor years
1 event in 50,000
reactor years
1 event in 500,000
reactor years
1 event in 3 million
reactor years
1 event in 30 million
reactor years
1 event in 100,000
reactor years
1 event in 500,000
reactor years
Mitigated
Case(a)
Zero
Unmitigated
Case(a)
1 in 3 billion
Zero
1 in 20 billion
Approximate
Range of
Uncertainty(a,b)
1 in 1 billion to 1 in
11 billion
Not Estimated
Zero
1 in 1 billion
Not Estimated
Zero(c)
1 in 6 billion
1 in 10 billion
1 in 10 billion
1 in 3 billion to 1 in
7 billion
Not Estimated
Zero
1 in 100 billion
Not Estimated
Zero(d)
1 in 200 million
Not Estimated
Zero(d)
1 in 6 billion
1 in 3 billion to 1 in
50 trillion
ISLOCA = interfacing-system loss-of-coolant accident; LTSBO = long-term station blackout; STSBO = short-term
station blackout.
(a) Estimated risks below 1 in 10 million reactor years should be viewed with caution because of the potential impact
of events not studied in the analyses and the inherent uncertainty in very small, calculated numbers.
(b) Values shown represent the 5th–95th percentile range for uncertainty in accident progression and offsite
consequences. The SOARCA did not evaluate uncertainty in accident frequency. Uncertainty analyses were
performed for the three identified scenarios only.
(c) For the mitigated Surry STSBO, the reactor vessel would fail; however, the containment would not fail until about
66 hrs after the blackout. A review of available resources and emergency plans shows that adequate mitigation
measures could be brought onsite within 24 hrs and connected and functioning within 48 hrs. Therefore, 66 hrs
would allow time for mitigation via equipment brought to the site from offsite, and this mitigation would avert
containment failure such that radioactive material would not be released to the environment.
(d) Although not explicitly modeled in the Sequoyah SOARCA, the response is expected to be similar to the
mitigated Surry SOARCA assuming backup generators and pumps are available to restore core cooling.
SOARCA results, while specific to the Peach Bottom, Surry, and Sequoyah plants, may be
generally applicable to plants of similar designs. Additional work would be needed to confirm
this, however, because differences exist in plant-specific designs, procedures, and emergency
response characteristics. The SOARCA results for the three plants analyzed are as follows:
25
The LNT model is based on the conclusion that any amount of radiation dose (no matter how small)
can incrementally increase cancer risk. It is a basic assumption used in many regulatory limits, including
the NRC’s regulations and past assessments.
E-43
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
• When operators are successful in using onsite equipment during the accidents analyzed in
the SOARCA, they can prevent the reactor from melting, or delay or reduce releases of
radioactive material to the environment.
• SOARCAs indicate that all modeled accident scenarios, even if operators are unsuccessful in
stopping the accident, progress more slowly and release smaller amounts of radioactive
material than calculated in earlier studies.
• As a result, public health consequences from severe nuclear power plant accidents modeled
in SOARCAs are smaller than previously calculated.
• The delayed releases calculated provide more time for emergency response actions such as
evacuating or sheltering for affected populations. For the scenarios analyzed, SOARCA
shows that emergency response programs, if implemented as planned and practiced, reduce
the risk of public health consequences.
• Both mitigated (operator actions are successful) and unmitigated (operator actions are
unsuccessful) cases of all modeled severe accident scenarios in SOARCA cause very low
risk of fatality during or shortly after the accident.
• SOARCAs results for longer-term cancer fatality risks for the accident scenarios analyzed are
millions of times lower than the general U.S. cancer fatality risk.
Because SOARCA is based on decades of research and uses improved modeling tools, the
SOARCAs generate more realistic results than past efforts such as the 1982 Siting Study. The
past studies were based on then-existing plant descriptions and knowledge of how severe
accidents would occur. However, it is known that the predictions from these past studies are
out-of-date for realistically understanding severe accident consequences. The current
understanding of accident progression has led to a very different characterization of release
signatures than was assumed for the 1982 Siting Study.
Based on the SOARCA results, the impacts (i.e., the frequency-weighted consequences) from
the airborne pathway using the updated source term information would be expected to be much
lower than previously predicted in either the 1996 LR GEIS or the license renewal SAMA
analyses.
E.3.3.2
Other Pathway Impacts
Because the comparison of the new source term information to that used in the 1996 LR GEIS
environmental impact projection shows that the amount of release of radioactive material in a
severe accident is estimated to be less than that estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS, the
environmental impacts from the other pathways (contamination of open bodies of water,
groundwater contamination, and the resulting economic impacts from any pathway) will also be
less than those estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS.
E.3.3.3
Conclusion
More recent and more realistic source term information indicates that the anticipated release
timing and release fractions from severe accident sequences are significantly lower than earlier
studies (e.g., the 1982 Siting Study) and the more conservative source term information that
formed the basis of the 1996 LR GEIS. Furthermore, while the SOARCAs were focused on the
most risk-significant accident scenarios and did not evaluate all scenarios, the SOARCA offsite
consequence calculations for the three sites evaluated are generally smaller than those
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-44
Appendix E
reported in earlier studies. Specifically, the SOARCA results show extremely low early fatality
risk for the three sites and show a very low individual risk of cancer fatalities for the populations
close to the plants (i.e., well below the NRC Safety Goal of two long-term cancer fatalities
annually in a population of one million individuals). Thus, the environmental impacts estimated
using the more recent and realistic source term information are expected to be much lower than
the impacts used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS (i.e., the frequency-weighted
consequences).
E.3.4
Impact of Power Uprates
The NRC regulates the maximum power level at which a commercial nuclear power plant may
operate. This power level is used, with other data, in many of the licensing analyses that
demonstrate the safety of the plant. This power level is included in the license and technical
specifications for the plant. The NRC controls any change in a license or technical specification,
and the licensee may only change these documents after the NRC approves the licensee's
application for change. Power uprates are defined as the process of increasing the maximum
power level at which a nuclear power plant may operate. Although power uprates have been
approved by the NRC since 1977, the effects of power uprates since 1996 were not taken into
account in the 1996 LR GEIS. Extended power uprates began to be approved in 1998. The
purpose of this section is to provide an assessment of the impact of power uprates on the risk of
severe accidents. This section also addresses anticipated increases in fuel enrichment.
Utilities have been using power uprates since the 1970s as a way to increase the power output
of their nuclear power plants. To increase the power output of a reactor, typically more highly
enriched uranium fuel and/or more fresh fuel is used. This enables the reactor to produce more
thermal energy and therefore more steam, driving a turbine generator to produce electricity. To
accomplish this, components such as pipes, valves, pumps, heat exchangers, electrical
transformers, and generators must be able to accommodate the conditions that would exist at
the higher power level. For example, a higher power level usually involves higher steam and
water flow through the systems used in converting the thermal power to electric power. These
systems must be capable of accommodating the higher flows. In some instances, licensees will
modify and/or replace components to accommodate a higher power level.
There are three categories of power uprates:
• measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates
• stretch power uprates (SPUs)
• extended power uprates (EPUs).
Measurement uncertainty recapture power uprates are less than 2 percent and are achieved by
implementing enhanced techniques for calculating reactor power. This involves the use of
state-of-the-art feedwater flow measurement devices to more precisely measure feedwater flow,
which is used to calculate reactor power. More precise measurements reduce the degree of
uncertainty in the power level, which is used by analysts to predict the ability of the reactor to be
safely shut down under postulated accident conditions.
SPUs are typically up to 7 percent and are within the design capacity of the plant. The actual
value for the percentage increase in power a plant can achieve and stay within the stretch
power uprate category is plant-specific and depends on the operating margins included
E-45
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
in the design of a particular plant. Stretch power uprates usually involve changes to
instrumentation setpoints, but do not involve major plant modifications.
EPUs are greater than SPUs and have been approved for increases as high as 20 percent.
These uprates require significant modifications to major balance-of-plant equipment such as the
high-pressure turbines, condensate pumps and motors, main generators, and/or transformers.
An increase in plant power level will affect the source term available for release in a severe
accident (see previous section) and, thus, the quantified risk of severe accidents. Power uprates
generally affect the source term radionuclide magnitude and mix due to small changes in fuel
burnup (higher burnup requires increased uranium enrichment in the fuel), the amount of fuel
used, and isotopic concentrations of the radionuclides in the irradiated fuel relative to the
original level of burnup. To accommodate the increased power level and associated source
term, facility modifications and technical specification changes are made, which lower allowable
leakage to the environment to ensure that the NRC's acceptance criteria for radiological
consequences analyses continue to be met for normal plant operations and for design-basis
accidents.
With regard to severe accidents, potential risk increases are also associated with implementing
a power uprate due to the increased heat loads at higher power levels and the resulting
reductions in the times available to perform specific accident response actions. In addition, there
can be impacts on the equipment loads and the potential for an increase in the frequency of
reactor scrams due to these increased loads and tighter operating margins. For small power
uprates (i.e., measurement uncertainty recaptures and SPUs), the risk increases are expected
to be exceedingly small, so LARs for these power uprates do not generally include an
assessment of the change in risk. For EPUs, however, notwithstanding any plant modifications
that could reduce risk, some increase in risk is expected. Depending on the type of plantspecific modifications necessary to implement the larger power uprates, these power uprates
have the potential to significantly increase plant risks, so an assessment of the impact on CDF
and LERF is included with EPU LARs (NRC 2003).
The purpose of this section is to assess the impact of power uprates on severe accident risk
that have been approved by the NRC since issuance of the 1996 LR GEIS. In the 2013
LR GEIS, using power uprate risk information up to that point in time, the NRC staff concluded
the following:
Power uprates would result in a small to (in some cases) moderate increase in
the environmental impacts from a postulated accident. However, taken in
combination with the other information presented in this appendix, the increases
would be bounded by the 95 percent UCB values in Tables 5.10 and 5.11 of the
1996 GEIS.
This LR GEIS revision confirms the 2013 conclusions by considering risk information from
power uprate LARs.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-46
Appendix E
E.3.4.1
Airborne Pathway Impacts
Power uprates require using fuel that has a higher percentage of uranium-235 or additional
fresh fuel in order to derive more energy from the operation of the reactor. This results in a
larger radionuclide inventory (particularly short-lived isotopes, assuming no change in burnup
limits) in the reactor core, than the same core at a lower power level. The larger radionuclide
inventory represents a larger source term for accidents and can result in higher doses to offsite
populations in the event of a severe accident. Typically, short-lived isotopes are the main
contributor to early fatalities. As stated in NUREG-1449 (NRC 1993), short-lived isotopes make
up 80 percent of the dose following early release.
The NRC uses LERF as a surrogate for the individual early fatality risk QHO. Thus, the impact
of a power uprate on early fatalities can be gauged by considering the impact of the uprate on
the LERF metric. To this end, Table E.3-16 presents the change in LERF calculated by
licensees who have been granted an EPU. As shown, the change in LERF ranges from
decreases26 to increases of up to 32 percent (with a mean of 5.7 percent). Relative to the
substantial decreases in probability-weighted consequences since issuance of the
1996 LR GEIS discussed previously with respect to new information on internal and external
events and on source term, this increase due to EPUs is judged to be small.27 Additional
discussion of new information about early fatality risk is provided in Section E.3.9 with regard to
the results of the SOARCA study. SOARCA found the individual early fatality risk to be in the
1 × 10-14/RY range, or essentially zero, for the risk-significant scenarios evaluated for three
plants.
Table E.3-16 Changes in Large Early Release Frequencies for Extended Power Uprates
Nuclear Power Plant
Arkansas 2
Beaver Valley 1
Beaver Valley 2
Browns Ferry 1
Browns Ferry 2
Browns Ferry 3
Brunswick 1, 2
Clinton
Dresden 2, 3
Duane Arnold
Ginna
Hope Creek
Monticello
Nine Mile Point 2
Peach Bottom 2, 3
Point Beach 1, 2
Percent Increase in Power
7.5
8
8
14.3
14.3
14.3
15
20
17
15.3
16.8
15
12.9
15
12.4
17
Percent Increase in Internal
Event LERF
24
5.6
4.1
9.7
8.3
7.5
4.5
5.5
10
16
19
30
7.8
5.1
2.8
-33(a)
26
The negative impacts reflect regulatory commitments to make specific plant improvements prior to
implementation of the EPU.
27 It is noted that a few of these EPUs were accounted for in the license renewal SAMA analyses
previously discussed in this appendix (e.g., Beaver Valley, Brunswick, Waterford).
E-47
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Nuclear Power Plant
Quad Cities 1, 2
St. Lucie 1
St. Lucie 2
Susquehanna 1, 2
Turkey Point 3
Turkey Point 4
Vermont Yankee
Waterford
Mean
Percent Increase in Power
17.8
11.9
11.9
13
15
15
20
8.0
14.3
Percent Increase in Internal
Event LERF
4
-20(a)
-0.1(a)
<1
30
32
5
4.6
5.7
LERF = large early release frequency.
(a) The reduction in LERF reflects plant improvements that result in a risk reduction that is greater than the increase
in risk due to the extended power uprate.
Source: NRC 2022c, unless otherwise noted.
E.3.4.2
Other Pathway Impacts
As discussed in previous sections, the change in impacts due to other pathways is considered
to be bounded by the change in the airborne pathway, consistent with the results obtained in the
1996 LR GEIS.
E.3.4.3
Conclusion
Power uprates would result in a small increase in the environmental impacts from a postulated
accident. However, taken in combination with the other information presented in this appendix,
the increases would be bounded by the 95 percent UCB values in the 1996 LR GEIS and
represented in Table E.3-1 of this appendix.
E.3.5
Impact of Higher Fuel Burnup
An EA was published by the NRC in 1988 about the effects of increased peak burnup (to
60 gigawatt-days [units of energy] per metric tonne [GWd/MT], 5 percent by weight uranium235). NUREG/CR-5009 (Baker et al. 1988) is the basis for the EA. NUREG/CR-6703 (Ramsdell
et al. 2001) is a more current analysis using updated designs and data, and peak burnup up to
75 GWd/MT. The purpose of this section is to include the updated information from
NUREG/CR-6703 in this LR GEIS revision to account for the effect of current and possible
future increased fuel burnup on postulated accidents.
The history of fuel utilization for BWRs and PWRs has seen a gradual progression toward
higher fuel discharge burnups and increased enrichments to allow for more efficient utilization of
the fuel and longer operating cycles. The current fuel burnup limits differ slightly among fuel
vendors and fuel products, but fuel assemblies are generally limited to a maximum rod-average
burnup of 62 GWd/MTU. However, some potential applicants are interested in raising this limit
up to 75 GWd/MTU rod-average. Burnup limits are not specified in any regulations. Burnup
limits are incorporated into power reactor licenses once they are reviewed and approved by the
NRC staff in safety evaluations based on approved topical reports. As such, the NRC has
continuously evaluated the impact of higher fuel burnups and increased enrichments on the
various regulatory source terms.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-48
Appendix E
All currently operating nuclear power plants were licensed in accordance with the original 1962
reactor site criteria (10 CFR Part 100), which for the purposes of licensing nuclear power plants
require that radionuclide releases to reactor containments associated with a “substantial
meltdown” of the reactor core be postulated. To meet the Part 100 siting regulation, facilities
were originally designed and sited with a historical regulatory source term published in 1962 by
the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in Technical Information Document (TID) 14844,
Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactors (DiNunno et al. 1962). This source
term was based on results of experiments involving the heatup of irradiated fuel fragments in a
furnace with relatively low burnup rates and enrichments. This source term formed the basis for
the early Regulatory Guides 1.3 (AEC 1974a) and 1.4 (AEC 1974b), which have been used to
determine compliance with the NRC's reactor site criteria set forth in 10 CFR Part 100 and to
evaluate other important plant performance requirements.
After the Three Mile Island Unit 2 meltdown, the NRC initiated a major research effort in the
area of severe accidents. A motivation for this effort was the differences in the observed
radionuclide behavior during the accident and various aspects of the TID-14844 source term
such as aerosol physics and radionuclide release and transport through the plant systems. The
culmination of this work with respect to commercial nuclear power plant severe accident risk
assessment was published by the NRC in NUREG-1150, An Assessment for Five U.S. Nuclear
Power Plants (NRC 1990). From this body of research, a new set of generic “regulatory accident
source terms” for representative BWR and PWR nuclear plants was derived and published in
NUREG-1465, Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants (NRC 1995a). This
report provided more realistic estimates of the source term release into containment in terms of
timing, nuclide types, quantities, and chemical form, given a severe core-melt accident.
In December 1999, the NRC issued a new regulation, 10 CFR 50.67, “Accident Source Term,”
which provided a mechanism for licensed power reactors to voluntarily replace the traditional
TID-14844 accident source term used in their design-basis accident analyses with an alternative
source term more consistent with the results published in NUREG-1150 and NUREG-1465.
Regulatory guidance for the implementation of the alternative approach is provided in
Regulatory Guide 1.183, Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design-Basis
Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors, Revision 0 (NRC 2000). Regulatory Guide 1.183,
Footnote 10, limits the use of this source term for light water reactor fuel with peak burnups of
up to 62 GWD/MTU. To date, nearly all commercial nuclear power plant licensees have adopted
the Accident Source Term as their licensing and design-basis by applying the methodologies of
Regulatory Guide 1.183.
In January 2011, in support of the NRC staff, Sandia National Laboratories published the report
SAND 2011-0128, Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants Using
Higher-Burnup or MOX Fuel (SNL 2011), to assess the impacts on the NUREG-1465 source
term for facilities using higher-burnup and mixed-oxide fuels. That report documents a series of
MELCOR calculations to compare source terms for low burnup fuel (26–38 GWd/MTU core
average discharge burnup, which varied depending on the plant analyzed) vs. high burnup fuel
in BWRs and PWRs (59 GWd/MTU maximum assembly-averaged burnup corresponding to
62 GWd/MTU peak rod-average burnup). The calculations accounted for cycle-specific
information, fuel assembly design, core inventories, and decay heat. They also accounted for
higher fission product diffusivity for the high burnup fuel based on experimental results from the
E-49
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
VERCORS program in France.28 The diffusion coefficient is based on VERCORS test RT-6,
which used a uranium dioxide pellet irradiated to 72 GWd/MTU in a commercial PWR.29
Important differences among the accident source terms derived and reported in
SAND2011-0128 (SNL 2011) and NUREG-1465 (NRC 1995a) are not attributable to either
fuel burnup or use of mixed-oxide fuel. Rather, differences among the source terms are due
predominantly to improved understanding of the physics of core meltdown accidents. Heat
losses from the degrading reactor core prolong the process of in-vessel release of
radionuclides. Improved understanding of the chemistries of tellurium and cesium under reactor
accidents changes the predicted behavior characteristics of these radioactive elements relative
to what was assumed in the derivation of the NUREG-1465 source term. An additional
radionuclide chemical class had also been defined to account for release of cesium as cesium
molybdate, which enhances molybdenum release relative to other metallic fission products.
The May 13, 2020, NRC Memorandum, “Applicability of Source Term for Accident Tolerant
Fuel, High Burn Up and Extended Enrichment” (NRC 2020b), assessed the applicability of
Regulatory Guide 1.183’s use of the NUREG-1465 source term for:
• burnups of up to 68 GWd/MTU, excluding potential impacts related to fuel fragmentation,
relocation, and dispersal;
• enrichment between 5–8 percent; and
• near-term accident tolerant fuel designs for chromium-coated cladding and chromia-doped
fuel.
The memo recommended the use of accident source terms from SAND2011-0128 (SNL 2011)
and non-loss-of-coolant accident source terms based on Fuel Analysis under Steady-state and
Transients code calculations to serve as a basis for a future Regulatory Guide 1.183 update.
This recommendation is based on the limited impact of burnup effects between 38 GWd/MTU
and 62 GWd/MTU, where it was found to be reasonable to extrapolate the conclusion for fuel
with a 68 GWd/MTU peak rod-average discharge burnup.
In 2022, NRC revised Regulatory Guide 1.183, Revision 0, to expand its applicability to
encompass fuel burnup extensions of up to 68 GWd/MTU (rod-average) and enrichments of up
to 8 weight-percent uranium-235 based on recommendations from the May 13, 2020, NRC
Memorandum (NRC 2020b).
E.3.5.1
Airborne Pathway Impacts
The increased environmental impacts of accidents where high burnup fuel is being used
(assuming no change in plant power level) are due to the effects of an increased inventory of
long-lived fission products. Long-lived fission products contribute primarily to latent health
effects. Because latent health effects are directly scalable to dose, the assessment is based
upon the increase in population dose due to the use of high burnup fuel.
28
The VERCORS program studied the release of fission products from irradiated uranium dioxide pellets
in a furnace under simulated severe accident conditions. For more information about this program and its
results, please refer to the article by G. Ducros et al., “Fission product release under severe accidental
conditions: general presentation of the program and synthesis of VERCORS 1–6 results,” Nuclear
Engineering and Design 208.2 (2001): 191-203 (Ducros et al. 2001).
29 See SAND2010-1633, Synthesis of VERCORS and Phebus Data in Severe Accident Codes and
Applications (SNL 2010) for further information.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-50
Appendix E
Table E-15 of the 2013 LR GEIS, which is represented in Table E.3-17 below, provides the dose
to an individual located at the exclusion area boundary and the mean total population dose from
NUREG/CR-6703 (Ramsdell et al. 2001). The exclusion area boundary dose includes
contributions from inhalation and external dose. The total population dose also includes
contributions from contaminated foods. Table E.3-17 provides the estimated total population
dose assuming an accident because NUREG/CR-6703 only provided the population dose,
whereas other sections of this appendix provide the estimated PDR that accounts for the
likelihood of an accident. The increase in population dose is 38 percent from 42 to 75 GWd/MT
for PWRs. For BWRs, the net increase in population dose is 8 percent. Although the analysis in
NUREG/CR-6703 is for design-basis accidents, the percentage increase in impacts would be
generally similar for severe accidents. Even though there are increases in plant population dose
(factor of <1.4) because of increased burnup, the increase is significantly less than the reduction
in the estimated PDR since the publication of the 1996 LR GEIS (see Table E.3-17).
Table E.3-17 Loss-of-Coolant Accident Consequences as a Function of Fuel Burnup
Reactor
Type
PWR
PWR
PWR
PWR
PWR
PWR
PWR
BWR
BWR
BWR
BWR
BWR
Peak Rod Burnup
(GWd/MT)
42
50
60
62
65
70
75
60
62
65
70
75
Individual Dose at
0.8 km(a) (rem)(b)
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
10
10
10
11
11
Mean Total Population Dose
(person-rem)(b)
940,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
1,300,000
1,300,000
1,300,000
1,300,000
1,300,000
1,400,000
1,400,000
BWR = boiling water reactor; GWD/MT = gigawatt-days (units of energy) per metric tonne; PWR = pressurized water
reactor.
(a) Unit conversion: 0.8 km = 0.5 mi.
(b) Note that these doses are on a per event basis, not a frequency (per year) basis.
E.3.5.2
Other Pathway Impacts
As discussed in previous sections, the change in impacts due to other pathways is considered
bounded by the change in the airborne pathway, consistent with the results obtained in the
1996 LR GEIS.
E.3.5.3
Conclusion
Increased peak fuel burnup from 42 to 75 GWd/MT for PWRs and 60 to 75 GWd/MT for BWRs
results in small increases (up to 38 percent) in the environmental impacts in the event of a
severe accident. However, taken in combination with the other information presented in this
appendix, the increases would be bounded by the 95 percent UCB values in the 1996 LR GEIS,
which are represented in Table E.3-1 of this appendix, and would be very small increases in
environmental impact relative to the large decreases in PDR (orders of magnitude) since the
publication of the 1996 LR GEIS.
E-51
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
E.3.6
Impact from Accidents at Low Power and Shutdown Conditions
The 1996 LR GEIS did not include an assessment of the environmental impacts of accidents
initiated under low power or shutdown conditions. These conditions include operating at power
levels less than 5 percent, shutdown configurations (with or without maintenance or plant
modifications under way), and fuel handling activities. The safety concern under these
conditions is that plant configurations may be established where not all plant safety systems and
features would be operable (e.g., containment integrity may not be required) and activities
(e.g., plant modification) could be under way that could not be accomplished while at full power.
Accordingly, accidents initiated under such conditions may have different initiators, progress
differently, and have different consequences than those initiated under full power conditions. In
addition, operating experience has shown that events affecting fuel cooling do occur during
shutdown operations. Therefore, the industry implemented a number of voluntary measures in
response to NRC generic letters and bulletins and in 1991 developed guidelines for the
assessment of shutdown management and implementation of safety improvements
(NUMARC 1991). As discussed in SECY-97-168 (NRC 1997c), these voluntary industry
initiatives resulted in improved safety.
On July 19, 1999, the NRC issued a final rulemaking modifying the Maintenance Rule
(64 FR 38551). This rulemaking established requirements under 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) for the
assessment and management of risk associated with maintenance activities and clarified the
applicability of the Maintenance Rule to all modes of plant operation, including full power
operations, low power operations, and plant shutdown configurations. The assessments are to
be used so that the increase in risk that may result from maintenance activities will be managed
to ensure that the plant is not inadvertently placed in a condition of significant risk or a condition
that would degrade the performance of safety functions to an unacceptable level. Guidance on
the implementation of a Maintenance Rule program acceptable to the NRC is provided in
NUMARC 93-01, the current version of which is Revision 4F (NEI 2018). This guidance is
endorsed by the NRC staff in Regulatory Guide 1.160, Revision 4 (NRC 2018b).
NUMARC 93-01 specifies that the scope of the systems, structures, and components to be
addressed by the assessment for shutdown conditions are those systems, structures, and
components necessary to support the following key safety functions for preventing or mitigating
severe accidents:
• Decay heat removal capability – The ability to maintain reactor coolant system temperature
and pressure, and SFP temperature, below specified limits following a shutdown.
• Inventory control – Measures established to ensure that irradiated fuel remains covered with
coolant to maintain heat transfer and shielding requirements.
• Power availability – Measures to ensure the availability of electrical power sources required to
operate the systems, structures, and components necessary to provide the key safety
functions during shutdown.
• Reactivity control – Measures established to preclude inadvertent dilutions, criticalities, power
excursions, or losses of shutdown margin and to predict and monitor core behavior.
• Containment (primary/secondary) – Measures to secure primary (PWR) or secondary (BWR)
containment and its associated systems, structures, and components as a FUNCTIONAL
barrier to accidental release of radiological material under existing plant conditions.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-52
Appendix E
As discussed previously, after the March 11, 2011, accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear
power plant, the NRC issued Order EA-12-049, “Issuance of Order to Modify Licenses with
Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events,”
dated March 12, 2012 (NRC 2012c). This Order requires that licensees be capable of
implementing the strategies in all modes of plant operation, including full power operations, low
power operations, and plant shutdown configurations. Regulatory guidance on this requirement
contained in NEI 12-06, Revision 4, Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX)
Implementation Guide, issued December 2016 (NEI 2016), Section 3.2.3, as endorsed by the
NRC staff in JLD-ISG-2012-01, Revision 2, “Compliance with Order EA-12-049, Order Modifying
Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis
External Events,” dated February 2017 (NRC 2017c), specifies that licensees would enhance
existing shutdown risk processes and procedures through incorporation of FLEX equipment
acquired to meet the Order requirements. This includes maintaining the equipment necessary to
support shutdown, assuring that risk processes and procedures remain readily available, and
determining how the equipment can be deployed or pre-deployed (pre-staged) to support
maintaining or restoring the key safety functions during a loss of shutdown cooling. The NRC
required licensees to comply with the Order by December 31, 2016. All operating power reactor
licensees have complied with the portions of the Order that affect the shutdown risk processes.
All nuclear power plant licensees are obligated to comply with the Maintenance Rule, including
10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) for the assessment and management of risk associated with maintenance
activities, including during low power operations and plant shutdown configurations. All nuclear
power plant licensees have implemented the guidance in NUMARC 93-01, Revision 4F, as
endorsed by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.160, Revision 4 (NRC 2018b), for implementing the
Maintenance Rule. Promulgation of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) to require licensees to assess and
manage the increase in risk that may result from the proposed maintenance activities and
industry’s implementation of NUMARC 93-01 have further enhanced the NRC staff’s ability to
oversee licensee activities related to shutdown risk.
E.3.6.1
Airborne Pathway Impacts
This section provides an assessment of the risk from postulated severe accidents under low
power and shutdown conditions relative to the risk from postulated severe accidents under full
power conditions, including a comparison to the findings in the 1996 LR GEIS.
The conditions assessed are as follows:
• plant operation at power levels between 0 and 5 percent;
• shutdown with containment open and containment closed; and
• fuel handling inside the containment structure.
In 1997, the NRC staff recommended a proposed rule be considered to address shutdown
conditions. Although the Commission did not approve going forward with the proposed rule (see
SRM-97-168, NRC 1997d), the technical basis for the proposed rule provides additional useful
information. NUREG-1449 (NRC 1993) presents an analysis of actual events that have occurred
under low power and shutdown conditions. This analysis includes an estimate of the conditional
CDF associated with each event and an overall assessment of the range of total CDFs (mean
value) that could result from events under low power and shutdown conditions. This range was
from 10-5/yr to 10-4/yr.
E-53
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
In addition, NUREG/CR-6143 (SNL 1995) and NUREG/CR-6144 (BNL 1995) provide low power
and shutdown risk assessments for two plants (Grand Gulf Unit 1, a BWR, and Surry Unit 1, a
PWR). In both studies, a screening analysis was first performed of several plant operational
states, each representing different potential plant configurations during low power and shutdown
conditions. Based on the results of the screening analyses, a subset of plant operational states
was selected for detailed risk analysis. For both risk assessments, the plant operational states
selected were for plant configurations that were determined to have a significant contribution to
plant low power and shutdown risk.30 For the Grand Gulf plant, the mean CDF stated in
NUREG/CR-6143 is 2 × 10-6/yr for internal events, with the contribution from internal flooding
events, internal fire events, and seismic events each being less than 1 × 10-7/yr. For the Surry
plant (NUREG/CR-6144), the mean CDF is 5 × 10-6/yr for internal events, with the contributions
from internal flooding events also being 5 × 10-6/yr, from internal fire events being 2 × 10-5/yr,
and from seismic events being less than 1 × 10-7/yr. However, such CDFs need to be
considered with respect to their consequences. The consequences of severe accidents during
low power and shutdown conditions can vary substantially depending on the plant operating
configuration. For example, during low power operation, the initiating events and configuration
of mitigating systems are essentially the same as for full power operation. Since the plant is in a
low power configuration much less often than it is at full power, the risk during low power
operation is less than at full power. However, for certain shutdown configurations, such as for
mid-loop operation in a PWR wherein the reactor coolant inventory is reduced, the
consequences and risk of an accident may be higher than during power operations.
NUREG/CR-6143 (SNL 1995) and NUREG/CR-6144 (BNL 1995) also provide estimates of the
offsite airborne pathway consequences on human health from accidents (internal events only)
under low power and shutdown conditions. Table E.3-18 provides these estimates in terms of
probability-weighted consequences for the Grand Gulf and Surry plants for three metrics also
used in the 1996 LR GEIS, namely, PDR, total early fatality risk, and total LCF risk. For
comparison purposes, also shown for each plant are the airborne pathway offsite
probability-weighted consequence results for accidents at full power from NUREG-1150
(NRC 1990) (internal events only), which is a vintage risk assessment similar to the low power
and shutdown risk assessments. The results show that latent fatality risk is a factor of four
higher for low power and shutdown operations than that for full power operations for both the
Grand Gulf (4 × 10-3/1 × 10-3) and Surry (2 × 10-2/5 × 10-3) plants. However, for Surry, early
fatality risk is a factor of 40 (2 × 10-6/5 × 10-8) lower and PDR is a factor of 75 (30/0.4) lower for
low power and shutdown operations compared to full power operations. For Grand Gulf, early
fatality risk and PDR are essentially the same for low power and shutdown operations and for
full power operations.
30
For Grand Gulf Unit 1, the plant operational state evaluated was a refueling outage (cold shutdown as
defined by the plant-specific technical specifications). For Surry Unit 1, the plant operational states
evaluated were for mid-loop operation (the reactor coolant system is lowered to the mid-plane of the hot
leg).
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-54
Appendix E
Table E.3-18 Airborne Impacts of Low Power and Shutdown Accidents (Internal Events
Initiators)
Nuclear
Power Plant
Impact
Grand Gulf 1 CDF
Grand Gulf 1
Grand Gulf 1
Grand Gulf 1
Surry 1
Surry 1
Surry 1
Surry 1
PDR (person-rem
per year)
Total Early Fatality
Risk
Total Latent Cancer
Fatality Risk
CDF
PDR (person-rem
per year)
Total Early Fatality
Risk
Total Latent Cancer
Fatality Risk
Low Power/
Shutdown
Accidents
(mean
values)(a)
2 × 10-6/yr
Full Power
Full Power
Accidents – Accidents – All Full Power
Internal
Hazards (point Accidents
Events (mean
estimate
(95% UCB
values)(b)
values)(c)
values)(d)
4.0 × 10-6/yr
3.2 × 10-5/yr
2.4 × 10-5/yr
8.7
~6
6.7
1,441
~1 × 10-8/yr
~1 × 10-8/yr
Not Estimated
2.8 × 10-3/yr
~4 × 10-3/yr
~1 × 10-3/yr
Not Estimated
1.0/yr
5 × 10-6/yr
4.0 × 10-5/yr
7.6 × 10-5/yr
0.4
~30
36
Not
Estimated
1,200
~5 × 10-8/yr
~2 × 10-6/yr
Not Estimated
1.6 × 10-2/yr
~2 × 10-2/yr
~5 × 10-3/yr
Not Estimated
0.9/yr
CDF = core damage frequency; PDR = population dose risk; UCB = upper confidence bound.
(a) Data for Grand Gulf are from NUREG/CR-6143 (SNL 1995); data for Surry are from NUREG/CR-6144 (BNL
1995).
(b) Data are from NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990).
(c) Data for Grand Gulf are from NUREG-1437, Supplement 50 (NRC 2014c); data for Surry are from NUREG-1437,
Supplement 6 (NRC 2002a).
(d) Data for PDR, Early Fatality Risk, and Latent Fatality Risk are from the 1996 LR GEIS and are represented in
Table E.3-1 of this appendix. Data for CDF were obtained by summing individual atmospheric release
sequences, including intact containment sequences from the original plant-specific EISs, and are represented in
Table E.3-2 and Table E.3-3 of this appendix.
In summary, based on the early 1990s-vintage studies, the total LCF risk for low power and
shutdown operations is about a factor of 4 higher compared to full power operations, while the
total early fatality risk and PDR for low power and shutdown operations are either comparable to
or less than that for full power operations. However, there are compelling reasons for why the
risks from low power and shutdown events relative to full power operations are expected to be
lower today:
• One of the NRC staff conclusions in NUREG-1449 (discussed above) was that “a
well-planned, well-reviewed, and well-implemented outage is a major contributor to safety”
(NRC 1993, p. 6-2). The report further noted findings where improvements could be made,
compared to the current practices at that time (early 1990s). As noted above in Section E.3.6,
the NRC Maintenance Rule, NRC Order EA-12-049, and industry initiatives have
implemented many of these improvements for safety, resulting in an expected risk reduction
from potential low power and shutdown events today compared to the early 1990s.
E-55
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
• Nuclear power plants today spend a much smaller fraction of time in low power and shutdown
operations compared to the early 1990s. Since risk from low power and shutdown events is
proportional to the percentage of time spent in low power and shutdown operating states,
spending less time in low power and shutdown conditions reduces its relative contribution to
risk (all else being equal). This can be seen in the capacity factor trends over the years, which
show ~60–70 percent time at full power operations in the 1980s to early 1990s, versus over
90 percent today.31
Given these additional considerations, the NRC anticipates that the probability-weighted
impacts of an accident during low power and shutdown operations would be on the same order
as full power if calculated today.
Table E.3-18 also compares these results to the hazards risk results developed from the license
renewal SAMA analyses for these same two plants (these results account for external events as
previously discussed in Section E.3.2). Even after accounting for external events, the SAMA
PDR results are similar to the NUREG-1150 results and the low power and shutdown risk
results. The other two metrics (i.e., early fatality risk and LCF risk) were not estimated in the
SAMA analyses.
Lastly, Table E.3-18 compares the low power and shutdown risk results to the 95 percent
UCB risk results from the 1996 LR GEIS. For Surry, the 95 percent UCB values from the 1996
LR GEIS for the PDR are a factor of 3,000 times (1,200/0.4) greater than those for low power
and shutdown accidents, the early fatality risk is a factor of 320,000 times (1.6 × 10-2/5 × 10-8)
greater than that for the low power and shutdown accidents, and the latent fatality risk is a factor
of 45 times (0.9/2 × 10-2) greater than that for the low power and shutdown accidents. For Grand
Gulf, the 95 percent UCB values from the 1996 LR GEIS for the PDR are a factor of 166 times
(1,441/8.7) greater than those for low power and shutdown accidents, the early fatality risk is a
factor of 280,000 times (2.8 × 10-3/1 × 10-8) greater than that for the low power and shutdown
accidents, and the latent fatality risk is a factor of 250 times (1.0/4 × 10-3) greater than that for
the low power and shutdown accidents. For all three metrics for both Surry Unit 1 and Grand
Gulf Unit 1 nuclear power plants, the environmental impact in terms of probability-weighted
consequences estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS bounds by a significant margin the estimated
probability-weighted consequences from the NUREG/CR-6143 (Grand Gulf Unit 1 [SNL 1995])
and NUREG/CR-6144 (Surry Unit 1 [BNL 1995]) studies. Thus, even though the 1996 LR GEIS
estimates regarding the airborne pathway environmental impact are for full power only, the
conservatism in these estimates bounds the impacts from accidents under low power and
shutdown configurations.
E.3.6.2
Other Pathway Impacts
For the impacts from surface water and groundwater contamination from accidents under low
power and shutdown conditions, the estimates for accidents from full power (internal events
only) in the 1996 LR GEIS can be used for comparison. In the 1996 LR GEIS, for the surface
water pathways, it was estimated that the impacts from the drinking water pathway would be a
small fraction of those from the airborne pathway. The risk associated with the aquatic food
pathway was found to be also relatively small compared to the risks associated with the
airborne pathway for most sites and essentially the same as the atmospheric pathway for the
few sites with large annual aquatic food harvests. With the airborne impacts from accidents
under low power and shutdown conditions in NUREG/CR-6143 (SNL 1995), NUREG/CR-6144
31
See for example, Figure 1 in ANS (2020).
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-56
Appendix E
(BNL 1995), and NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990) estimated to be considerably less than the impacts
from accidents at full power in the 1996 LR GEIS, the surface water pathway impacts should
likewise be less, and thus, the risks reported in the 1996 LR GEIS should be bounding.
Section 5.3.3.4 of the 1996 LR GEIS concluded that the contribution of risk from the
groundwater pathway for at-power accidents “generally contributes only a small fraction of that
risk attributable to the atmospheric pathway but in a few cases may contribute a comparable
risk.” Groundwater contamination due to basemat melt-through would be less likely than for
accidents at full power, due to the lower decay heat associated with low power and shutdown
events. Thus, the risks portrayed in the 1996 LR GEIS are considered to be bounding.
E.3.6.3
Conclusion
In summary, the NRC staff concluded that the environmental impacts from accidents at low
power and under shutdown conditions are generally comparable to those from accidents at full
power when comparing the NUREG/CR-6143 (SNL 1995) and NUREG/CR-6144 (BNL 1995)
values to NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990) values. Furthermore, even after accounting for external
events, the license renewal SAMA results are on the same order of magnitude as the
NUREG-1150 results and the low power and shutdown risk results. Although the impacts under
low power and shutdown conditions could be somewhat greater than for full power conditions
(for certain metrics), the 1996 LR GEIS estimates of the environmental impact of severe
accidents bound the potential impacts from accidents at low power and shutdown conditions
with significant margin. In addition, as cited above and discussed in SECY-97-168
(NRC 1997c), industry initiatives taken during the early 1990s have also contributed to the
improved safety of low power and shutdown operations. Finally, promulgation of 10 CFR
50.65(a)(4) to require licensees to assess and manage the increase in risk that may result from
the proposed maintenance activities and industry’s implementation of NUMARC 93-01 have
further enhanced the NRC staff’s ability to oversee licensee activities related to shutdown risk.
The NRC staff concludes that the information from the low power and shutdown PRAs is not
significant for the purposes of this LR GEIS revision, that low power and shutdown risk is
effectively managed by NRC required Maintenance Rule programs and therefore, low power
and shutdown risk is not expected to challenge the 1996 LR GEIS 95 percent UCB risk metrics
during the SLR time period.
E.3.7
Impact from Accidents at Spent Fuel Pools
The 1996 LR GEIS did not include an explicit assessment of the environmental impacts of
accidents at the SFPs located at each reactor site. The 1996 LR GEIS did, however, discuss
qualitatively (see Section 5.2.3.1) the reasons why the impact of accidents at SFPs would be
much less than that from reactor accidents. Thus, in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51, it was
concluded that the impacts from severe accidents would be SMALL, including the accidents at
SFPs, and which could be classified as Category 1 and not require further analysis in support of
license renewal. This was primarily because the resolution of Generic Safety Issue 82, “Beyond
Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools,” concluded that the risk from accidents at SFPs
was low and, accordingly, no additional regulatory action was necessary. The analysis
supporting this conclusion is contained in NUREG-1353 (NRC 1989c).
Since issuance of the 1996 LR GEIS, additional analysis of the risk from SFP accidents has
been performed and documented. These analyses and associated regulatory actions provide
further justification for the conclusion that risk from accidents at SFPs is low. For example, in
2001, the NRC published NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001), which evaluated SFP risk during
E-57
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
decommissioning. Additionally, further analysis has been performed on SFP security as a result
of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. However, much of this analysis contains
security-related information and is not publicly available.
The 2013 LR GEIS considered the risk from severe accidents in SFPs relative to the risk
from severe accidents in reactors, including a comparison to the findings in the 1996 LR GEIS.
The 2013 LR GEIS concluded that the environmental impacts from accidents at SFPs, as
quantified in NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001), can be comparable to those from reactor accidents
at full power, as estimated in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). Mitigative measures employed
since 2001 have further lowered the risk of this class of accidents. In addition, even
the conservative estimates from NUREG-1738 are much less than the impacts from full
power reactor accidents as estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS.
More recent analysis demonstrates even lower risk and safety improvements. For example,
the NRC performed a consequence study in NUREG-2161, Consequence Study of a
Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling
Water Reactor (NRC 2014a), referred to as the SFP Study, to continue its examination of the
risks and consequences of postulated SFP accidents. As directed by the Commission in
SRM-SECY-12-0025, dated March 9, 2012 (NRC 2012e), after the severe accident at the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, the NRC staff has undertaken regulatory actions that
originated from the NTTF recommendations to enhance reactor and SFP safety. On March 12,
2012, the staff issued Order EA-12-051 (NRC 2012a), which requires that licensees install
reliable means of remotely monitoring SFP levels to support effective prioritization of event
mitigation and recovery actions in the event of a beyond-design-basis external event. In
addition, the staff issued Order EA-12-049 (NRC 2012c), which requires that licensees develop,
implement, and maintain guidance and strategies to maintain or restore core cooling,
containment, and SFP cooling capabilities after a beyond-design-basis external event. Upon full
implementation of these Orders, SFP safety was anticipated to be significantly increased.
The NRC issued Order EA-12-049, “Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements for
Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events,” (NRC 2012c) in March 2012
after the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant (NRC 2012f). This Order was
effective immediately and directed the nuclear power plants to provide FLEX in response to
beyond-design-basis external events. The nuclear power plants’ Final Integrated Plans provide
strategies for maintaining or restoring core cooling, containment cooling, and SFP cooling
capabilities for a beyond-design-basis external event. The FLEX strategies and equipment,
when coupled with plant procedures, provide a safety benefit, or additional mitigation capability,
for certain design-basis events, not just the beyond-design-basis events. The most common
application of FLEX is its inclusion in Total Loss of AC Power Event (SBO) Emergency
Procedures. The NRC has subsequently amended its regulations to include 10 CFR 50.155,
“Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events,” which made the requirements of Orders EA-12-049
and EA-12-051 (84 FR 39684) generically applicable.
As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the NRC issued EA-02-026, “Order
for Interim Safeguards and Security Compensatory Measures” (NRC 2002b), referred to as the
ICMs Orders, dated February 25, 2002. The ICMs Orders modified then-operating licenses for
commercial power reactor facilities to require compliance with specified interim safeguards and
security compensatory measures. Section B.5.b of the ICMs Orders requires licensees to adopt
mitigation strategies using readily available resources to maintain or restore core cooling,
containment, and SFP cooling capabilities to cope with the loss of large areas of the facility due
to large fires and explosions from any cause, including beyond-design-basis aircraft impacts.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-58
Appendix E
Information about the historical evolution of mitigating measures implemented in response to the
ICMs Orders is described in the NRC memorandum dated February 4, 2010 (NRC 2010a).32
NUREG-2161 (NRC 2014a) provides publicly available consequence estimates of a
hypothetical SFP accident initiated by a low-likelihood seismic event at a specific reference
plant. The study compares high-density and low-density loading conditions and assesses the
benefits of post-9/11 mitigation measures. Past risk studies have shown that storage of spent
fuel in a high-density configuration is safe and that the risk of a large release due to an accident
is very low. The NUREG-2161 results are consistent with earlier research conclusions that
SFPs are robust structures that are likely to withstand severe earthquakes without leaking. The
NRC continues to believe, based on this study and previous studies, that high-density storage of
spent fuel in pools protects public health and safety.
The purpose of this section is to consider the additional risk from severe accidents in SFPs,
which was not considered in the 1996 LR GEIS. This is done by comparing the risk from severe
accidents in SFPs to the risk from severe accidents in reactors, including a comparison to the
findings in the 1996 LR GEIS.
The environmental impacts of accidents at the spent fuel dry cask storage facilities located at
most reactor sites are not explicitly addressed in the 1996 LR GEIS. However, dry cask safety is
addressed under 10 CFR Part 72. In general, comparison of the NUREG-2161 (NRC 2014a)
SFP risk results to those from dry cask storage studies, specifically NUREG-1864 (NRC 2007a)
and supplemental analyses in NUREG-2161, indicates that in some circumstances, the
conditional individual LCF risk within 0 to 10 mi would be similar due primarily to the
conservative upper bound estimate of the dry cask release as well as the expected
effectiveness of protective actions in response to an SFP release. However, conditional results
for metrics such as population dose or condemned or interdicted lands are several orders of
magnitude lower for dry cask scenarios than the low end of consequences of pool accidents,
due to the substantially smaller amount of released material (NUREG-2161; NRC 2014a).
E.3.7.1
Airborne Pathway Impacts
The analysis contained in NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001) assessed the impacts from accidents at a
typical SFP at decommissioning nuclear power plants. The impacts assessed include those
associated with the airborne pathway impact on human health. The analysis covers a range of
decay times for the fuel stored in the SFP, a number of initiating events, and some variations in
emergency evacuation times, fission product releases, and seismic hazard. The initiating events
included in the analysis are listed below:
• seismic (for central and eastern U.S. sites)33
32
Portions of NRC Order EA-02-026 have been rescinded because those requirements were
subsequently incorporated into NRC regulations by the 2009 Final Rule on Power Reactor Security
Requirements (79 FR 13926).
33 The seismic risk analysis performed in NUREG-1738 was based on plant-specific seismic hazard
estimates for nuclear power plants in the central and eastern United States found in NUREG-1488,
Revised Livermore Seismic Hazard Estimates for 69 Nuclear Power Plant Sites East of the Rocky
Mountains (NRC 1994). As such, nuclear power plants in the western United States, such as Diablo
Canyon, San Onofre, and Columbia, were not specifically considered in this study. Nothing in
NUREG-1738, or the staff’s reliance on it here, undermines the staff’s initial conclusion in the
1996 LR GEIS that the impacts of SFP severe accidents will be comparable to reactor severe accidents
for all facilities.
E-59
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
cask drop
loss of offsite power
internal fire
loss of pool cooling
loss of pool coolant inventory
accidental aircraft impact (although not deliberate impacts)
tornado missile
Additional details regarding these airborne pathway impacts are provided in Section E.3.7.1 of
the 2013 LR GEIS.
The analysis conducted in NUREG-1738 assumed the plant was in its decommissioning phase
and, thus, had fewer protective features for the prevention or mitigation of SFP accidents.
Therefore, the impact analysis contained in NUREG-1738 is considered conservative from this
perspective. Table E.3-19 summarizes the airborne pathway impact on human health from a
severe accident in a SFP (from the NUREG-1738 analysis; NRC 2001) for a time period of
1 month to 2 years following shutdown of the reactor (i.e., a typical refueling outage lasts up to
30 days or longer and, occasionally, a maintenance outage lasts for several months). Ranges
are given to account for differences in emergency planning and seismic hazard assumptions.
The site characteristics used in NUREG-1738 were those derived from the Surry plant. Thus,
Table E.3-19 also presents Surry’s plant-specific results from NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990) and
from the 1996 LR GEIS.
Table E.3-19 Impacts of Accidents at Spent Fuel Pools from NUREG-1738(a)
Spent Fuel Pools(b) Spent Fuel Pools(b)
(1 month to 2
(1 month to 2 years
years decay time)
decay time)
Impact
Individual
risk - EF(c)
(1 mi)
Individual
risk - LF(d)
(10 mi)
Total
person-rem
per year
Total early
fatality risk
Reactors
Reactors
Reactors
NUREG-1150 1996 LR GEIS
Surry (95th
Surry (95%
percentile)
UCB)
-8
4 × 10 /yr
Not Estimated
Low Ru Release
(range of means)
2 × 10-9 to
7 × 10-9/yr
High Ru Release
(range of means)
6 × 10-8 to
1 × 10-7/yr
NUREG-1150
Surry (mean)
1.5 × 10-8/yr
1 × 10-8/yr
2 × 10-7/yr
1.5 × 10-9/yr
1 × 10-8/yr
Not Estimated
2.5 to 12
(50 mi)
8 to 60
(50 mi)
6 (50 mi)
30 (entire
region)
30 (50 mi)
150 (150 mi)
1,200
(150 mi)
2 × 10-7 to
6 × 10-6/yr
1 × 10-5 to
5 × 10-4/yr
1 × 10-6/yr
3 × 10-6/yr
1.6 × 10-2/yr
EF = early fatality risk; LF = latent fatality risk; LR GEIS = Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Ru = ruthenium; UCB = upper confidence bound.
(a) All values are approximate.
(b) Data were obtained from Figures 3.7-3, 3.7-4, 3.7-7, and 3.7-8 of NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001).
(c) The individual early fatality risk within 1 mi (1.6 km) is the frequency (per year) that a person living within 1 mi
(1.6 km) of the site boundary will die within a year due to the accident. The entire population within 1 mi (1.6 km)
is considered to obtain an average value.
(d) The individual latent cancer fatality risk within 10 mi (16 km) is the frequency (per year) that a person living within
10 mi (16 km) of the plant will die many years later from cancer due to radiation exposure received from the
accident. The entire population within 10 mi (16 km) is considered to obtain an average value.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-60
Appendix E
As can be seen in Table E.3-19, the impacts from SFP accidents at the Surry plant (as
calculated in NUREG-1738 [NRC 2001]) are generally comparable to or smaller than the
analogous NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990) internal event reactor accidents when using the low
ruthenium release source term.34 For the high ruthenium release source term, the NUREG-1738
results are generally higher than the accompanying reactor results from NUREG-1150. For
either source term, the NUREG-1738 impacts are much less than the conservative estimates of
full power reactor accidents at Surry as estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS.
The impacts stated in NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001) are also similar to those calculated for the
resolution of Generic Safety Issue 82, in which NUREG-1353 (NRC 1989c) calculated a bestestimate population dose of 16 person-rem per year.35 While the NUREG-1738 results are for
the Surry plant, individual risk metrics for early fatalities and latent fatalities should be relatively
insensitive to the plant-specific surrounding population (see pg. 3-28 of NUREG-1738) because
these metrics reflect doses to the close-in population. In addition, while results are presented for
both the low and high ruthenium source term, the low ruthenium source term is still viewed as
being the more accurate representation. Therefore, the risk and environmental impact from fires
in SFPs as analyzed in NUREG-1738 are expected to be comparable to or lower than those
from reactor accidents and are bounded by the 1996 LR GEIS.
Since the issuance of NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001), and after the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, significant additional analyses have been performed that support the view that the risk
of a successful terrorist attack (i.e., one that results in a zirconium fire) is very low at all plants.
These analyses were conducted by Sandia National Laboratories and are collectively referred to
herein as the “Sandia studies.” The Sandia studies contain sensitive, security-related
information and are not available to the public. The Sandia studies considered spent fuel
loading patterns and other aspects of a PWR SFP and a BWR SFP, including the role that the
circulation of air plays in the cooling of spent fuel. The Sandia studies indicated that there may
be a significant amount of time between the initiating event (i.e., the event that causes the SFP
water level to drop) and the spent fuel assemblies becoming partially or completely uncovered.
In addition, the Sandia studies indicated that for conditions where air cooling may not be
effective in preventing a zirconium fire, there is a significant amount of time between the spent
fuel becoming uncovered and the possible onset of such a zirconium fire, thereby providing a
substantial opportunity for both operator and system event mitigation.
The Sandia studies, which more fully accounted for relevant heat transfer and fluid flow
mechanisms, also indicated that air cooling of spent fuel would be sufficient to prevent SFP
zirconium fires at a point much earlier following fuel offload from the reactor than previously
considered (e.g., in NUREG-1738). Thus, the fuel is more easily cooled, and the likelihood of a
zirconium fire is therefore reduced.
Furthermore, additional mitigation strategies implemented after September 11, 2001, enhance
spent fuel coolability and the potential to recover the SFP water level and cooling prior to a
potential zirconium fire. The Sandia studies also confirmed the effectiveness of these additional
mitigation strategies in maintaining spent fuel cooling in the event the pool is drained and its
34
Due to a concern about the potential release of ruthenium isotopes from the spent fuel stored in the
SFP, two sensitivity cases were analyzed in NUREG-1738: one with a ruthenium release fraction of
2 × 10-5 (called the base case or the low ruthenium release case) and another with a ruthenium release
fraction of 1.0 (called the high ruthenium release case).
35 Taken from the Executive Summary of that report: total dose = 8 × 106 person-rem; event
frequency = 2 × 10-6 per year.
E-61
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
initial water inventory is reduced or lost entirely. Based on the more rigorous accident
progression analyses, the recent mitigation enhancements, and NRC site evaluations of every
SFP in the United States, the risk of an SFP zirconium fire initiation is expected to be less
than that reported in NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001) and previous studies.
NUREG-2161, Appendix D (NRC 2014a), used information contained in the Consequence
Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I
Boiling Water Reactor (SFP Study), to evaluate whether there is a benefit at the reference plant
in the study to change from high- to low-density spent fuel storage configurations in the SFP.
The analysis in NUREG-2161 calculates the potential benefit per RY resulting from expedited
fuel transfer by comparing the safety of high-density spent fuel pool storage relative to
low-density fuel pool storage. The comparison uses the initiating frequency and consequences
from the SFP Study as an indicator of any changes in the NRC’s understanding of safe storage
of spent fuel. The staff also used calculated results from previous SFP studies (i.e.,
NUREG-1353 and NUREG-1738) to extend the applicability of this evaluation to include other
initiators that could challenge SFP cooling or integrity. NUREG-2161 concluded that past SFP
risk studies have shown that storage of spent fuel in a high-density configuration is safe and the
associated risk is low. The NUREG-2161 study is consistent with earlier research conclusions
that SFPs are robust structures that are likely to withstand severe earthquakes without leaking.
The study estimated that the likelihood of a radiological release from the SFP resulting from the
selected severe seismic event analyzed in the study is on the order of one time in 10 million
years or lower.
For the hypothetical releases studied (conditional consequences), no early fatalities attributable
to acute radiation exposure were predicted and individual LCF risks are projected to be low, but
extensive protective actions may be needed. Comparisons of the calculated individual LCF risk
within 10 mi to the NRC Safety Goal are provided in Figure E.3-5 (NRC 2014a) to provide
context that may help the reader understand the contribution to cancer risks from the accident
scenarios that were studied. The NRC Safety Goal for LCF risk from nuclear power plant
operation (i.e., 2 × 10-6 or two in one million per year) is set 1,000 times lower than the sum of
cancer fatality risks resulting from all other causes (i.e., ~2 × 10-3 or two in 1,000 per year).
Comparing the study results to the NRC Safety Goal does involve important limitations. First,
the safety goal is intended to encompass all accident scenarios for a nuclear facility, whether a
reactor or spent fuel pool. This study does not examine all scenarios that would need to be
considered in a PRA for a SFP, although seismic contributors are considered the most
important contributors to SFP risk. Also, this study represents a mix of limited probabilistic
considerations with a deterministic treatment of mitigating features. All analytical techniques,
both deterministic and probabilistic, have inherent limitations in scope and method, and also
have uncertainty of varying degrees and types. As a result, comparison of the scenario-specific
calculated individual LCF risk to the NRC Safety Goal is incomplete. However, it is intended to
show how multiple SFP scenarios’ risk results are low, in the one in a trillion (10-12) to one in
10 billion (10-10) per year LCF range. While the results of this study are scenario-specific and
related to a single SFP, the NRC staff concludes that because these risks are several orders of
magnitude smaller than the 2 × 10-6 (two in one million) individual LCF risk that corresponds to
the safety goal for LCFs, it is unlikely that the results here would contribute significantly to a risk
that would challenge the Commission’s safety goal policy (51 FR 30028).
The study results demonstrated that in a high-density loading configuration, a more favorable
fuel pattern or successful mitigation generally prevented or reduced the size of potential
releases. Low-density loading reduced the size of potential releases but did not affect the
likelihood of a release. When a release is predicted to occur, individual early and latent fatality
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-62
Appendix E
risks for individuals within 10 mi do not vary significantly between the scenarios studied because
protective actions, including relocation of the public and land interdiction, were modeled to be
effective in limiting exposure. The beneficial effects in the reduction of offsite consequences
between a high-density loading scenario and a low-density loading scenario are primarily
associated with the reduction in the potential extent of land contamination and associated
protective actions. The results of the SFP Study show that the overall level of safety with
respect to spent fuel storage in a SFP currently achieved at the reference plant is high and that
the level of risk at the reference plant is very low. Applying the NRC’s regulatory analysis
guidelines to analyze the results of the SFP Study with respect to the quantitative benefits
attributable to expedited transfer of spent fuel at the reference plant, and the risk reduction
attributable to expedited transfer against the NRC’s Safety Goals, the NRC concluded the
incremental safety (including risk) reduction associated with expedited transfer of spent fuel at
the reference plant is not warranted in light of the added costs involved with expediting the
movement of spent fuel from the pool to achieve low-density fuel pool storage. Therefore, an
NRC requirement mandating expedited transfer of spent fuel from pools to dry cask storage
containers at the reference plant was not justified.
Figure E.3-5 Comparison of Population-Weighted Average Individual Latent Cancer
Fatality Risk Results from NUREG-2161 to the NRC Safety Goal. Source:
NRC 2014a.36
36
Since publication of NUREG-2161 (NRC 2014a) the requirements formerly in 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2)
have been moved to 10 CFR 50.155(b)(2) as a result of the “Final Rule on Mitigation of Beyond-DesignBasis Events” dated September 9, 2019 (84 FR 39684).
E-63
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Individual Early Fatality Risk
For all scenarios evaluated in the SFP Study (NRC 2014a), no offsite early fatalities attributable
to acute radiation exposure are predicted to occur. Due to radioactive decay, SFPs tend to have
significantly fewer shorter-lived radionuclides (e.g., I-131) than reactors. Despite this, in at least
one case that was analyzed, doses close to the site did reach levels that can induce early
fatalities. Therefore, the potential (although remote) for early fatalities exists. However,
emergency response as treated in the SFP Study effectively prevents any early fatality risk from
acute radiation exposure, at least in part because the modeled accident progression results in
releases that are long compared to the implementation of emergency response in the areas of
most concern.
The projection of no early fatalities in the SFP Study is lower than that reported in some
previous studies of risks from SFP accidents, such as NUREG/CR-6451 (NRC 1997b) and
NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001). This projection is consistent with the earlier studies documented in
NUREG-1353 (NRC 1989c). Tables 4.1 and 4.2 of NUREG/CR-6451 project anywhere from
approximately 1 to 100 early fatalities within a 500 mi radius in the event of an accident
involving the full SFP, with the higher values being associated with high release fractions.
NUREG-1738 (Table 3.7-1 and Table 3.7-2) reported similar values, ranging from no fatalities
for low ruthenium source terms with early evacuation to up to 192 early fatalities for an accident
shortly (30 days) after shutdown with high ruthenium source terms and late evacuation.
NUREG-1353 does not provide quantitative estimates of early fatality risk but states that
“…there are no ‘early’ fatalities and the risk of early injury is negligible.” On balance, the
scenarios analyzed in the SFP Study are consistent with the lower end of the reported range
from previous studies, in that no early fatalities are projected to occur.
Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk
Despite the large releases under certain circumstances in the SFP Study (NRC 2014a), the risk
of LCF to the average individual within 10 mi of the plant is low. When averaged over the
likelihood of different event timings and leak sizes, the conditional risks (assuming an event has
occurred) within 10 mi are in the 1 × 10-4 to 1 × 10-3 range for cases both with and without
successful mitigation and for high-density and low-density cases, when using a LNT
dose-response model. This range does not appreciably increase even if the releases for
different leak sizes or operating cycle phases are shown separately.
Individual LCF risk is low for the following reasons:
• The predicted release frequency of this event is very small.
• Protective actions, especially those for long-term chronic doses, are estimated to avert
significant amounts of public exposure.
Because of the nature of the event, this risk is predominantly from long-term chronic exposures.
With effective long-term protective measures (e.g., temporary and permanent land interdiction),
essentially no individuals receive any long-term risks greater than those associated with the
dose limits for protective actions. Therefore, independent of the release magnitude of the event,
these dose limits form an upper limit to individual long-term risk. In addition, emergency
response is assumed to be very effective in evacuating and relocating the public. For instance,
individuals within the 0 to 10 mi distance (representative of the plume exposure pathway
emergency planning zone [EPZ]) essentially only receive LCF risk if they return to low risk,
habitable areas. The conditional individual LCF risks within 10 mi are comparable to or lower
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-64
Appendix E
than the projections from earlier studies of SFP accident risk. For example, NUREG-1738
(NRC 2001) reports conditional individual LCF risks ranging from 8 × 10-4 to 8 × 10-2 for a range
of initiating events where large seismic events contributed the most to the overall estimate of
risk. These conditional risks were driven largely by the previous estimates of ruthenium volatility
and by the effectiveness of evacuation.
When the release frequency is considered, the LCF risks from the events analyzed in the SFP
Study are very small—in the 2 × 10-12 to 5 × 10-11 per year range—when using an LNT
dose-response model. For perspective, the Commission’s safety goal policy related to the
cancer fatality QHO represents a 2 × 10-6 per year objective for an average individual within
10 mi of the nuclear plant site. While the results of the SFP Study are scenario-specific and
related to a single SFP, the NRC staff concludes that because these risks are several orders of
magnitude smaller than the QHO, it is unlikely that the results would contribute significantly to a
risk that would challenge the Commission’s safety goal policy.
Because the health effects that would be induced by low dose radiation are uncertain, the NRC
staff performed a sensitivity analysis to understand how the risks would change if computed
health risks were limited to those arising from higher doses. The upper truncation level (5 rem
annually and 10 rem lifetime) used in this sensitivity analysis corresponds to a treatment
consistent with the Health Physics Society's position statement that there is a dose below
which, because of uncertainties, a quantified risk should not be assigned. The second truncation
level (620 mrem annually) corresponds to the average annual dose to the public from medical
and background radiation exposures in the United States. The LCF risks for these truncation
levels are even smaller, ranging from 1 × 10-16 to 2 × 10-14 per year.
Subsequent to the regulatory analysis reported in Appendix D of NUREG-2161, the Commission
agreed with the NRC staff’s recommendation that no further generic evaluations of SFP risk
should be pursued; instead, it directed the staff to evaluate the NRC process for seismic hazard
reevaluations, conducted in response to the lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi
accident, with respect to the SFP (NRC 2014d). The NRC staff determined that these seismic
hazard reevaluations also include an evaluation of the seismic adequacy of SFPs. These
evaluations have been submitted to the NRC for all nuclear power plants. The NRC staff has
concluded that each nuclear power plant has implemented the NRC-mandated safety
enhancements resulting from the lessons learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, that all
licensees have completed their responses to the 50.54(f) letter for their nuclear power plants,
and that no further regulatory decisionmaking is required for nuclear power plants related to the
Fukushima lessons learned. Furthermore, with the promulgation of the final MBDBE rule, which
addressed certain NTTF recommendations related to SFPs and SBOs, the NRC staff has
completed all NTTF recommendations related to SFPs (NRC 2017g).
E.3.7.2
Other Pathway Impacts
Neither the analyses in NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001) nor those in the NUREG-2161 (NRC 2014a)
addressed the impacts with respect to the other pathways (open bodies of water and
groundwater). The 1996 LR GEIS estimated these impacts for reactor accidents from full power
(internal events only) using the results from plant-specific reactor accident analysis to assess
the contamination of open bodies of water and from the Liquid Pathway Generic Study
(NUREG-0440; NRC 1978) to assess the contamination of groundwater from basemat
melt-through accidents.
E-65
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
In both cases, the impacts on human health from surface water and groundwater contamination
are only a small fraction of impacts from the airborne pathway, except in a few cases where the
impacts are comparable. With the impacts from the airborne pathway associated with SFP
accidents (as stated in NUREG-1738) being comparable to the impacts from reactor accidents,
as stated in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990), the impacts from SFP-related surface water and
groundwater contamination may also be comparable, even though the SFP fuel inventory is
several times that of the reactor. This is due to the lower probability of occurrence of SFP
accidents, the effects of decay of the fission products on the radionuclide inventory, and the
lower energy density of the fuel inventory, which makes basemat melt-through more unlikely.
The same conclusion can also be drawn with respect to the economic impacts. These impacts
are related to the likelihood of the accidents and the cost of cleanup and food interdiction. Even
with higher fuel inventories, the lower likelihood of accidents in the SFP reduces the economic
impacts. For example, the UCB economic impact identified in Table 5-31 in the 1996 LR GEIS
from full power reactor accidents at the Surry plant is approximately $1.1 million/yr. The
worst-case economic impacts estimated in past studies for SFP accidents ranged from
approximately $18,000/yr to $120,000/yr.37
An issue related to the groundwater pathway that has received significant attention since the
issuance of the 1996 LR GEIS is leakage of water from SFPs (or related systems) at Salem
Unit 1, Indian Point Units 1 and 2, and the Seabrook plant. Instances of this kind are adequately
monitored and addressed via existing regulatory programs and do not fall within the scope of
this accidents analysis, but the topic of radionuclides released to groundwater is addressed in
Sections 4.5.1.2.7 of this LR GEIS. For more information about this topic, the reader is referred
to NUREG-0933, Supplement 35, Section 3, Issue 202 (NRC 2011b) and (NRC 2008).
E.3.7.3
Conclusion
In summary, the NRC staff concluded in the 2013 LR GEIS that the environmental impacts from
accidents at SFPs, as quantified in NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001), can be comparable to those
from reactor accidents at full power, as estimated in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990). Mitigative
measures employed since 2001 have further lowered the risk of this class of accidents. In
addition, even the conservative estimates of impacts from NUREG-1738 are much less than
those from full power reactor accidents as estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS. NUREG-2161
(NRC 2014a), Consequence Study of a Beyond-Design-Basis Earthquake Affecting the Spent
Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor, reinforced the results of earlier studies of the
safety of U.S. commercial nuclear power plant SFPs. FLEX capabilities include SFP cooling,
which contributes to the plant safety for events involving total loss of AC power. Therefore, the
environmental impacts stated in the 1996 LR GEIS continue to bound the impact from SFP
accidents.
E.3.8
Impact of the Use of BEIR VII Risk Coefficients
Section 5.3.3.2.2 from the 1996 LR GEIS discussed adverse health effects from exposure to
radiation and referenced several National Academy of Sciences reports (BEIR I, III, and V;
National Research Council 1972, National Research Council 1980, National Research Council
1990) as sources of risk coefficients for fatal cancers (i.e., latent fatalities) associated with
radiation exposure. Benchmark evaluations of the EI methodology employed by the
37
The former estimate uses information from Tables C.95 and C.101 of NUREG/BR–0184 (NRC 1997f),
while the latter uses information from Tables 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of NUREG-1353 (NRC 1989c).
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-66
Appendix E
1996 LR GEIS were conducted using the MACCS code, as described in Section 5.3.3.2.3 of the
1996 LR GEIS. The MACCS code version used in 1996 LR GEIS was a predecessor of the
MACCS code version currently in use, and it represented the state-of-the-art for assessing risks
associated with postulated severe reactor accidents at that time. A MACCS code-to-code
comparison used a linear cancer model based on the BEIR V report (National Research Council
1990). The code-to-code comparisons suggest that latent fatality values in the original EISs are
an order of magnitude too low. Therefore, to account for this, the latent fatality results predicted
from the original EIS values were multiplied by a factor of 10 to obtain the final predicted latent
fatality results in the 1996 LR GEIS. This adjustment, in combination with the use of 95th
percentile UCB values, ensured that the basis for health effects would be conservative.
In 2006, the National Research Council’s Committee on the BEIR published BEIR VII, entitled
Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (National Research Council
2006). BEIR VII provides estimates of the risk of incidence and mortality for males and females
(see Section 3.9.1.4 and Appendix D of the 2013 LR GEIS for more information). The BEIR VII
report estimates that the fatal cancer risk coefficient is approximately 20 percent higher than the
International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendation (as described in
ICRP 1991). The difference of 20 percent is within the margin of uncertainty associated with
these estimates (see Appendix D.8.1.4 of the 2013 LR GEIS for a detailed discussion of the
BEIR VII report). SOARCA demonstrated a considerable reduction in predicted fatal cancer
fatalities, as provided in Section E.3.9.
The NRC staff completed a review of the BEIR VII report and documented its findings in
SECY-05-0202 (NRC 2005b). In that paper, the NRC staff concluded that the findings presented
in the BEIR VII report agree with the NRC’s current understanding of the health risks from
exposure to ionizing radiation. The NRC staff agreed with the BEIR VII report’s major
conclusion that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a LNT
dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of
cancer in humans. This conclusion is consistent with the process the NRC uses to develop its
standards of radiological protection. Therefore, the NRC’s regulations continue to be adequately
protective of public health and safety and the environment. Therefore, the environmental
impacts stated in the 1996 LR GEIS continue to be bounding.
E.3.9
Uncertainties
Section 5.3.4 in the 1996 LR GEIS provides a discussion of the uncertainties associated with
the analysis in the LR GEIS and the original EISs used to estimate the environmental impacts of
severe accidents. The uncertainties discussed covered the following:
• the probability of an accident
• the quantity and chemical form of radioactivity released
• atmospheric dispersion modeling for the radioactive plume transport, including:
– duration, energy release, and in-plant radionuclide decay time
– meteorological sampling scheme used
– emergency response effectiveness and warning time
– dose conversion factors and dose-response relationships for early health consequences
– dose conversion factors and dose-response relationships for latent health consequences
E-67
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
– chronic exposure pathways and
– economic data and modeling
• assumption of normality for random error components
• the EI method
– selection of EI parameters
– selection of distances
– regressing early fatalities for only large plants and
– normalization of plants for latent fatalities, costs, and dose
The 1996 LR GEIS recognized that the uncertainties in the estimated impacts could be large
(i.e., from a factor of 10 to 1,000). In an attempt to help compensate for uncertainties, the 1996
LR GEIS used very conservative estimates of environmental impacts. These included use of:
• the 95th percentile confidence values in estimating airborne pathway and economic impacts;
• plant-specific analysis for estimating surface water pathway impacts; and
• NUREG-0440 (NRC 1978) results to bound the estimated groundwater pathway impacts.
The staff concluded that even with uncertainties, the environmental impacts estimated in the
1996 LR GEIS were adequate for use.
Many of these same uncertainties also apply to the analysis used in this updated LR GEIS.
However, as discussed in Sections E.3.1 through E.3.8 of this LR GEIS revision, more recent
information is used to supplement the estimate of the environmental impacts contained in the
1996 LR GEIS. In effect, the assessments contained in Sections E.3.1 through E.3.8 of this
revision provide additional information about and insights into items that could be considered
areas of uncertainty associated with the 1996 LR GEIS.
This updated information also provides insights into sources of uncertainty in addition to those
discussed in the 1996 LR GEIS. Each of the insights from these additional sources of
uncertainty is summarized below.
Since the issuance of the 1996 LR GEIS and 2013 LR GEIS updates, the NRC staff has
completed several studies that provide insight into the quantitative effects of uncertainties
related to consequences. One set of studies stemmed from a potential rulemaking technical
bases analysis on Containment Protection and Release Reduction (CPRR) that covered a
subset of potential accident scenarios for a few reactor and SFP designs and sites. A second
set of studies is the NRC’s SOARCA uncertainty analyses, which treated accident progression,
radiological release, and health effect uncertainties for one accident scenario each at three
different sites in the United States with different reactor designs. Uncertainty insights from the
regulatory analyses and from the three SOARCA uncertainty analyses are discussed and
summarized below. The scope of studies discussed here focused on the important class of
severe accidents involving SBOs and treated BWRs with two different containment types,
PWRs with two different containment types, and eight different sites in the United States.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-68
Appendix E
Containment Protection and Release Reduction Regulatory Analysis (2015)
After the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident, one of the potential rulemakings investigated by the NRC
was for CPRR. The objective of the CPRR regulatory basis was to determine what, if any,
additional requirements were warranted for filtering strategies and severe accident management
for BWRs with Mark I and Mark II containments, assuming the installation of severe accidentcapable hardened vents per Order EA-13-109. The NRC staff documented its detailed analyses
in SECY-15-0085, “Evaluation of the Containment Protection and Release Reduction for Mark I
and Mark II Boiling Water Reactors Rulemaking Activities,” dated June 18, 2015 (NRC 2015c),
as well as in NUREG-2206, Technical Basis for the Containment Protection and Release
Reduction Rulemaking for Boiling Water Reactors with Mark I and Mark II Containments, issued
March 2018 (NRC 2018c).
Because none of the alternatives considered in the study would affect the frequency of core
damage accidents (i.e., the change in CDF for each alternative relative to the regulatory status
quo baseline was zero), the safety goal screening criteria in the regulatory analysis guidelines
could not be used to determine whether each alternative could result in a substantial increase in
overall protection of public health and safety. Instead, the NRC staff analyzed regulatory
alternatives to directly compare their potential safety benefits to the QHOs for average individual
early fatality risk and average individual LCF risk, using conservatively high estimates, as
described below. The QHOs are described in the Commission’s Safety Goal Policy Statement
(51 FR 30028). This necessitated building a PRA that included the following elements:
• accident scenario selection;
• development of core damage event trees to (1) model the impact of equipment failures and
operator actions occurring before core damage that affects severe accident progression and
the probability that CPRR strategies are successfully implemented, (2) match the initial and
boundary conditions used in the thermal-hydraulic simulation of severe accidents in
MELCOR, and (3) probabilistically consider mitigating strategies for beyond-design-basis
external events required by Order EA-12-049;
• development of accident progression event trees to model the CPRR strategies;
• severe accident progression and source term analyses using the MELCOR code to model
(1) reactor systems and containment thermal-hydraulics under severe accident conditions and
(2) assessment of source terms—the timing, magnitude, and other characteristics of fission
product releases to the environment, which are necessary to assess the offsite radiological
consequences associated with releases of radioactive materials to the environment; and
• offsite consequence analyses using the MACCS code to calculate offsite radiological
consequences with plant-specific population, economic, land use, weather, and evacuation
data for reference Mark I and Mark II sites.
The NRC staff performed a screening analysis for the average individual LCF risk QHO for the
relevant plants—all U.S. BWRs with Mark I containments (a total of 22 units at 15 sites) and
Mark II containments (a total of 8 units at 5 sites). For this screening analysis, the NRC staff
developed a conservatively high estimate of the frequency-weighted average of an individual
LCF risk within 10 mi of the plant using the following parameter values:
E-69
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
• an extended loss of alternating current power (ELAP)38 frequency value of 7 × 10-5 per RY—
which represented the highest value among all BWRs with Mark I and Mark II containments;
• a success probability for FLEX equipment of 0.6 per demand—which assumed the
implementation of FLEX will successfully mitigate an accident involving an ELAP 6 out of
10 times; and
• a conditional average individual LCF risk of 2 × 10-3 per event—which represented the highest
value among all BWRs with Mark I and Mark II containments from the detailed analyses.
In other words, for each of these factors (ELAP frequency, FLEX success probability,
conditional individual LCF risk), the analysis chose the most conservative estimate from the
population of affected plants and combined them into one conservatively high estimate. The
calculation does not represent any individual plant, but rather bounds the risk from any
individual plant. These assumed parameter values resulted in a conservatively high estimate of
a frequency-weighted individual LCF risk within 10 mi of approximately 7 × 10-8 per RY (labeled
as “High-Level Conservative Estimate” in Figure E.3-6), which is over an order of magnitude
less than the QHO for an average individual LCF risk of approximately 2 × 10-6 per RY. This
conservatively high estimate did not take credit for any of the accident strategies and
capabilities described in the 20 CPRR alternatives and sub-alternatives.
The NRC staff also conducted uncertainty and sensitivity analyses on their baseline analyses.
The NRC staff performed a parametric Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis (UA) to gain additional
perspective of the uncertainty of the point estimate risk evaluation results. The UA considered
seismic hazard curves, seismic fragility curves, random equipment failures, operator actions,
and consequences. Table E.3-20 summarizes information used to perform the parametric UA; in
other words, which parameters in the risk equation were varied and what distributions were
used to describe the uncertainties in these parameters. The base case model for the reference
Mark I plant (which had the highest surrounding population density of the three Mark I sites
analyzed) was used to calculate the results. Figure E.3-6 shows the results of the UA for
individual LCF risk within 10 mi of the nuclear power plant. The vertical line above each
regulatory sub-alternative on the X-axis shows the distribution of results for that alternative.
Alternate 1 is the “status quo” (or do nothing new) option. As can be seen, the status quo
95th percentile for individual LCF risk for the “do nothing” option is well below—almost an order
of magnitude lower than the “High-Level Conservative Estimate.”
Staff performed additional MACCS sensitivity calculations to analyze the influence of site-to-site
variation. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for the following:
• population (low, medium, high)
• evacuation delay (1 hr, 3 hrs, 6 hrs, no evacuation)
• nonevacuating cohort size (0.5 and 5 percent of EPZ population)
• intermediate phase duration (0, 3 months, and 1 year)
• long-term habitability criterion (500 mrem/yr and 2 rem/yr), which can vary among states in
the United States
38
An ELAP is defined as an SBO that lasts longer than the SBO coping duration specified in
10 CFR 50.63, “Loss of all alternating current power.”
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-70
Appendix E
Figure E.3-6 Uncertainty in Average Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk (0–10 mi) in
the 2015 Containment Protection and Release Reduction Regulatory
Analysis. Source: NRC 2015a.
Table E.3-20 Uncertainty Analysis Inputs
Events
Frequency of
ELAPs due to
internal events
Distribution
Lognormal
Mean = point estimate
Error factor =15
Seismic hazard
curves
Lognormal
Seismic fragilities
Double lognormal, using
the developed values of
C50, βR, and βU
Lognormal
Mean = point estimate
Error factor = 15
Hardware-related
failures
Remarks
An error factor of 15 maximizes the ratio of the 95th
percentile to the mean value. This approach does not
explicitly consider the uncertainty in the offsite power
recovery curves or the uncertainty in the emergency
power system reliability parameters (failure rate and
failure-on-demand probability).
Normal parameters were developed for each point on
the seismic hazard curve using the fractile information
provided by licensees in their responses to the 10 CFR
50.54(f) information request concerning NTTF
Recommendation 2.1.
Traditional approach to modeling uncertainty in seismic
fragility.
An error factor of 15 maximizes the ratio of the 95th
percentile to the mean value.
E-71
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Events
Human failure
events
Conditional
consequences
Distribution
Constrained
non-informative prior
Lognormal
Mean = point estimate
Error factor = 10
Remarks
A constrained non-informative prior distribution is a beta
distribution with mean = point estimate and α = 0.5.
Informed by preliminary results of the SOARCA
uncertainty analysis project.
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; ELAP = extended loss of alternating current power; NTTF = Near-Term Task
Force; SOARCA = state-of-the-art reactor consequence analysis.
Source: NRC 2018c.
The results of these sensitivity analyses appear in a series of tables in Chapter 4 of
NUREG-2206 (NRC 2018c), which report the ratio of the consequences for the sensitivity cases
compared to the baseline cases, and to each other. Sensitivity cases were run for each of three
different source terms (low, medium, and high) representing cesium releases that spanned four
orders of magnitude. Analysis results were most sensitive to the population density surrounding
the plants evaluated. Table E.3-21 below shows the results for the different population
sensitivity cases on the baseline-case results (i.e., the status quo or do nothing alternative).
These tables show the ratio of the risk results for the medium- and high-population cases to the
low-population case. For example, the first entry in the “0–10 mi” column under “Individual
Latent Cancer Fatality Risk” indicates that the calculated individual LCF risk for 0 to 10 mi from
the plant was 1.52 times higher for the medium-population density site compared to the
low-population site, and 0.94 times higher for the high-population site compared to the
low-population site. The results show that individual LCF risk is relatively insensitive to site data
(variations are within 60 percent). Population dose is directly related to population size, so the
sensitivity cases show a strong increase in population dose for larger population sites. For
example, in the case of the largest difference, for the Mark II high source term case for 0 to
50 mi, the high-population case has a population dose about 11 times larger than the
low-population case and about 5 times larger than the medium-population case (i.e., 10.82
divided by 2.06). For all baseline and sensitivity cases, individual early fatality risk is zero.
Of the other sensitivities analyzed, the individual LCF risk was most sensitive to evacuation
delay and the long-term habitability criterion. The 0 to 10 mi LCF risk was about a factor of 3
larger compared to the baseline for the most conservative, fastest release source term for the
“no evacuation” case. For the alternate long-term habitability criterion, LCF risk showed a
maximum increase of a factor of about 2 for the Mark I high-population site file, high source term
bin, within 10 mi of the plant. The effects of nonevacuating cohort size and intermediate phase
duration on LCF risk were small—within a factor of 20 percent.
Of the other sensitivities analyzed, the population dose was most sensitive to the long-term
habitability criterion, for which the 0 to 50 mi population dose showed a maximum increase of
60 percent. The results of the remaining sensitivities on the 0 to 50 mi population dose were
very small—within a factor of 10 percent, respectively.
In summary, all of the sensitivity results are well within the large margin for Alternative 1 (status
quo) between the 95th percentile to the high-level conservative estimate, and within the even
larger margin between the mean estimate and the high-level conservative estimate in
Figure E.3-6. In the end, based on the NRC staff’s analyses showing large margins to the QHOs
even for the status quo, no new regulatory requirements were imposed for CPRR.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-72
Table E.3-21 Ratio of Consequence Results for Population Density Sensitivity Cases in the 2015 Containment Protection
and Release Reduction Regulatory Analysis
Containment
Type
E-73
Mark I
Mark I
Mark I
Mark I
Mark I
Mark I
Mark II
Mark II
Mark II
Mark II
Mark II
Mark II
Source
Term
Population
Density
Ratio
Individual Latent
Cancer Fatality
Risk at Distance
of 0–10 mi
Individual Latent
Cancer Fatality
Risk at Distance
of 0–50 mi
Individual Latent
Cancer Fatality
Risk at Distance
of 0–100 mi
Population
Dose at
Distance of
0–50 mi
Population
Dose at
Distance of
0–100 mi
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
High
High
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
High
High
Medium / Low
High / Low
Medium / Low
High / Low
Medium / Low
High / Low
Medium / Low
High / Low
Medium / Low
High / Low
Medium / Low
High / Low
1.52
0.94
1.25
1.02
1.23
1.00
1.2
1.63
0.94
1.17
0.89
1.07
0.98
0.74
0.98
0.83
1.05
0.89
0.93
1.20
9.86
1.03
0.85
1.04
0.90
0.96
0.97
1.02
1.08
1.00
0.49
0.69
0.49
0.65
0.59
0.68
0.92
2.82
1.88
5.83
2.26
6.78
0.70
2.33
1.38
6.53
2.06
10.82
1.19
2.07
2.37
4.00
3.33
5.04
1.00
2.25
1.96
4.82
3.71
9.32
Source: Table adapted and reproduced from NUREG-2206 (NRC 2018c).
Appendix E
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
SOARCA Uncertainty Analyses
The NRC, with the assistance of Sandia National Laboratories, conducted three UAs from 2010
to 2019, as part of the SOARCA studies. The SOARCA project was initiated to leverage
decades’ worth of research into severe accidents and apply modern analytical tools and
techniques to develop a body of knowledge about the realistic consequences of severe nuclear
reactor accidents (NRC 2012g, NRC 2020c).
The collection of the three SOARCA UAs covers two different types of light water reactors, three
different containment designs, and three different locations within the United States. Each UA
comprises plant-specific and scenario-specific analyses. The UA for the Peach Bottom plant, a
BWR with a Mark I containment, located in Pennsylvania, analyzed the unmitigated LTSBO
SOARCA scenario (NUREG/CR–7155, State of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses
(SOARCA) Project: Uncertainty Analysis of the Unmitigated Long-Term Station Blackout of the
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, issued in May 2016 [NRC 2016b]). The UA for the
Sequoyah plant, a 4-loop Westinghouse PWR, located in Tennessee, analyzed the unmitigated
STSBO SOARCA scenario, with a focus on issues unique to the ice condenser containment and
the potential for early containment failure due to hydrogen deflagration (NUREG/CR-7245,
State of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Project: Sequoyah Integrated
Deterministic and Uncertainty Analysis, issued in October 2019 [NRC 2019h]). The UA for the
Surry plant, a three-loop Westinghouse PWR with subatmospheric large dry containment,
located in Virginia, analyzed the unmitigated STSBO SOARCA scenario, including the potential
for induced SG tube rupture (NUREG/CR-7262, State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence
Analyses (SOARCA) Project: Uncertainty Analysis of the Unmitigated Short-Term Station
Blackout of the Surry Power Station [NRC 2022d]). A summary of the three UAs is available in
NUREG-2254, Summary of the Uncertainty Analyses for the State-of-the-Art Reactor
Consequence Analyses Project (NRC 2022e).
The SOARCAs were performed primarily using two computer codes, MELCOR for severe
accident progression and MACCS (SNL 2021) and its suite of codes for offsite radiological
consequences. MELCOR models the following:
• thermal-hydraulic response in the reactor coolant system, reactor cavity (below the reactor
vessel), containment, and confinement buildings (e.g., shield building)
• core heatup, degradation (including fuel cladding oxidation, hydrogen production, and fuel
melting), and relocation
• core-concrete interaction in the cavity after lower reactor vessel head failure
• hydrogen production, transport, combustion, and mitigation
• fission product transport and release to the environment
The MACCS models the following:
• atmospheric transport and deposition of radionuclides released to the environment
• emergency response and long-term protective actions
• exposure pathways
• acute and long-term doses to a set of tissues and organs
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-74
Appendix E
• early and latent health effects for the affected population resulting from the doses39
The SOARCA UAs used the existing SOARCA software and models (with some updates) for
the three nuclear power plants. In other words, the uncertainty stemming from the choice of
conceptual models and model implementation was not explicitly explored, nor was
completeness uncertainty (e.g., see NRC’s Regulatory Guide 1.174, An Approach for Using
Probabilistic Risk Assessment In Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the
Licensing Basis, issued January 2018 [NRC 2018a], or NUREG-1855, Guidance on the
Treatment of Uncertainties Associated with PRAs in Risk-Informed Decisionmaking, issued
March 2017 [NRC 2017b], for discussion of different types of uncertainty). In addition, the
analyses did not include all possible uncertain input parameters. Rather, NRC and Sandia
National Laboratories’ severe accident experts carefully chose a set of key parameters to
capture important influences on the potential release of radioactive material to the environment
and on offsite health consequences.
The focus of the UAs was epistemic, or state-of-knowledge, uncertainty in the model
parameters. The UAs used a two-step Monte Carlo simulation to propagate parameter
uncertainty. From the complete set of MELCOR realizations, a family of radiological source term
results was produced. The MACCS sample size (number of realizations) was chosen to match
the number of source terms in each UA. The sample sizes for the Peach Bottom, Sequoyah,
and Surry plants were 865, 567, and 1,147, respectively. The MACCS results are presented as
individual LCF risk and individual early fatality risk, averaged over the random uncertainty
stemming from weather (accomplished in the Monte Carlo simulation through a second, inner
loop sampling of plant-specific weather conditions in MACCS, for each parameter sample in the
outer loop).
Some notable assumptions in the SOARCA UAs include the following:
• Each of the UAs assumed that the accident scenario proceeded without mitigation
(e.g., FLEX, 10 CFR 50.155(b), SAMGs, and extensive damage mitigation guidelines are not
credited).
• The SOARCA models assume that appropriate planned protective actions (e.g., evacuation,
relocation, interdiction, and decontamination of land) will be undertaken and successfully
keep doses to the public below habitability criteria in the long-term.
• The SOARCA models assume that 99.5 percent of the population residing in the 10 mi EPZ
will evacuate as ordered.
• Shadow evacuations—the voluntary evacuation of members of the public who have not been
ordered to evacuate—are also modeled for 10 to 15 mi or 10 to 20 mi radius annular rings
around the plants.
Through the use of expert judgment and iteration after interim reviews by the independent
technical reviewers (see Appendix B to NUREG-1935; NRC 2012g) and members of the NRC’s
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, key MELCOR parameters and key MACCS
parameter groups were identified for inclusion in each of the UAs, and distributions were defined
for each uncertain parameter (or parameter group).
39
MACCS can also model economic and societal consequences, such as the population subject to
protective actions; however, the SOARCA project did not use them.
E-75
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
The MELCOR uncertainty parameters were selected to capture the following:
• accident sequence issues
• accident progression issues within the reactor vessel
• accident progression issues outside the reactor vessel
• containment behavior issues
• fission product release, transport, and deposition upon plant structures
These broad areas span the severe accident progression over time, ranging from sequence
variations to uncertainties in the core damage, melt progression, and fission product transport
and release.
The parameters selected from the MACCS consequence model were those that affect (either
directly or indirectly) individual LCF risk and individual early fatality risk due to the following:
• cloudshine during radiological plume passage40
• groundshine from deposited radionuclides
• inhalation during plume passage and following plume passage from resuspension of
deposited radionuclides
Parameters related to emergency response were also varied. Although there is confidence in
planned emergency response actions, an emergency is a dynamic event with uncertainties in
elements of the response. The following three emergency planning parameter sets were
selected:
• hotspot and normal relocation criteria
• evacuation delay
• evacuation speed
Table E.3-22 shows the set of MELCOR parameters that were varied in the three SOARCA
UAs. Table E.3-23 shows the set of MACCS parameters that were varied in the three SOARCA
UAs; the parameters that were varied in only a subset of the UAs are footnoted.
Table E.3-22 Uncertain MELCOR Parameters Chosen for the SOARCA Unmitigated
Station Blackout Uncertainty Analyses
Peach Bottom – BWR with
Mark I Containment
Sequence-Related:
SRV stochastic failure to reclose
Battery duration
40
Sequoyah – PWR with Ice
Condenser Containment
Sequence-Related:
Primary SV stochastic number of
cycles until failure to close
Primary SV open area fraction
after failure
Secondary SV stochastic number
of cycles until failure to close
Secondary SV open area fraction
after failure
This is included in the Peach Bottom UA only.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-76
Surry – PWR with Large, Dry
Subatmospheric Containment
Sequence-Related:
Primary SV stochastic number of
cycles until failure to close
Primary SV open area fraction
after failure
Secondary SV stochastic number
of cycles until failure to close
Secondary SV open area fraction
after failure
Appendix E
Peach Bottom – BWR with
Mark I Containment
In-Vessel Accident
Progression:
Zircaloy melt breakout
temperature
Molten clad drainage rate
SRV thermal seizure criterion
SRV open area fraction upon
thermal seizure
Main steam line creep rupture
area fraction
Fuel failure criterion
Radial debris relocation time
constants
Ex-Vessel Accident
Progression and Containment
Behavior:
Debris lateral relocation—cavity
spillover and spreading rate
Hydrogen ignition criteria
Railroad door open fraction
Drywell head flange leakage
Drywell liner failure flow area
Chemical form of iodine
Chemical form of cesium
Aerosol density
Time within the Fuel Cycle: Not
varied
Sequoyah – PWR with Ice
Condenser Containment
In-Vessel Accident
Progression:
Melting temperature of the
eutectic formed from fuel and
zirconium oxides
Oxidation kinetics model
Surry – PWR with Large, Dry
Subatmospheric Containment
Reactor coolant pump seal
leakage
Normalized temperature of hottest
SG tube
SG nondimensional flaw depth
Main steam isolation valve leakage
In-Vessel Accident Progression:
Zircaloy melt breakout temperature
Molten clad drainage rate
Melting temperature of the eutectic
formed from fuel and zirconium
oxides
Oxidation kinetics model
Ex-Vessel Accident
Progression and Containment
Behavior:
Lower flammability limit hydrogen
ignition criterion for an ignition
source in lower containment
Containment rupture pressure
Barrier seal open area
Barrier seal failure pressure
Ice chest door open fraction
Aerosol dynamic shape factor
Ex-Vessel Accident Progression
and Containment Behavior:
Hydrogen ignition criteria
Containment design leakage rate
Containment fragility curve
Containment convection heat
transfer coefficient
Chemical form of iodine
Chemical form of cesium
Aerosol dynamic shape factor
Secondary-side decontamination
factor
Time within the Fuel Cycle:
Time within the Fuel Cycle:
Time in cycle sampled at three
Time in cycle sampled discretely at
points in the refueling cycle—near 14 times from 0.5 days to 550 days
beginning of cycle, middle of
cycle, and end of cycle
BWR = boiling water reactor; PWR= pressurized water reactor; SG = steam generator; SOARCA = State-of-the-Art
Reactor Consequence Analyses Project; SRV = safety relief valve; SV = safety valve.
Source: Ghosh et al. 2021.
E-77
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Table E.3-23
Uncertain MACCS Parameter Groups Used in the SOARCA Unmitigated
Station Blackout Uncertainty Analyses
Epistemic Uncertainty
Dispersion
Crosswind Dispersion Linear Coefficient
Vertical Dispersion Linear Coefficient
Time-Based Crosswind Dispersion Coefficient(a)
Deposition
Wet Deposition Coefficient
Dry Deposition Velocities
Emergency Response
Evacuation Delay
Evacuation Speed
Hotspot Relocation Time
Normal Relocation Time
Hotspot Relocation Dose
Normal Relocation Dose
Keyhole Weather Forecast(b)
Shielding Factors
Cloudshine Shielding Factors(c)
Groundshine Shielding Factors
Inhalation Protection Factors
Early Health Effects
Early Health Effects LD50 Parameter
Early Health Effects Exponential Parameter
Early Health Effects Threshold Dose
Latent Health Effects
Dose and Dose Rate Effectiveness Factor
Lifetime Cancer Fatality Risk Factors
Long-Term Inhalation Dose Coefficients
Aleatory Uncertainty
Weather
LD50 = median lethal dose; MACCS = MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System; SOARCA = State-of-the-Art
Reactor Consequence Analyses Project.
(a) This is included in the Sequoyah and Surry UAs only.
(b) This is included in the Sequoyah UA only.
(c) This is included in the Peach Bottom UA only.
Source: Ghosh et al. 2021.
Conditional (i.e., assuming the severe accident occurred) individual LCF risk and conditional
early fatality risks at various distances out to 50 mi from the plant were the offsite consequence
metrics reported in the SOARCA UAs. Table E.3-24 shows the LCF risk results for the Peach
Bottom UA (NRC 2016b), Figure E.3-7 shows the LCF risk results for the Sequoyah UA
(NRC 2019h), and Figure E.3-8 shows the LCF risk results for the Surry UA (NRC 2022d). Note
that Table E.3-24 shows results for circular areas—in other words, the results for the 0 to 20 mi
radius result column also include 0 to 10 mi radius results, the results for the 0 to 30 mi radius
result column also include the 0 to 20 mi radius results, and so on, whereas the annular ring
result curves in Figure E.3-7 and Figure E.3-8 are mutually exclusive.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-78
Appendix E
The bimodal nature of the complementary cumulative distribution function curves for Sequoyah
plant in Figure E.3-7 derives from the fact that the containment does not fail by 72 hrs (the end
of the simulation) in 13 percent of the realizations and does fail before 72 hrs in the remaining
87 percent of the realizations. The cases with no containment failure account for the upper left
(very low risk) portion of the complementary cumulative distribution function curves; the cases
with containment failure account for the right-hand (relatively higher risk) portion of the
complementary cumulative distribution function curves. In Figure E.3-8 for the Surry STSBO
UA, the LCF risk distributions also show a bimodal nature. In about 13 percent of the Monte
Carlo MELCOR realizations, a consequential SG tube rupture occurred, which accounts for the
hump of higher LCF risks in the lower right-hand portion of the graph (corresponding to the
portion of the curve below regarding probability of exceedance of 0.13 on the y-axis). These
LCF risk results are consistent with the source term results, which showed that the
consequential SG tube rupture realizations had the largest and earliest cesium and iodine
releases, consistent with containment bypass events (NRC 2022d, NRC 2022e). Traditionally,
STSBO accident sequences without and with an induced SG tube rupture would be treated as
different categories in a PRA.
The SOARCA UA results show that for populations 0 to 10 mi from the plant, the ratios of the
95th percentile to median LCF risk are about 3 for Peach Bottom, about 3 for Sequoyah, about
10 for Surry STSBO without SG tube rupture, and about 4 for Surry STSBO with induced SG
tube rupture. The ratio of the 95th percentile to the mean is lower than the ratio of the 95th
percentile to the median because the means of these distributions are skewed to higher
percentiles.
Table E.3-24 Population-weighted Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk Statistics
(based on the linear no-threshold dose-response model) Conditional on the
Occurrence of a Long-Term Station Blackout for Five Circular Areas
Centered on the Peach Bottom Plant
Statistic Parameter
Mean
0–10 mi
1.7 × 10-4
0–20 mi
2.8 × 10-4
0–30 mi
2.0 × 10-4
0–40 mi
1.3 × 10-4
0–50 mi
1.0 × 10-4
Median
1.3 × 10-4
1.9 × 10-4
1.3 × 10-4
8.7 × 10-5
7.1 × 10-5
5th percentile
3.1 × 10-5
4.9 × 10-5
3.4 × 10-5
2.2 × 10-5
1.9 × 10-5
95th percentile
4.2 × 10-4
7.7 × 10-4
5.3 × 10-4
3.4 × 10-4
2.7 × 10-4
Source: NRC 2016b.
E-79
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Figure E.3-7 Complementary Cumulative Distribution Functions of Conditional
Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk within Five Annular Areas Centered
on the Sequoyah Plant. Source: NRC 2019h.
Figure E.3-8 Complementary Cumulative Distribution Functions of Conditional
Individual Latent Cancer Fatality Risk within Five Annular Areas Centered
on the Surry Plant. Source: NRC 2022d.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-80
Appendix E
Table E.3-25 shows the statistical results for conditional (assuming the severe accident
occurred), mean (over weather variability), and individual early fatality risk (per event) from the
MACCS UA for the Peach Bottom plant within the specified circular areas. In the SOARCA
Peach Bottom UA, the early fatality risks were zero for 87 percent of the 865 realizations, within
all specified circular areas. This is because the releases are too low to produce doses large
enough to exceed the dose thresholds for early fatalities, even for the 0.5 percent of the
population that is modeled as refusing to evacuate. In a minority of realizations, a large-enough
source term combined with specific weather trials and uncertain input parameter values resulted
in a non-zero computed early fatality risk. At 2.5 mi and beyond in Table E.3-25, the mean result
is greater than the 95th percentile. This is due to the few number of non-zero early fatality risks
(i.e., less than 5 percent of the realizations) at these distances. This table shows that early
fatality risks are negligible (95th percentile less than 6 × 10-12 per RY after considering the
scenario frequency), even for the population that resides very close to the plant boundary. The
early fatality risks are even lower for the Sequoyah and Surry plants than they are for the Peach
Bottom plant.
Table E.3-25
Individual Early Fatality Risk (per Event) Statistics Conditional(a) on the
Occurrence of a Long-Term Station Blackout for Five Circular Areas with
Specified Radii Centered on the Peach Bottom Plant
Statistic Parameter
Mean
0–1.3 mi
5 × 10-7
0–2 mi
2 × 10-7
0–2.5 mi
9 × 10-8
0–3 mi
6 × 10-8
0–3.5 mi
4 × 10-8
Median
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75th percentile
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
95th percentile
2 × 10-6
7 × 10-7
4 × 10-8
5 × 10-10
0.0
(a) The assessed frequency for this scenario is about 3 ×
Source: NRC 2016b.
10-6
per reactor-year.
Conclusions
As noted in the 2013 LR GEIS, the 1996 LR GEIS stated that the uncertainties in the estimated
impacts could be large, i.e., from a factor of 10 to 1,000. Since then, the NRC has completed
several quantitative analyses for a subset of important severe accident scenarios at nuclear
power plants. The CPRR regulatory analysis documented an integrated UA for the Level 1,
Level 2, and Level 3 analysis portions of its supporting PRA, and considered a range of different
Mark I and Mark II sites encompassing representative low-, medium-, and high-population
densities. The SOARCA UAs documented integrated analyses of uncertainties in the Level 2
accident progression and source term and Level 3 offsite consequence analyses (with no new
work on Level 1/accident frequencies) for two different PWR containment types and a BWR
Mark I plant, encompassing three different sites in total. These detailed quantitative analyses
indicate that the 95th percentile bounds of uncertainty are likely to be closer to the lower end of
the 1996 projection, about a factor of 10 or less compared to point-estimates, or compared to
other central-tendency estimates.
More specifically, for individual LCF risk, recent analyses indicate that there are margins to the
LCF risk QHO. The CPRR regulatory analysis and the SOARCA UAs considered integrated
uncertainties and sensitivity analyses for the important accident scenarios within the scope of
those studies. The results showed an order of magnitude or more margin between the 95th
percentile LCF risk results and the QHO (see for example the “Alternative 1: Status Quo” line in
Figure E.3-6). The 0 to 10 mi LCF risk metric was within a factor of 3 (of baseline results) in
E-81
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
sensitivity analyses for variations in population density and protective action modeling
assumptions in the CPRR analysis. The 0 to 10 mi LCF risk metric ratio of the 95th percentile to
median was within a factor of 10 in all three SOARCA UAs, which considered integrated
uncertainties in the accident progression, source term, and offsite consequence modeling.
For the population dose consequences 0 to 50 mi from the plant, the CPRR regulatory analysis
sensitivity results showed a maximum increase of a factor of 5. This maximum factor was the
ratio of results for the high-population density site compared to a medium-population density
site. The effects of other sensitivities analyzed were even smaller, with maximum increases less
than a factor of 2.
In all the studies discussed, early fatality risk was essentially zero or negligible, even
considering integrated uncertainties and multiple sensitivities.
E.3.9.1
Emergency Planning
The 1996 LR GEIS (in Section 5.3.4.3) included a discussion of uncertainties associated with
emergency planning. However, no quantitative information about the magnitude of these
uncertainties was presented. To provide a perspective on the magnitude of the uncertainty, the
following information is provided.
NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990) and the SFP accident analysis in NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001)
specifically assessed the effect of different emergency planning assumptions on the airborne
pathway impacts. NUREG-1150 assessed four alternative emergency response modes in
addition to its base case (99.5 percent of the population within 10 mi was evacuated in 4.5 hrs
with no sheltering). These alternatives were assessed for reactor accidents from full power, with
the Surry and Peach Bottom analyses including seismic and fire-initiated events as well as
internal events. For the worst case (no evacuation, no sheltering, or early relocation), the
estimated early fatalities per year were approximately a factor of 10 higher than the base case.
The SFP accident analysis in NUREG-1738 also specifically assessed the effect of variations in
an emergency evacuation. The variations were assessed relative to the base case used in the
NUREG-1150 risk analysis. Doses beyond 20 mi were not calculated. Cases where the
evacuation was faster, slower, and where fewer people were evacuated were assessed. As can
be expected, improved evacuation scenarios resulted in smaller impacts, and relaxed
evacuation scenarios resulted in additional impacts. The impacts associated with relaxed
evacuation scenarios increased only a few percent in societal dose (i.e., person-rem) and up to
a factor of 10 in early fatalities. However, these impacts are still far below the conservative
characterization of the impacts for reactor accidents contained in the 1996 LR GEIS.
More recent analyses have suggested that the significance of the uncertainty in protective
actions on health impacts is expected to be a function of the characteristics of the source term
being analyzed. In both the CPRR analysis and SOARCA Sequoyah project, the source terms
representing the most frequent release categories analyzed were characterized by delayed
release, such that protective actions in the early phase effectively limited the doses received.
Thus, long-term exposures to lightly contaminated areas after reoccupation tended to be the
dominant component of the doses received and thus were suggested to be the most significant
contributors to the variation in impacts from uncertainty related to protective actions.
In the CPRR analysis, sensitivity calculations were conducted to estimate the impact that delays
in evacuation would have on the LCF risks. Evacuation delays were applied uniformly across
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-82
Appendix E
evacuation cohorts of 3 hrs, 6 hrs, and a hypothetical situation in which the EPZ population did
not evacuate at all, but instead sheltered in place. For the 3-hr evacuation delay, there was no
change in LCF risk, whereas the LCF risk for the 6-hr delay doubles LCF risk relative to the
base case. For the case in which no evacuation occurs, but instead the population shelters in
place, LCF risk increased by 2.5 times over the base case.
The NRC staff noted that these sensitivities simulate “intentionally unrealistic emergency
response situations” as detailed emergency response plans are rigorously developed and
tested, and it is expected that the plans will be implemented as written.
The SOARCA Sequoyah analysis examined the impact of alternate protective action strategies
on conditional LCF. Specifically, sensitivities were performed to look at the implementation of a
12-hr and 48-hr shelter-in-place order prior to evacuation. The conditional mean individual LCF
was 2.3 times higher for a 12-hr shelter-in-place order and 3.4 times higher for a 48-hr
shelter-in-place order. The NRC staff concludes that the results of new sensitivity analyses for
emergency planning are well within the bounds of the quantitative uncertainty results discussed
in Section E.3.9 conclusions above.
E.3.9.2
Population Increase
In assessing future airborne and economic impact risks from severe accidents in the
1996 LR GEIS, a composite plant-specific variable called an “exposure index” was introduced
and was used to project future risks from previously completed original EISs. The EI values
were primarily a function of population distribution around a site and prevailing wind direction,
with secondary factors such as terrain, rainfall, and wind stability also considered. As noted in
the 1996 LR GEIS, “Because meteorological patterns, including wind direction frequency, tend
to remain constant over time, EI changes as populations change or become redistributed.” In
the 2013 revision of the LR GEIS, the EIs were adjusted from the year 2000 to each plant’s
mid-year license renewal period based upon population increases to assess the effects of
population growth on possible environmental and economic impacts.
The updated estimates of airborne pathway impacts presented in Sections E.3.1 and E.3.2 of
this revision are derived from SAMA analyses that were based on population estimates for the
initial LR period. By applying the EI framework, the impact of SLR on future PDRs can be
approximated by projecting population growth around applicants’ sites for this period. The
national mean population growth for the 20-year period representing the average SLR years
(2040 to 2060) is approximately 20 percent based on U.S. Census Bureau projections (USCB
2021). Plant-specific population changes were estimated from the starting year to the expiration
of the subsequent renewal period for the seven sites that have submitted SLR applications from
a combination of the information provided in the submitted environmental reports and/or
supplemental EISs to NUREG-1437.41 Applying these growth projections would result in
increased impacts ranging from 8 percent to 22 percent over a 20-year period extension,
consistent with the national projections.
In summary, the NRC staff concluded that population increase has a minor impact projecting
into an SLR period as it would for an initial LR period. However, the environmental impacts from
41
Where the information was available, offsite population growth was estimated by summing the total
increase in the population of counties that lay either partly or completely within 50 mi of the plant sites.
Otherwise, population growth was approximated from the information provided in the GEIS supplemental
EISs for the “region of influence.”
E-83
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
events initiated by all hazards (specifically, consequence-weighted population dose) are
generally significantly lower (by one or more orders of magnitude) than those used in the 1996
LR GEIS. In addition, as cited above, plant improvements made in response to NRC Orders and
industry initiatives have contributed to the improved safety of all plants during both full power
operation and low power and shutdown operation. The NRC staff concludes that the new
information from the population projections is not significant for the purposes of this LR GEIS
revision, that risk is being effectively addressed and reduced by the various NRC regulatory
programs and other initiatives, and therefore, population increases are not expected to
challenge the 1996 LR GEIS 95 percent UCB risk metrics during any SLR time period.
E.4
Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
Previously, severe accident mitigation under the issue ‘‘Severe accidents’’ was the focus for a
plant-specific review because the other aspects of the issue, specifically the offsite
consequences, have been adequately addressed in the LR GEIS (61 FR 28467, page 28474).
The Statement of Considerations to 61 FR 28467 concluded the [LR] GEIS analysis of severe
accident consequences and risk is adequate, and additional plant-specific analysis of these
impacts is not required. However, because the ongoing regulatory program related to severe
accident mitigation (i.e., IPE and IPEEE) had not been completed for all plants and because
consideration of SAMAs had not been included in an EIS or supplemental EIS related to plant
operations for all plants, a plant site-specific consideration of SAMAs was required upon license
renewal for those plants for which this consideration had not been performed. The Commission
expected that if these reviews identified any changes as being cost-beneficial, such changes
generally would be procedural and programmatic improvements, with any hardware changes
being only minor in nature and few in number (61 FR 28467, page 28481). The NRC staff
considerations of SAMAs have now been completed and included in an EIS or SEIS for the vast
majority of nuclear power plants (see Table E.3-1). All of these analyses indicate that PDRs
have decreased since the staff’s determination in the 1996 LR GEIS that the probabilityweighted consequences of a severe accident are SMALL. Also, the CPI, IPE, and IPEEE have
been completed for all of these nuclear power plants. Therefore, a plant-specific SAMA need
not be performed for these plants for SLR (except for Diablo Canyon, Clinton, and Perry
because a final EIS has not been issued for license renewal).
As a result, the 2013 LR GEIS concluded the totality of these studies (the completed SAMA
analyses, the IPE, the IPEEE, and the CPI) provides a strong basis for the Commission’s
decision to not require applicants to perform an additional SAMA analysis in a license renewal
application if the NRC had previously evaluated one for that plant. Therefore, applicants for
license renewal of those plants that have already had a SAMA analysis considered by the NRC
as part of an EIS, supplemental to an EIS or EA, need not perform an additional SAMA analysis
for license renewal. These conclusions in the 2013 LR GEIS were drawn after many but not all
of the operating plants had completed their SAMA analysis.
Since the issuance of the 2013 LR GEIS, almost all of the remainder of the operating reactor
fleet licensees have applied and been approved for initial LR with a plant-specific SAMA having
been performed and documented in the NRC staff’s SEISs. In fact, the NRC expects all license
renewal applicants that reference this LR GEIS will have previously completed a SAMA
analysis, either at the operating license or initial LR stage. These SAMA analyses further
confirmed the Commission’s prediction that it did not expect future SAMA analyses to uncover
“major plant design changes or modifications that will prove to be cost-beneficial”
(61 FR 28467). Collectively, the studies summarized in this appendix (the completed SAMA
analyses, the IPE, the IPEEE, the CPI, the CPRR regulatory analysis, the SOARCA project,
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-84
Appendix E
implementation of NRC Orders and power reactor security requirements following the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, implementation of post-Fukushima orders and information
requests, implementation of requirements for mitigation of beyond-design-basis events,
completion of SFP Study, etc.) provide a strong basis for the decision to not require any
additional SAMA analysis in an SLR application.
Furthermore, when dismissing adjudicatory challenges to the Limerick license renewal, the
Commission observed, “the exception in section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) operates as the functional
equivalent of a Category 1 issue” (Exelon Generation Company, LLC [Limerick Generating
Station, Units 1 and 2], CLI-12-19, 76 NRC 377, 386 [2012]). During the course of that
proceeding, the Commission contemplated that the exception in Section 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) would
also apply to an “application for a subsequent license renewal term” (Exelon Generation
Company, LLC [Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2], CLI-13-7, 78 NRC 199, 214
[2013]). The Commission explained that “we did not require license renewal applicants for
whom SAMAs were considered previously to provide a supplemental SAMA analysis because
we determined that one SAMA analysis would uncover most cost-beneficial measures to
mitigate both the risk and the effects of severe accidents, thus satisfying our obligations under
NEPA” (Id. at 210). On review, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
determined, “Given how extensive the first SAMA analysis is, the Commission found a second
analysis would not provide enough value to justify the resource expenditure. This determination
is reasonable and so is entitled to deference” (Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC,
823 F.3d 641, 652 [D.C. Cir. 2016]). As discussed elsewhere in this section and previously, the
additional safety improvements, risk studies, and experience gained from other license renewal
reviews provide further support for this determination.
However, during the course of the Limerick license renewal proceeding the Commission
recognized the apparent ambiguity in the NRC license renewal regulations:
which, on the one hand exempt Exelon and similarly-situated license renewal
applicants from including a SAMA analysis in their environmental reports, but on
the other hand require an applicant to identify any new and significant information
of which it is aware.” (See Exelon Generation Company, LLC [Limerick
Generation Station, Units 1 and 2], CLI-13-07, 78 NRC 199, [2013]).
The Commission further recognized the NRC’s continuing duty to take a hard look at new and
significant information for each major Federal action to be taken. An acceptable approach to
evaluating new and potentially significant information with respect to a prior SAMA analysis is
provided in NEI 17-04 (NEI 2019), which is endorsed by NRC in Regulatory Guide 4.2,
Supplement 1, Revision 2 (NRC 2024).
In Section 5.4 of the 1996 LR GEIS, the purpose and role of SAMAs in the license renewal
process are discussed. SAMAs include cost-effective design alternatives and alternatives that
involve changes in procedures and training. With respect to this revision of the LR GEIS, the
purpose and objectives of SAMAs remain unchanged.
The purpose of this section is to discuss new information regarding SAMAs, including the
consideration of the new information regarding the probability-weighted consequence
assessments presented in this revision. It should be noted that since publication of the 1996 and
2013 LR GEISs, many improvements have occurred that have enhanced reactor safety. Some
of these improvements are discussed in Sections E.2 and E.3 of this revision and, as can be
seen in improved plant performance measures, have been effective.
E-85
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Even so, the SAMA analyses that have been performed to date have found SAMAs that were
cost-beneficial or at least potentially cost-beneficial, subject to further analysis. However, none
of the SAMAs identified were related to managing the effects of aging during the period of
extended operation. Therefore, they did not need to be implemented as part of license renewal,
pursuant to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 54. In general, the cost-beneficial SAMAs were
identified for further evaluation by the licensee under the current operating license. In several
cases, the applicant has decided to implement the modifications even though they were not
related to license renewal (NRC 2006). Furthermore, plant-specific “major” cost-beneficial
SAMAs that significantly reduce the risk (Ghosh et al. 2009, NRC 2014b, NRC 2013b) have not
been identified in SAMA analyses and almost all currently operating plants having performed a
SAMA. This result included consideration of uncertainty, wherein estimated SAMA benefits,
developed using the mean point estimate for internal events CDF, were multiplied by an
uncertainty factor derived from the ratio of the 95th percentile to the mean point estimate for
internal events CDF, which was compared to the estimated implementation cost of the SAMA
for the determination of whether it was potentially cost-beneficial. However, as a result of the
NRC’s ongoing safety oversight, significant improvements in plant safety including reducing the
risk of a severe accident initiated by internal or external events have been achieved as a result
of processes separate from license renewal such as post-Fukushima Orders for mitigation of
beyond-design-basis events. Because these measures have provided additional severe
accident mitigation and/or further reduced the risk profile of operating reactors, they decrease
the possibility that further SAMA analyses would uncover cost-beneficial SAMAs; as a result,
these safety improvements support the NRC’s determination that license renewal applicants
that have previously completed a SAMA analysis in a NEPA document need not do so again to
meet NEPA’s rule of reason.
The SAMA analyses performed in support of license renewal focused on the areas of greatest
risk (accidents initiated by internal and external events) and on measures that could result in the
greatest risk reduction in a cost-beneficial fashion. The environmental impacts of external
events are included in an applicant’s SAMA analysis for license renewal by following the
guidance contained in NEI 05-01, Revision A (NEI 2005). The method described in NEI 05-01
relied upon NUREG/BR-0184 regulatory analysis techniques. The NEI 05-01 guidance (which is
endorsed by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Preparation of
Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications, [NRC 2013d])
specifies the consideration of external events when assessing SAMAs. External events are
generally considered by multiplying the internal event risk by a factor that accounts for any
increase in risk caused by external events (although several SAMA analyses explicitly
considered external events). The multiplication factor is determined on a plant-specific basis by
considering previous and current external event analyses (e.g., IPEEE). Given the existing
information about the contribution to risk from external events, the approach described in
NEI 05-01 continues to be a reasonable approach to addressing the external event risk
contribution.
This LR GEIS revision has assessed other potential contributors to risk. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assess whether those contributors would impact the Commission’s prior
conclusions on SAMAs or should be included in future SAMA analyses, should an applicant that
has not previously conducted a SAMA analysis reference this LR GEIS. Specifically, these
contributors are:
• power uprates
• the use of higher-burnup fuel
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-86
Appendix E
• accidents during low power and shutdown conditions
• accidents at SFPs
• integrated site risk
With respect to power uprates and the use of higher-burnup fuel, the increased impacts are
small compared to the impacts in the 1996 LR GEIS, as indicated in Sections E.3.4 and E.3.5
above, and these factors, as applicable, are included in any severe accident assessment for
license renewal. Furthermore, these contributors do not present new accident initiators and are
unlikely to result in accident sequences different from those already evaluated in a SAMA
evaluation. Lastly, changes in the source term that may result from these contributors are well
encompassed within the uncertainty assessment performed for SAMA evaluations. Therefore,
no additional SAMA analysis is required.
With respect to severe accidents during low power and shutdown conditions (which are not
currently included in SAMA analyses), the risks are generally lower or comparable to those for
severe accidents during full power operation depending on the plant configuration. This is in
large measure due to nuclear power plants being in a low power or shutdown condition much
less frequently compared to full power operation configuration (generally, the frequency is about
a factor of 10 less). In addition, NRC and industry initiatives have improved low power and
shutdown safety. Specifically, as discussed in Section E.3.6, all nuclear power plant licensees
are obligated to comply with the Maintenance Rule, including 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) for the
assessment and management of risk associated with maintenance activities, including during
low power operations and plant shutdown configurations. In addition, all licensees are required
to comply with NRC Order EA-12-049 (NRC 2012c) to be capable of implementing the
mitigating strategies in all modes of plant operation, including full power operations, low power
operations, and plant shutdown configurations, and to enhance shutdown risk processes and
procedures through incorporation of FLEX equipment acquired to meet the Order requirements.
It is also expected that some SAMAs identified as a result of assessing risks from accidents at
full power would provide risk reduction benefits for accidents during low power and shutdown
conditions. Therefore, the potential for cost-beneficial SAMAs related to low power and
shutdown accidents is considered to be less than for accidents at full power. Accordingly, it is
reasonable to continue to exclude low power and shutdown conditions from SAMA analysis
consideration. Likewise, information regarding low power and shutdown conditions would not
change the Commission’s determination to require one SAMA analysis for each facility.
With respect to accidents in SFPs, the risks are substantially less than the population-weighted
consequences (radiological dose, early fatalities, latent cancer fatalities) reported in the
1996 LR GEIS and with respect to the NRC safety goals. Additionally, mitigative measures
implemented after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and after the accident at the Fukushima
Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, have further lowered the risk of this class of accidents, and
therefore make the potential for finding cost-effective SAMAs related to SFP accidents
substantially less than for reactor accidents. Specifically, as discussed in Section E.3.7, NRC
Order EA-12-051 (NRC 2012a) requires that licensees install reliable means of remotely
monitoring SFP levels to support effective prioritization of event mitigation and recovery actions
in the event of a beyond-design-basis external event. In addition, the staff issued Order
EA-12-049 (NRC 2012c), which requires that licensees develop, implement, and maintain
guidance and strategies to maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and SFP cooling
capabilities after a beyond-design-basis external event. In addition, Section B.5.b of the ICMs
Orders requires licensees to adopt mitigation strategies using readily available resources to
maintain or restore core cooling, containment, and SFP cooling capabilities to cope with the loss
E-87
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
of large areas of the facility due to large fires and explosions from any cause, including
beyond-design-basis aircraft impacts. Lastly, while the SFP is not specifically included in the
scope of the Maintenance Rule, because of the integral nature of the SFP and the reactor
cooling system during reactor shutdown conditions such as refueling, aspects of compliance
with the Maintenance Rule also have applicability to the SFP. Specifically, as discussed in
Section E.3.6, the scope of the systems, structures, and components to be addressed by the
assessment for shutdown conditions include those that are necessary to support the four key
safety functions: decay heat removal capability, inventory control, power availability, and
reactivity control. Systems, structures, and components associated with the SFP that are
necessary to preserve these key safety functions would be included in the scope of the
Maintenance Rule (e.g., maintain SFP temperature below specified limits following a shutdown,
prevent SFP drain down paths during maintenance activities, support electrical power to
maintain cooling to the SFP during shutdown conditions, and preserve reactivity control in the
SFP). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that accidents at SFPs do not need to be
considered in the SAMA analysis. Likewise, information regarding SFP accidents would not
change the Commission’s determination to require one SAMA analysis for each facility.
Multi-unit and integrated site-level risk was not explicitly addressed in Section E.3 of this
appendix. Because the NRC safety goals are expressed on a per-reactor basis, traditional
nuclear power plant PRAs assess the risk of a single operating unit only, and separate
individual PRAs are developed to assess the risk of each operating unit. As a result, the risk
assessment results considered in Section E.3.3 were all for a single unit. Furthermore, the
NRC’s current risk guidelines in Regulatory Guide 1.174 (NRC 2018a) are applicable to
individual units. However, the March 2011 accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power
plant highlighted the potential for concurrent severe accidents at multiple co-located nuclear
power reactor units. As indicated in Section E.3.3, many nuclear power plant sites in the United
States have two operating co-located units and a few have three operating co-located units, all
have SFPs, and most have dry cask storage facilities. The NRC Full-Scope Site-Level 3 PRA
study, which has not been completed, will be performing an integrated site risk assessment that
includes all major site radiological sources, all internal and external initiating event hazards
typically considered in internal and external event PRAs, and all modes of plant operation. Major
site radiological sources being addressed in this study include reactor cores, SFPs, and dry
cask storage.
The Level 3 PRA project is based on a reference site (circa 2012) that includes two
Westinghouse four-loop PWRs with large dry containments. The Level 3 PRA project team is
leveraging the existing and available information about the reference plant and its licensee
PRAs, in addition to related research efforts (e.g., SOARCA), to enhance the study’s efficiency.
In addition, the Level 3 PRA project is being developed consistent with many of the modeling
conventions used for the NRC’s standardized plant analysis risk models. Information is available
on the NRC’s public website at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/research/level3-praproject.htm. The Level 3 PRA project is in an advanced stage, but no results for the integrated
site risk assessment have yet been published. In addition to plant CDF and LERF results, the
Level 3 PRA project will provide quantitative results for consequences of severe accidents
(i.e., Level 3 PRA results), as well as a complete risk profile for a multi-unit site (87 FR 24205).
If new and significant information arises out of this project, then that information will need to be
considered in license renewal applications. Thus, even though the severe accidents issue is
considered to be Category 1, mechanisms are in place to conduct a full plant-specific review if
new and significant information warrants such a review.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-88
Appendix E
Mitigative measures implemented after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the Fukushima
Dai-ichi accident are likely to have lowered individual plant risk and integrated site-level risk at
nuclear power plants. The implementation of these mitigation methods reduces the potential for
finding additional cost-effective SAMAs related to multi-unit or integrated site-level risk. It is also
reasonable to expect that some SAMAs identified as a result of assessing risks of accidents at
full power would provide risk reduction benefits for multi-unit or integrated site-level accidents.
As explained in NEI 05-01 (NEI 2005), SAMA analyses do address multi-unit risk by either
assuring that the benefits and implementation costs of SAMAs are on a per-site basis (for
example, multiply the maximum benefit of a SAMA for a single unit by the number of units at the
site to fully account for its potential benefit) or if SAMA benefits and costs are on a per-unit
basis, the impact associated with implementation of the SAMA is reflected in the estimated
implementation costs (for example, the estimated cost of a SAMA is divided by the number of
units to account for economies of scale in its implementation at each unit). Also, SAMAs that
can mitigate risk at all units on the site (e.g., installation of an additional backup power supply)
are identified and evaluated. Based on the above discussion, additional information regarding
multi-unit risk would not change the Commission’s determination to require one SAMA analysis
for each facility.
As mentioned above, many severe accident mitigation improvements through processes
separate from license renewal (i.e., IPE, the IPEEE, the CPI, implementation of NRC Orders
and power reactor security requirements following the September 2001 terrorist attacks,
implementation of post-Fukushima Dai-ichi NRC Orders, and information requests etc.)
provided plant modifications, procedure changes, and training.
As provided in Section E.2 and elaborated in the paragraphs below, several examples of severe
accident mitigations have contributed to improved safety since publication of the 1996 LR GEIS.
These actions would lower severe accident risk at NRC-licensed facilities and consequently
reduce the likelihood that further SAMA analyses would uncover many cost-beneficial SAMAs
that significantly reduce the risk. As a result, they provide further support for the Commission’s
determination to not require SAMA analyses for facilities that have already performed one.
The IPE and IPEEE specific objective was to develop an appreciation of severe accident
behavior, and to identify ways in which the overall probabilities of core damage and fission
product releases could be reduced if deemed necessary. In general, the IPEs have resulted in
plant procedural and programmatic improvements (i.e., accident management) and, in a few
cases, minor plant modifications, to further reduce the risk and consequences of severe
accidents (NRC 1996). Examples of plant improvements identified through the IPE program
include improved reliability and/or redundancy of AC and direct current power and improved
core cooling or injection reliability (NRC 1997a). Examples of plant improvements identified
through the IPEEE program include strengthening of seismic supports and enhanced fire
brigade training (NRC 2002c). As a result of the IPEEE program, most licensees have made
improvements to plant hardware, procedures, or training programs. Although not generally
quantified as part of the IPEEE, those improvements are, in many cases, considered to have
lowered the reported risk estimates.
The regulatory requirements eventually codified in 10 CFR 50.155(b), formerly 10 CFR
50.54(hh)(2), resulted in enhanced capabilities to “restore core cooling, containment, and SFP
cooling capabilities under the circumstances associated with loss of large areas of the plant due
to explosions or fire.” Under these types of initiating events, the plants now have more diverse
capabilities than they did before 2000. Similarly, Order EA-12-049, “Order Modifying Licenses
with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External
E-89
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Events,” dated March 12, 2012 (NRC 2012c), required additional mitigative capabilities
associated with the containment function under the conditions of an extended loss of all AC
power and loss of normal access to the ultimate heat sink. This NRC Order was effective
immediately and directed the nuclear power plants to provide diverse and FLEX in response to
beyond-design-basis external events. The nuclear power plant’s Final Integrated Plans provide
strategies for maintaining or restoring core cooling, containment cooling, and SFP cooling
capabilities for a beyond-design-basis external event. The FLEX strategies and equipment,
when coupled with plant procedures, provide a safety benefit, or additional mitigation capability,
for certain design-basis events, not just the beyond-design-basis events. The magnitude of the
FLEX benefit, primarily intended to address LTSBO, is plant-specific and depends on the
importance of SBO events in the existing pre-FLEX PRA models.
One of the goals of the original Peach Bottom and Surry SOARCAs was to study the benefits of
the then recent 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) mitigation measures (formerly “B.5.b”) for the accidents
analyzed. These mitigation measures include the following for the Peach Bottom (NRC 2013e)
and Surry (NRC 2013f) plants:
• portable diesel-fuel powered pumps
• portable generators to provide electricity to power critical instrumentation and to open or close
valves
• pre-staged air bottles to open or close air-operated valves
• procedures for controlling steam-turbine-driven pumps without power
• designated makeup water sources
All but one of the SOARCA mitigated scenarios resulted in prevention of core damage, no
offsite release of radioactive material, or both. The only mitigated case leading to an offsite
release was the Surry STSBO-induced SG tube rupture case. In this case, mitigation was still
beneficial in that it kept most radioactive material inside containment and delayed the onset of
containment failure by about 2 days (NRC 2020c). The degree to which the 10 CFR
50.54(hh)(2) capabilities are modeled in licensee and agency risk assessments varies widely,
and efforts to model the Order EA-12-049 and Order EA-13-109 capabilities are still in progress.
As discussed in Section E.3.9 above, the objective of the CPRR regulatory basis was to
determine what, if any, additional requirements were warranted related to filtering strategies and
severe accident management for BWRs with Mark I and Mark II containments, assuming the
installation of severe accident-capable hardened vents per Order EA-13-109. The results of the
NRC staff’s detailed analyses are documented in SECY-15-0085, “Evaluation of the
Containment Protection and Release Reduction for Mark I and Mark II Boiling Water Reactors
Rulemaking Activities,” dated June 18, 2015 (NRC 2015c), as well as in NUREG-2206,
Technical Basis for the Containment Protection and Release Reduction Rulemaking for Boiling
Water Reactors with Mark I and Mark II Containments, issued in March 2018 (NRC 2018c). In
the end, based on the NRC staff’s analyses showing large margins to the QHOs for the baseline
and sensitivity cases, no new regulatory requirements were imposed for CPRR.
Other actions to improve safety include identification of specific aging mechanisms (e.g., cables;
irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking), and development of programs to monitor and
control these mechanisms (NRC 2010b, NRC 2017a), and NRC staff actions related to generic
safety issues and generic issues (e.g., Generic Safety Issue 191 on sump performance, Generic
Issue 199 on seismic risk [NRC 2011b]). The GIP does not formally estimate the holistic,
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-90
Appendix E
industrywide improvement in nuclear plant safety that results from the implementation of plant
changes brought about by the program. However, because the program focuses on potential
safety and security issues, regulatory actions that result in plant changes, recommended by the
program and approved by the agency, will have a net positive impact on plant and industry
safety, despite the lack of quantitative proof. In support of this assertion, NUREG-0933,
Resolution of Generic Safety Issues (NRC 2011b), provides a historical compilation of all
generic safety issues: Three Mile Island Action Plan items (369); Task Action Plan items (142)
consisting of Unresolved Safety Issues, legacy Generic Safety Issues, regulatory impact safety
issues, licensing issues and environmental issues; “new” generic issues (283); human factors
issues (27); and Chernobyl issues (32). Of this total, approximately one-third (281) were
resolved with the aid of a regulatory product, including publication of generic letters, revisions to
a Regulatory Guide or Standard Review Plan, multi-plant actions, SECYs, policy statements,
and staff reports.
In forming its basis for determining which plants needed to submit a SAMA, the Commission
noted that all licensees had undergone, or were in the process of undergoing, more detailed
plant-specific severe accident mitigation analyses through processes separate from license
renewal. Safety improvements were realized from implementation of the NRC Orders42 and
information requests under 10 CFR 50.54(f) (NRC 2012d) after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear
power plant accident initiated by the March 2011 Great Tohoku Earthquake and subsequent
tsunami. These improvements were for mitigation of beyond-design-basis events that provide
for the maintenance or restoration of core cooling, containment, and SFP cooling capabilities
and for the acquisition and use of offsite assistance and resources to support these functions.
Developments in the area of SAMGs, which consist of strategies for responding to beyonddesign-basis external events, were also enhanced to improve safety. The SAMGs are wellestablished guidance documents that were developed by the nuclear power industry with
substantial NRC involvement and have been implemented by every operating nuclear power
reactor licensee. SAMGs were developed using insights and other information from severe
accident research and analysis. The intent of SAMGs is to have preplanned strategies that
respond to severe accident symptoms based on existing facility equipment and instrumentation
with alternatives or compensatory measures as necessary. These strategies focus on stopping
the progression of fuel damage and limiting releases to the environment. This guidance
improved the technical basis previously issued (e.g., it gave greater consideration to control of
combustible gases outside primary containment), but also expanded the scope of that guidance
to include accidents during shutdown operations and at SFPs. Thus, the performance and
safety record of most nuclear power plants operating in the United States continues to improve.
This is also confirmed by analysis, which indicates that, in many cases, improved plant
performance and design features have resulted in reductions in initiating event frequency, CDF,
and containment failure frequency.43
42
Two of these Orders, EA-12-049 and EA-12-051, were subsequently incorporated into the NRC
regulations by the “Final Rule on Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events” dated September 9, 2019
(84 FR 39684).
43 This statement is based on industry performance data provided in the NRC’s 2007-2008 Information
Digest (NRC 2007c) and on the NRC’s public website (https://nrcoe.inl.gov/IndustryPerf/), as well as
information contained in plant-specific SEIS to NUREG-1437 (https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/index.html).
E-91
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Consequently, the NRC concludes that the information evaluated since the 1996 and 2013
LR GEISs were developed continues to support the Commission’s determination that NEPA
does not require plants that have already considered SAMAs once in an EA or EIS to do so
again. The vast majority, if not all, of the applicants that the NRC expects to apply for license
renewal in the coming years will have previously considered SAMAs, either at the initial
licensing or initial LR stage. Therefore, to most accurately reflect the agency’s NEPA process in
most cases, the NRC has determined that severe accidents, including SAMAs, should be
classified as a Category 1 issue for facilities that have previously considered SAMAs.
E.5
Summary and Conclusion
The 1996 LR GEIS estimated the environmental impacts on human health and economic factors
from full power severe reactor accidents initiated by internal events. Sections E.3.1 through
E.3.8 of this LR GEIS revision assessed the impacts of new information and additional accident
considerations on the environmental impact of severe accidents contained in the 1996 LR GEIS.
In addition, the impact of uncertainties associated with the new information is assessed in
Section E.3.9. The purpose of this section is to discuss the aggregate effect of the new
information considered in this revised LR GEIS on the environmental impacts and uncertainties
stated in the 1996 LR GEIS, and to state what conclusions can be drawn.
The different sources of new information can be generally categorized by their effect of
decreasing, not affecting, or increasing the best-estimate environmental impacts associated with
postulated severe accidents. Those areas where a decrease in best-estimate impacts would be
expected are as follows:
• new internal events information (decreases)
• new source term information (significant decreases)
Areas likely leading to either a small change or no change include the following:
• use of BEIR VII risk coefficients
Lastly, the areas leading to an increase in best-estimate impacts would consist of the following:
• consideration of external events (comparable to internal event impacts)
• low power and shutdown events (could be comparable to at-power event impacts)
• power uprates (small increases)
• higher fuel burnup (small increases)
• new information about SFPs accidents (much less risk than that from full power reactor
operations, but is conservatively considered to be comparable to that from full power reactor
operations)
Given the difficulty in conducting a rigorous aggregation of these results (due to the differences
in the information sources used and in the impact metrics evaluated), a fairly simple approach is
taken. The latter group contains two areas (power uprates and higher fuel burnups) where the
increase in environmental impact (probability-weighted consequences) would cumulatively be
less than 50 percent. For one area (SFP accidents) the increase in environmental impact
would be less than that from power reactor operations, but is conservatively considered to
be comparable to that from full power reactor operations. The increase in environmental impact
from consideration of low power and shutdown events is comparable to that from at-power
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-92
Appendix E
operations, but is conservatively assumed to be up to a factor of 2 to 3 higher. The final
factor, external events, was not assessed separately but as an integrated assessment
considering all hazards. The net increase from the four factors is conservatively an increase of
up to a factor of 4 to 5, or 400 to 500 percent.
The reduction in environmental impact associated with the new source term information is
dramatic. The early fatality risk is negligible, or orders of magnitude less than the NRC Safety
Goal, and the LCF risk is well below the NRC Safety Goal. However, because the SOARCA did
not evaluate the risk of all accident scenarios, this reduction in environmental impact is not
credited in this assessment. The other factor that has resulted in a decrease in environmental
impact is the risk of at-power severe reactor accidents due to internal events. The internal
events CDF has decreased, on average, by a factor of 4 to 6. However, the reduction in
environmental impact is substantial, ranging from a factor of 2 to 600 and, on average is about a
factor of 30 lower when compared to the expected value of the PDR reported in the
1996 LR GEIS. Because the 1996 LR GEIS did not explicitly consider the contribution from
external events in the estimate of the environmental impacts from severe accidents, an explicit
consideration would be expected to increase the estimated environmental impacts. However,
because the estimates of the probability-weighted consequences reported in the 1996 LR GEIS
were intentionally developed to be very conservative, an explicit consideration of the risk from
all hazards in this LR GEIS has shown that the probability-weighted dose consequences are
bounded by the 1996 LR GEIS estimates. Specifically, the net result when all hazards are
considered is that the All Hazards CDF, on average, is comparable to that assumed for just
internal events in the 1996 LR GEIS. Furthermore, the reduction in All Hazards PDR, or
probability-weighted dose consequence, ranges from a factor of 3 to over 1,000 and is, on
average, about a factor of 120 (or 12,000 percent) less than the corresponding predicted
95 percent UCB values estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS.
The net effect of an increase on the order of 400 to 500 percent and a decrease of more than
10,000 percent would be a substantial reduction in estimated impacts (compared to the
1996 LR GEIS assessment). This result demonstrates the substantial level of conservatism
incorporated in the upper bound estimates used in the 1996 LR GEIS.
New plant-specific information regarding these conclusions will be assessed for its significance
prior to the period of extended operation.
With respect to uncertainties, the 1996 LR GEIS contained an assessment of uncertainties in
the information used to estimate the environmental impacts. Section 5.3.4 of the 1996 LR GEIS
discusses the uncertainties and concludes that they could cause the impacts to vary anywhere
from a factor of 10 to a factor of 1,000. This range of uncertainties bounds the uncertainties
discussed in Section E.3.9, as well as the uncertainties brought in by the other sources of new
information, by one or more orders of magnitude. Section E.3.9 notes that more recent detailed
quantitative analyses indicate that the 95th percentile bounds of consequence uncertainty are
likely to be closer to the lower end of the 1996 uncertainty range, about a factor of 10 or less,
compared to point-estimates or compared to other central-tendency estimates.
Given the discussion in this appendix, the staff concludes that the reduction in environmental
impacts from the use of new information (since the 1996 LR GEIS analysis) outweighs any
increases resulting from this same information. As a result, the findings in the 1996 LR GEIS
remain valid. Therefore, the issue of “Design-basis accidents” is Category 1, and the
probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL for all plants. In the
2013 LR GEIS, the issue of severe accidents was a Category 2 issue to the extent that only the
E-93
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered by license renewal applicants for
all plants that have not previously considered such alternatives. This revised LR GEIS provides
the technical basis for classifying the issue of “Severe accidents” as Category 1 because SAMA
analyses are not likely to be required at the vast majority, if not all, of the facilities that would
reference this LR GEIS.
Most license renewal applicants expected to reference this LR GEIS have already completed a
SAMA analysis for their nuclear power plants and therefore need not undertake a second
analysis per NRC regulations. The totality of the studies and regulatory actions discussed in
Section E.4 of this appendix reinforces the Commission’s decision to not require applicants to
perform a SAMA analysis in an initial LR or SLR application if the NRC has previously
completed a SAMA analysis for their nuclear plant in a NEPA document. Therefore, the impacts
of all new information in this update do not contribute sufficiently to the environmental impacts of
severe accidents to undermine the Commission’s determination not to require further SAMA
analysis because the likelihood of finding cost-effective significant plant improvements is small.
Alternatives to mitigate severe accidents still must be considered for all plants that have not
considered such alternatives and would be the functional equivalent of a Category 2 issue
requiring plant-specific analysis.
Table E.5-1 provides a summary of the conclusions discussed above.
Table E.5-1
Summary of Conclusions
Topic (Section)
Conclusions
New Internal
Events Information
(Section E.3.1)
New information from the NUREG-1437 supplements about the risk and
environmental impacts of severe accidents caused by internal events indicates
that PWR and BWR CDFs are significantly less than those forming the basis of
the 1996 LR GEIS. On average, internal event CDFs for PWRs have decreased
by about a factor of 4 and CDFs for BWRs have decreased by about a factor of
6 compared to the CDFs used in the 1996 LR GEIS. Furthermore, the internal
event accident frequencies have further decreased, as reported in recent
risk-informed license amendment requests to the NRC. Comparison of PDR
risk from newer NUREG-1437 supplements illustrates a reduction in impact by
a factor of 2 to 600 compared to the 1996 LR GEIS expected value of the PDR
and are, on average, a factor of about 30 lower for both PWRs and BWRs. This
would also mean that contamination of open bodies of water and economic
impacts would, in most cases, be significantly less. Additionally, the likelihood
of basemat melt-through accidents is less than that used in the analysis
supporting the 1996 LR GEIS. In general, basemat melt-through sequences are
low contributors to estimates of severe accident risk due to their
long-developing nature.
Consideration of
External Events
(Section E.3.2)
The 1996 LR GEIS did not quantitatively consider severe accidents initiated by
external events when assessing environmental impacts. New information from
the NUREG-1437 supplements about the risk and environmental impacts of
severe accidents caused by both internal and external events, from
risk-informed license amendment requests submitted by licensees to the NRC,
and from licensee responses to the NRC’s Near-Term Task Force (Fukushima)
Recommendation 2.1 (NRC 2021) on seismic risk indicates that total PWR and
BWR CDFs for all hazards are, on average, about the same as those forming
the basis of the 1996 LR GEIS. Furthermore, the environmental impacts from
events initiated by all hazards (specifically, probability-weighted population
dose) are generally 1 to 3 orders of magnitude lower than those used in the
1996 LR GEIS and, on average, are about a factor of 120 lower than the 1996
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-94
Appendix E
Topic (Section)
Conclusions
LR GEIS 95th percentile upper confidence bound values. In addition, plant
improvements made in response to NRC Orders and industry initiatives with
respect to reducing the risk of external events have contributed to the improved
safety of all plants during both full power operation and low power and
shutdown operation. This conclusion would also apply to the contamination of
open bodies of water, groundwater, and economic impacts.
New Source Term
Information
(Section E.3.3)
More recent source term information indicates that the timing from dominant
severe accident sequences, as quantified in the SOARCA (NRC 2012g), is
much later than the analysis forming the basis of the 1996 LR GEIS. In most
cases, the release frequencies and release fractions are significantly lower for
the more recent estimate. Furthermore, while the SOARCAs were focused on
the most risk-significant accident scenarios and did not evaluate all scenarios,
the SOARCA offsite consequence calculations for the three sites evaluated are
generally smaller than reported in earlier studies. Specifically, the SOARCA
results show essentially zero early fatality risk for the three sites and show a
very low individual risk of cancer fatalities for the populations close to the
nuclear power plants (i.e., well below the NRC Safety Goal of two long-term
cancer fatalities annually in a population of one million individuals). Thus, the
environmental impacts estimated using the more recent and realistic source
term information are expected to be much lower than the impacts used as the
basis for the 1996 LR GEIS (i.e., the frequency-weighted consequences).
Power Uprates
(Section E.3.4)
Based on a comparison of the change in LERF for extended power uprates, a
small increase in environmental impacts results from the increase in operating
power level.
Higher Fuel
Burnup
(Section E.3.5)
Increased peak fuel burnup from 42 to 75 GWd/MTU for PWRs and 60 to
75 GWd/MTU for BWRs is estimated to result in small increases in the
environmental impacts in the event of a severe accident.
Consideration of
Low Power and
Reactor Shutdown
Events
(Section E.3.6)
The environmental impacts from accidents under low power and reactor
shutdown conditions are generally comparable to those from accidents at full
power when comparing the values in SNL 1995 and BNL 1995 to those in the
NUREG-1437 supplements. Nonetheless, the 1996 LR GEIS estimates of the
environmental impact of severe accidents bound the potential impacts from
accidents at low power and reactor shutdown. Finally, safety during low power
and shutdown operations has been improved since issuance of the 1996
LR GEIS as a result of (1) industry initiatives taken during the early 1990s, as
discussed in SECY-97-168 (NRC 1997c); (2) improved safety of low power and
shutdown operation compliance with the Maintenance Rule, including 10 CFR
50.65(a)(4) for the assessment and management of risk associated with
maintenance activities, including during low power operations and plant
shutdown configurations; and (3) compliance with NRC Order EA-12-049
(NRC 2012c) requiring licensees to be capable of implementing the mitigating
strategies for beyond-design-basis external events in all modes of plant
operation, including full power operations, low power operations, and plant
shutdown configurations.
Consideration of
Spent Fuel Pool
Accidents
(Section E.3.7)
The environmental impacts from accidents at SFPs (as quantified in
NUREG-1738; NRC 2001) can be comparable to those from reactor accidents
at full power (as estimated in NUREG-1150; NRC 1990). Mitigative measures
employed since 2001 have further lowered the risk of this class of accidents. In
addition, the conservative estimates from NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001) and
NUREG-2161 (NRC 2014a) are much less than the impacts from full power
reactor accidents that are estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS.
E-95
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
Topic (Section)
Conclusions
Use of BEIR VII
Risk Coefficient
(Section E.3.8)
Use of newer risk coefficients such as in BEIR VII is expected to have a small
impact on the results presented in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Uncertainties
(Section E.3.9)
The impact and magnitude of uncertainties, as estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS,
bound the uncertainties introduced by the new information and considerations.
SAMAs
(Section E.4)
Most facilities expected to reference this LR GEIS have already completed a
SAMA analysis and therefore need not undertake a second per NRC
regulations. Moreover, the comprehensive improvements in severe accident
risk outside of license renewal have exceeded the current process and scope of
SAMA analysis for determining the need for additional mitigative measures.
Summary/
Conclusion
(Section E.5)
Given the new and updated information, the reduction in estimated
environmental impacts from the use of new internal event and source term
information outweighs any increases from the consideration of low power and
reactor shutdown risk, external events, power uprates, higher fuel burnup, and
SFP risk.
BEIR VII = Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report number VII; BWR = boiling water reactor; CDF = core
damage frequency; GEIS = generic environmental impact statement; GWd/MTU = gigawatt-day(s) per metric tonne
uranium; LERF = large early release frequency; LR = license renewal; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
PWR = pressurized water reactor; PDR = population dose risk; SAMA = severe accident mitigation alternative;
SOARCA = state-of-the-art consequence analysis.
E.6
References
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 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for
Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”
10 CFR Part 72. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, “Licensing
Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive
Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste.”
10 CFR Part 73. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 73, “Physical Protection of
Plants and Materials.”
10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site
Criteria.”
51 FR 30028. August 21, 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants; Policy
Statement; Republication.” Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
61 FR 28467. June 5, 1996. “Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant
Operating Licenses.” Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
64 FR 38551. July 19, 1999. “Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power
Plants.” Final Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-96
Appendix E
74 FR 13926. March 27, 2009. “Power Reactor Security Requirements.” Final Rule, Federal
Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
76 FR 72560. November 23, 2011. “Enhancements to Emergency Preparedness Regulations.”
Final Rule, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
79 FR 13926. March 27, 2009. “Power Reactor Security Requirements.” Final Rule, Federal
Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
84 FR 39684. August 9, 2019. “Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events.” Final Rule, Federal
Register, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
87 FR 24205. April 22, 2022. “Level 3 Probabilistic Risk Assessment Project Documentation
(Volume 3x).” Draft report; request for comment. Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1974a. Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential
Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors.
Regulatory Guide 1.3, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML003739601.
AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1974b. Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential
Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactors.
Regulatory Guide 1.4, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML003739614.
Aldrich, D.C., J.L. Sprung, D.J. Alpert, K. Diegert, R.M. Ostmeyer, L.T. Ritchie, D.R. Strip,
J.D. Johnson, K. Hansen, and J. Robinson. 1982. Technical Guidance for Siting Criteria
Development. NUREG/CR-2239, SAND81-1549. ADAMS Accession No. ML072320420.
ANS (American Nuclear Society). 2020. “U.S. Nuclear Capacity Factors: Resiliency and New
Realities.” Nuclear NewsWire, Downers Grove, Il. Accessed November 6, 2023 at
https://www.ans.org/news/article-183/us-nuclear-capacity-factors-resiliency-and-new-realities/.
APS (Arizona Public Service). 2018. Letter from M.L. Lacal to NRC dated October 5, 2018,
regarding “Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-528,
50-529, and 50-530 Response to Request for Additional Information for Risk-Informed
Completion Times Supplemental Responses for Items 17.f and 21.” Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML18278A295.
Baker, D.A., W.J. Bailey, C.E. Beyer, F.C. Bold, and J.J. Tawil. 1988. Assessment of the Use of
Extended Burnup Fuel in Light Water Power Reactors. NUREG/CR-5009, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Richland, WA. Accessed April 24, 2023, at https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5655949.
BNL (Brookhaven National Laboratory). 1995. Evaluation of Potential Severe Accidents During
Low Power and Shutdown Operations at Surry, Unit 1, Summary of Results. NUREG/CR–6144,
BNL-NUREG-52399, Volume 1, Upton, NY. ADAMS Accession No. ML18151A386.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (Massachusetts v.
NRC). 2013. 708 F.3d 63, 68 (1st Cir. 2013). U.S. Court of Appeals First Circuit Decision,
February 25, 2013. Accessed May 8, 2023, at https://cite.case.law/f3d/708/63/.
E-97
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
DiNunno, J.J., F.D. Anderson, R.E. Baker, and R.L. Waterfield. 1962. Calculation of Distance
Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites. TID-14844, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML021720780.
Ducros, G., P.P. Malgouyres, M. Kissane, D. Boulaud, and M. Durin. 2001. “Fission product
release under severe accidental conditions: general presentation of the program and synthesis
of VERCORS 1–6 results.” Nuclear Engineering and Design 208(2):191-203, Elsevier Academic
Press, Cambridge, MA. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-5493(01)00376-4.
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2012. Seismic Evaluation Guidance – Screening,
Prioritization and Implementation Details (SPID) for the Resolution of Fukushima Near-Term
Task Force Recommendation 2.1: Seismic. Report 1025287, Palo Alto, CA. ADAMS Accession
No. ML12333A170.
EPRI/NRC (Electric Power Research Institute/U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005a.
EPRI/NRC-RES, Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities, Volume 1: Summary and
Overview. EPRI - 1011989, NUREG/CR-6850, Final Report, Rockville, MD. Accessed April 24,
2023, at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6850/index.html.
EPRI/NRC (Electric Power Research Institute/U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005b.
EPRI/NRC-RES, Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities, Volume 2: Detailed
Methodology. EPRI - 1011989, NUREG/CR-6850, Final Report, Rockville, MD. Accessed April
24, 2023, at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6850/index.html.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC. 2012. Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. CLI-1219, 76 NRC 377. NUREG-0750. Volume 78, Book II of II. ADAMS Accession No.
ML14259A584.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC. 2013. Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. CLI-13-7,
78 NRC 199. NUREG-0750. Volume 78, Book II of II. ADAMS Accession No. ML15183A194.
Ghosh, T., R. Palla, and D. Helton. 2009. Perspectives on Severe Accident Mitigation
Alternatives for U.S. Plant License Renewal. Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development Workshop on Severe Accident Management, Bottstein, Switzerland. ADAMS
Accession No. ML092750488.
Ghosh, S.T., E. Hossein, A. Hathway, N. Bixler, D. Brooks, M. Dennis, D. Osborn, K. Ross, and
K. Wagner. 2021. “State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses Project: Uncertainty
Analyses for Station Blackout Scenarios.” Nuclear Technology, 207(3):441–451. Washington,
D.C. Accessed May 12, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2021.1875737.
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 1991. “1990 Recommendations of
the International Commission on Radiological Protection.” ICRP Publication 60, Ann. ICRP,
21(1-3). Pergamon Press, New York, NY. Accessed April 24, 2023, at
https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=icrp%20publication%2060.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
National Research Council. 1972. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing Radiation. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Accessed April 24, 2023,
at https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/37/004/37004410.pdf.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-98
Appendix E
National Research Council. 1980. Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation. 1980. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Accessed April 24, 2023, at
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/21287/effects-on-populations-of-exposure-to-lowlevels-of-ionizing-radiation-1980.
National Research Council. 1990. Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation: BEIR V. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Accessed April 24, 2023,
at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218704/.
National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing
Radiation: BEIR VII Phase II. Washington, D.C. Accessed May 13, 2023, at
https://doi.org/10.17226/11340.
Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 823 F.3d 641
(D.C. Cir. 2016). Accessed May 8, 2023, at https://cite.case.law/f3d/823/641/5921839/.
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). 2016. Diverse and Flexible Coping Strategies (FLEX)
Implementation Guide. NEI 12-06 [Rev 4]. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML16354B42.
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2018. Letter from S.J. Vaughn to NRC dated April 27, 2018,
regarding “Submittal of NUMARC 93-01, Rev 4f, ‘Industry Guideline for Monitoring the
Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants’ for NRC Endorsement.” Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18120A069.
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.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
561 F.3d 132 (3rd Cir. 2009). Accessed May 8, 2023, at https://cite.case.law/f3d/561/132/.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1975. An Assessment of Accidents Risks in U.S.
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-75/014, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML083570090.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1978. Liquid Pathway Generic Study Impacts of
Accidental Radioactive Releases to the Hydrosphere from Floating and Land-Based Nuclear
Power Plants. (NUREG-0440), Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015095094713&view=page&seq=3.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1982a. Final Environmental Statement Related to
the Operation of Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0854. Docket No. 50-443 and
50-444. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML102290543.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1982b. Final Environmental Statement Related to
the Operation of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0848. Docket No. STN 50-454 and STN
50-455. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML13269A184.
E-99
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1982c. Final Environmental Statement Related to
the Operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1. NUREG-0854. Docket No. 50-461.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML15098A042.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1982d. The Development of Severe Reactor
Accident Source Terms: 1957–1981. NUREG-0773. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20070D151.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1989a. Final Environmental Statement related to
the operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0775
Supplement. Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML19332D079.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1989b. Final Environmental Statement related to
the operation of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353,
Philadelphia Electric Company. NUREG-0974, Supplement. Washington, D.C. August. ADAMS
Accession No. ML11221A204.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1989c. Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of
Generic Issue 82, “Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools.” NUREG-1353.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML082330232.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1990. Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for
Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML040140729.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1993. Shutdown and Low Power Operation at
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States, Final Report. NUREG-1449.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20057E700.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1994. Revised Livermore Seismic Hazard
Estimates for 69 Nuclear Power Plant Sites East of the Rocky Mountains, Final Report.
NUREG-1488. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML052640591.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1995a. Accident Source Terms for Light-Water
Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1465, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML041040063.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency). 1995b. Final Environmental Impact Statement Related
to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Supplement
No. 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18023A204.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705, ML040690738.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997a. Individual Plant Examination Program:
Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. Volume 1, Part 1 Final Summary
Report and Volume 2, Parts 2-5, Final Report, NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C. Accessed April
24, 2023, at https://www.osti.gov/biblio/569125.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-100
Appendix E
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997b. A Safety and Regulatory Assessment of
Generic BWR and PWR Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG/CR-6451,
BNL-NUREG-52498. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML082260098.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997c. Memorandum from L.J. Callan to The
Commissioners, dated July 30, 1997, regarding “Issuance for Public Comment of Proposed
Rulemaking Package for Shutdown and Fuel Storage Pool Operation.” SECY-97-168,
Washington, D.C. Available at: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/commission/secys/1997/secy1997-168/1997-168scy.pdf.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997d. Memorandum from J.C. Hoyle to L.J.
Callan, dated December 11, 1997, regarding “Staff Requirements - SECY-97-168 - Issuance for
Public Comment of Proposed Rulemaking Package for Shutdown and Fuel Storage Pool
Operation.” SRM-97-168, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML003752569.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997e. Reassessment of Selected Factors
Affecting Siting of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG/CR-6295, BNL-NUREG-52442. ADAMS
Accession No. ML20135F947.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997f. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation
Handbook. NUREG/BR–0184, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML050190193.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Addendum to Main Report, NUREG-1437, Volume 1,
Addendum 1. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML040690720.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2000. Alternative Radiological Source Terms for
Evaluating Design-Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors. Regulatory Guide 1.183,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML003716792.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2001. Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool
Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1738, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML010430066.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants - Supplement 6 Regarding Surry Power Station, Units 1
and 2. Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 6, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML023310717.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002b. “In the Matter of All Operating Power
Reactor Licensees. Order Modifying Licenses (Effective Immediately).” 7590-01-P. EA-02-026.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML020520754.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002c. Perspectives Gained from the Individual
Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE), Final Report. NUREG-1742, Vols. 1 and 2.
Washington, D.C. April. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML021270070, ML021270122, and
ML021270674.
E-101
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2003. Review Standard for Extended Power
Uprates. RIS-001, Revision 0. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML033640024.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2004. Protecting Our Nation Since 9-11-01: A
Report of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0314. ADAMS Accession No.
ML042650352.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005a. Memorandum from F. Eltawila, Director
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, to M.E. Mayfield, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, dated June 9, 2005, regarding “Generic Issue 199, Implications of Updated
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Estimates in Central and Eastern United States.” Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML051600272.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2005b. Policy Issue: Staff Review of the National
Academies Study of the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation
(BEIR VII). SECY-05-0202, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML052640532.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2006. Frequently Asked Questions on License
Renewal of Nuclear Power Reactors, Final Report. NUREG-1850, Washington, D.C. March.
ADAMS Accession No. ML061110022.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007a. A Pilot Probabilistic Risk Assessment Of a
Dry Cask Storage System At a Nuclear Power Plant. NUREG-1864. Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML071340012.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007b. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Issuances. Opinions and Decisions of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with Selected Orders
January 1, 2007 - June 30, 2007. NUREG-0750. Volume 65. ADAMS Accession No.
ML090860385.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007c. 2007-2008 Information Digest.
NUREG-1350, Volume 19. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML072960367.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2007d. Memorandum from S.N. Bailey, Senior
Project Manager, NRC, to J. Scarola, Vice President, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, dated
August 9, 2007, regarding “Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2—Conforming License
Amendments to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategies Required by Section B.5.b. of Commission
Order EA-02-026 and the Radiological Protection Mitigation Strategies Required by Commission
Order EA-06-137 (TAC Nos. MD4516 and MD4517).” Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML072070375.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2008. Letter from M.K. Gamberoni to Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., dated May 13, 2008, regarding “Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units
1 & 2 - NRC Inspection Report. Nos. 05000003/2007010 and 05000247/2007010 - Docket Nos.
50-003 and 50-247.” Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML081340425.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants—Supplement 35 Regarding Susquehanna Steam
Electric Station Units 1 and 2. Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 35, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML090700454.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-102
Appendix E
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010a. Memorandum from R.W. Borchardt to
Chairman Jaczko, Commissioner Klein, Commissioner Svinicki, dated February 4, 2010,
regarding “Documentation of Evolution of Security Requirements at Commercial Nuclear Power
Plants With Respect to Mitigation Measures for Large Fires and Explosions.” SECY-2008-0648,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML092990438.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2010b. Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL)
Report, Final Report. NUREG-1801, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML103490041.
NRC (U.S. Regulatory Commission). 2010c. The Evolution of Mitigating Measures for Large Fire
and Explosions, A Chronological History From September 11, 2001 Through October 7, 2009.
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML092990417.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011a. Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor
Safety in the 21st Century: The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima
Dai-ichi Accident. SECY-11-0093, NRC Task Force, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML11186A950.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011b. Resolution of Generic Safety Issues.
NUREG-0933, Main Report with Supplements 1-35, Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12, 2023,
at https://www.nrc.gov/sr0933/index.html.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011c. Prioritization of Recommended Actions to
Be Taken in Response to Fukushima Lessons Learned. SECY-11-0137, NRC Task Force,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML11272A111.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011d. Staff Requirements – SECY-11-0137 –
Prioritization of Recommended Actions to Be Taken in Response to Fukushima Lessons
Learned. SRM-SECY-11-0137, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML113490055.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012a. “In the Matter of All Power Reactor
Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in the Active or Deferred Status. Order
Modifying Licenses with Regard to Reliable Spent Fuel Pool Instrumentation (Effective
Immediately).” 7590-01-P, EA-12-051, NRC-2012-0067, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML12056A044.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012b. “In the Matter of All Power Reactor
Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in the Active or Deferred Status. Order
Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements For Mitigation Strategies For Beyond-DesignBasis External Events (Effective Immediately).” 7590-01-P, EA-12-049, NRC-2012-0068,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12056A045.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012c. Letter from E. Leeds and M. Johnson to All
Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status,
dated March 12, 2012, regarding “Issuance of Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to
Requirements for Mitigation Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events.” EA-12-049,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12054A735.
E-103
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012d. Letter from NRC to All Power Reactor
Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status dated March 12,
2012, regarding “Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task
Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident.” Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML12056A046.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012e. Memorandum from A. Vietti-Cook to R.W.
Borchardt, dated March 9, 2012, regarding “Staff Requirements – SECY-12-0025 Proposed
Orders and Requests for Information in Response to Lessons Learned from Japan’s March 11,
2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami.” SRM-12-0025, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML120690347.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012f. Policy Issue Notation Vote: Proposed
Orders and Requests for Information in Response to Lessons Learned from Japan’s March 11,
2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami. SECY-12-0025, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML12039A111.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012g. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence
Analyses (SOARCA) Report. NUREG-1935, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML12332A057.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012h. Letter from E. Leeds to All Operating
Boiling Water Reactor Licensees with Mark I and Mark II Containments, dated March 12, 2012,
regarding “Issuance of Order to Modify Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened
Containment Vents.” EA-12-050, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML12054A694.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency). 2013a. Final Environmental Impact Statement Related
to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Units Nos. 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Supplement No.
2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13144A092, ML13144A093.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [GEIS]. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Package Accession No. ML13107A023.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013c. Letter from D.L. Skeen to NRC dated
February 15, 2013, regarding “Electric Power Research Institute; Seismic Evaluation Guidance.”
NRC-0213-0038, Rockville, MD. ADAMS Accession No. ML12324A198.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013d. Preparation of Environmental Reports for
Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1,
Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML13067A354.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013e. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence
Analyses Project Volume 1: Peach Bottom Integrated Analysis. NUREG/CR-7110, Volume 1,
Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML13150A053.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013f. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence
Analyses Project Volume 2: Surry Integrated Analysis. NUREG/CR-7110, Volume 2, Revision 1,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML13240A242.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-104
Appendix E
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013g. Letter from E. Leeds to All Operating
Boiling Water Reactor Licensees with Mark I and Mark II Containments, dated June 6, 2013,
regarding “Issuance of to Order Modify Licenses with Regard to Reliable Hardened
Containment Vents Capable of Operation Under Severe Accident Conditions.” EA-13-109,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML13143A321.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014a. Consequence Study of a Beyond-DesignBasis Earthquake Affecting the Spent Fuel Pool for a U.S. Mark I Boiling Water Reactor.
NUREG-2161, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14255A365.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 49: Regarding Limerick Generating Station,
Units 1 and 2, Chapters 1 to 12, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 49, Volumes 1 and 2,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14238A284, ML14238A290.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 50: Regarding Grand Gulf Nuclear Station,
Unit 1, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 50, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML14328A171.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014d. Memorandum from R.C. Rochelle to M.A.
Satorius, dated May 23, 2014, regarding “Staff Evaluation and Recommendation for Japan
Lessons-Learned Tier 3 Issue on Expedited Transfer of Spent Fuel.” NRC SRM-COMSECY-130030, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14143A360.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015a. Draft Regulatory Basis for Containment
Protection and Release Reduction for Mark I and Mark II Boiling Water Reactors (10 CFR Part
50). SECY-15-0085. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML15022A214.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015b. Letter from W.M. Dean to All Power
Reactor Licensees, dated October 27, 2015, regarding “Final Determination of Licensee
Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessments under the Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 ‘Seismic’ of the
Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident.” Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML15194A015.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015c. Policy Issue Notation Vote: Evaluation of
the Containment Protection and Release Reduction for Mark I and Mark II Boiling Water
Reactors Rulemaking Activities (10 CFR Part 50) (RIN-3150-AJ26). SECY-15-0085,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML15005A079.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016a. Probabilistic Risk Assessment and
Regulatory Decisionmaking: Some Frequently Asked Questions. NUREG-2201, Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML16245A032.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016b. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence
Analyses Project: Uncertainty Analysis of the Unmitigated Long-Term Station Blackout of the
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. NUREG/CR-7155, SAND2012-10702P, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML16133A461.
E-105
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017a. Generic Aging Lessons Learned for
Subsequent License Renewal (GALL-SLR) Report: Final Report. NUREG-2191, Volume 1,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML17187A031.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017b. Guidance on the Treatment of
Uncertainties Associated with PRAs in Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Final Report. NUREG1855, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML17062A466.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017c. Revision to JLD-ISG-2012-01, Compliance
with Order EA-12-049, Order Modifying Licenses with Regard to Requirements for Mitigation
Strategies for Beyond-Design-Basis External Events. JLD-ISG-2012-01, Revision 2,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML17005A182.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017d. Status of Implementation of Lessons
Learned from Japan’s March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake and Subsequent Tsunami.
SECY-17-0016, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML16356A084.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017e. Draft Final Rule: Mitigation of BeyondDesign-Basis Events. SECY-16-0142, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML16301A005.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017f. Memorandum from V.M. McCree,
Executive Director for Operations, to Chairman Svinicki, Commissioner Baran, and
Commissioner Burns, dated July 24, 2017, regarding “Supplement to SECY-16-0142, Draft
Final Rule - Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events (RIN 3150-AJ49).” Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML17194A764.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2017g. Policy Issue Notation Vote: Status of
Implementation of Lessons Learned from Japan’s March 11, 2011, Great Tohoku Earthquake
and Subsequent Tsunami. SECY-17-0016, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML16356A045.
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. Monitoring the Effectiveness of
Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.160, Revision 4, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML18220B281.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018c. Technical Basis for the Containment
Protection and Release Reduction Rulemaking for Boiling Water Reactors with Mark I and Mark
II Containments. NUREG-2206, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18065A048.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019a. SRM-M190124A: Affirmation SessionSECY-16-0142: Final Rule: Mitigation of Beyond-Design-Basis Events (RIN 3150-AJ49),
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19023A038.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019b. Final Rule: Mitigation of Beyond-DesignBasis Events, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19058A006.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-106
Appendix E
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019c. Flexible Mitigation Strategies for BeyondDesign-Basis Events. Regulatory Guide 1.226, Revision 0, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML19058A012.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019d. Wide Range Spent Fuel Pool Level
Instrumentation. Regulatory Guide 1.227, Revision 0, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML19037A443.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019e. “NRC Staff Preliminary Process for
Treatment of Reevaluated Seismic and Flooding Hazard Information in Backfit Determinations,”
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19037A443.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019f. Letter from L. Lund to The Licensees of
Operating Power Reactors on the Enclosed List, dated July 3, 2019, regarding “Treatment of
Reevaluated Seismic Hazard Information provided under Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of
Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident.” Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML19140A307.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019g. Letter from M. J. Ross-Lee to The
Licensees of Operating Power Reactors on the Enclosed List, dated August 20, 2019, regarding
“Treatment of Reevaluated Flood Hazard Information provided under Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations 50.54(f) Regarding Recommendation 2.1 of the Near-Term Task Force
Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident.” Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML19067A247.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019h. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence
Analyses (SOARCA) Project: Sequoyah Integrated Deterministic and Uncertainty Analyses.
NUREG/CR-7245, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19296B786.
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.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020b. Memorandum from M. Case to J.
Donoghue and M.X. Franovich, dated May 13, 2020, regarding “Applicability of Source Term for
Accident Tolerant Fuel, High Burn Up and Extended Enrichment.” Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML20126G376.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020c. Modeling Potential Reactor Accident
Consequences, State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses: Using decades of research
and experience to model accident progression, mitigation, emergency response, and health
effects. NUREG/BR-0359, Revision 3, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML20304A339.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021. Seismic Hazard Evaluations for U.S.
Nuclear Power Plants: Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1 Results. NUREG/KM-0017,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21344A126.
E-107
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix E
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022a. U.S. NRC Level 3 Probabilistic Risk
Assessment (PRA) Project, Volume 3x: Overview of Reactor, At-Power, Level 1, 2, and 3 PRAs
for Internal Events and Internal Floods: Draft Report for Comment. Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML22067A210.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022b. “Perspective on Safety Improvements for
Commercial Nuclear Power Plants.” 34th Annual Regulatory Information Conference (March
8-10). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML22153A343.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022c. Sources of Information Cited in Appendix
E, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,
NUREG-1437, Revision 2. Washington, D.C. May. ADAMS Accession No. ML22201A061.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022d. State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence
Analyses (SOARCA) Project: Uncertainty Analysis of the Unmitigated Short-Term Station
Blackout of the Surry Power Station. NUREG/CR-7262. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML22194A066.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022e. Summary of the Uncertainty Analyses for
the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses Project. NUREG/CR-2254. Washington,
D.C. October. ADAMS Accession No. ML22193A244.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024. Preparation of Environmental Reports for
Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1,
Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML23201A144.
NUMARC (Nuclear Management and Resources Council). 1991. Guidelines for Industry Actions
to Assess Shutdown Management. NUMARC 91-06, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML14365A203.
PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric). 2008. Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation. CLI-08-26, 68 NRC 509. NUREG-0750. Volume 68, Book II of II. ADAMS
Accession No. ML120440826.
PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric). 2011. Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation. CLI-11-11, 74 NRC 427. NUREG-0750. Volume 74, Book II of II. ADAMS
Accession No. ML14028A565.
PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric). 2015. Letter from Barry S. Allen, Vice President, Nuclear
Services to Document Control Desk, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated July 1, 2015,
regarding “Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 - Diablo Canyon Power Plant License Renewal Severe
Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis Evaluation of the 2015 Seismic Hazard Results.” Avila
Beach, CA. ADAMS Accession No. ML15182A303.
Ramsdell, J.V. Jr., C.E. Beyer, D.D. Lanning, U.P. Jenquin, R.A. Schwarz, D.L. Strenge,
P.M. Daling, and R.T. Dahowski. 2001. Environmental Effects of Extending Fuel Burnup Above
60 GWd/MTU. NUREG/CR-6703, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA. ADAMS
Accession No. ML010310298.
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir.
2006). Accessed May 10, 2023, at https://cite.case.law/f3d/449/1016/.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
E-108
Appendix E
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 635 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.
2011). Accessed May 10, 2023, at https://cite.case.law/f3d/635/1109/.
SN (Southern Nuclear). 2021. Letter from C.A. Gayheart to NRC dated October 26, 2021,
regarding “Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 License Amendment Request to Revise
Technical Specifications to Adopt Risk Informed Completion Times TSTF-505, Revision 2,
Provide Risk-Informed Extended Completion Times - RITSTF Initiative 4B.” Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML21300A153.
SNL (Sandia National Laboratories). 1992. Integrated Risk Assessment for the LaSalle Unit 2
Nuclear Power Plant. NUREG/CR–5305, SAND90-2765, Volume 1, RX, Albuquerque, NM.
ADAMS Accession No. ML20105C763.
SNL (Sandia National Laboratories). 1995. Evaluation of Potential Severe Accidents During Low
Power and Shutdown Operations at Grand Gulf, Unit 1, Summary of Results. NUREG/CR–
6143, SAND93-2440, Volume 1, Albuquerque, NM. ADAMS Accession No. ML20087K369.
SNL (Sandia National Laboratories). 2006. Mitigation of Spent Fuel Pool Loss of Coolant
Inventory Accidents and Extension of Reference Plant Analyses to Other Spent Fuel Pools.
Sandia Letter Report, Revision 2, Albuquerque, NM. November. ADAMS Accession No.
ML120970086.
SNL (Sandia National Laboratories). 2010. Synthesis of VERCORS and Phebus Data in Severe
Accident Codes and Applications. SAND2010-1633, Albuquerque, NM. April. Accessed May 12,
2023, at https://doi.org/10.2172/983685.
SNL (Sandia National Laboratories). 2011. Accident Source Terms for Light-Water Nuclear
Power Plants Using High-Burnup or MOX Fuel. SAND2011-0128, Unlimited Release,
Albuquerque, NM. Accessed April 24, 2023, at https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1010412.
SNL (Sandia National Laboratories). 2021. MACCS Theory Manual. SAND2021-11535,
Albuquerque, NM. ADAMS Accession No. ML22118B153.
USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2021. “2017 National Population Projections Tables: Main
Series.” Washington, D.C. Accessed April 24, 2023, at
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popproj/2017-summary-tables.html.
E-109
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
APPENDIX F
–
LAWS, REGULATIONS,
AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
APPENDIX F
–
LAWS, REGULATIONS,
AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS
F.1
Introduction
It is central to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) mission that nuclear power
plants are operated in a manner that ensures the protection of public health and safety and the
environment through compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and other
requirements. A number of Federal laws and regulations affect environmental protection, health,
safety, compliance, and/or consultation at every NRC-licensed nuclear power plant. In addition,
certain Federal environmental requirements have been delegated to State authorities for
enforcement and implementation. Furthermore, States have also enacted laws to protect public
health and safety and the environment.
This appendix presents a brief discussion of Federal and State laws, regulations, and other
requirements that may affect the renewal and continued operation of NRC-licensed nuclear
power plants. It provides additional information about environmental laws and regulations that
may be applicable to license renewal (initial or subsequent license renewal). These include
Federal and State laws, regulations, and other requirements designed to protect the
environment, including land and water use, air quality, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources,
radiological impacts, waste management, chemical impacts, and socioeconomic conditions.
This appendix is provided as a basic overview to assist the applicant in identifying
environmental and natural resources laws that may affect the license renewal process. The
descriptions of each of the laws, regulations, executive orders, and other directives are general
in nature and are not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis or explanation of any of the
items listed. In addition, the list itself is not intended to be comprehensive, and an applicant for
license renewal is reminded that a variety of additional Federal, State, or local requirements
may apply to a license renewal application for a particular plant site. Depending on the
requirement, the NRC or the applicant may need to undergo a new authorization or consultation
process, or renew an existing authorization currently granted.
Section F.2 identifies Federal laws and regulations applicable to license renewal. Section F.3
discusses executive orders. Section F.4 identifies applicable NRC regulations and associated
guidance. Section F.5 discusses State laws, regulations, and other requirements. Section F.6
discusses operating permits and other requirements that must be issued prior to license
renewal. Section F.7 discusses emergency management and response laws, regulations, and
executive orders. Section F.8 discusses consultations with agencies and Federally recognized
Indian Tribes. Section F.9 provides a list of references cited in this appendix. These regulatory
requirements address issues such as protection of public health and the environment, worker
safety, historic and cultural resources, and emergency planning.
F.2
Federal Laws and Regulations
The requirements that may be applicable to the operation of NRC-licensed nuclear power plants
encompass a broad range of Federal laws and regulations, addressing environmental, historic
F-1
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
and cultural, health and safety, transportation, and other concerns. Generally, these laws and
regulations are relevant to how the work involved in performing a proposed action would be
conducted to protect workers, the public, and environmental resources. Some of these laws and
regulations require permits or consultation with other Federal agencies or State, Tribal, or local
governments. The Federal laws and regulations that are identified and briefly discussed in this
section are presented in alphabetical order.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 1996) –
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act protects Native Americans’ rights of freedom to
believe, express, and exercise traditional religions.
Antiquities Act of 1906, as amended (54 U.S.C. §§ 320301–320303 and 18 U.S.C. §
1866(b)) – The Antiquities Act protects historic and prehistoric ruins, monuments, and
antiquities, including paleontological resources, on Federally controlled lands from
appropriation, excavation, injury, and destruction without permission.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 302107
et seq.) – The Archaeological Resources Protection Act requires a permit for any excavation or
removal of archaeological resources from Federal or Indian lands. Excavations must be
undertaken for the purpose of furthering archaeological knowledge in the public interest, and
resources removed are to remain the property of the United States. Consent must be obtained
from the Indian Tribe or the Federal agency having authority over the land, on which a resource
is located, before issuance of a permit. The permit must contain terms and conditions requested
by the Tribe or Federal agency.
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 312501
et seq.) – The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act establishes procedures for
preserving historical and archaeological resources. Analysis of environmental compliance
included assessing the energy alternatives for possible impacts on prehistoric, historic, and
traditional cultural resources.
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.) – The 1954 Atomic
Energy Act (AEA), as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. § 5801
et seq.) give the NRC the licensing and regulatory authority for nuclear energy uses within the
commercial sector. They give the NRC responsibility for licensing and regulating commercial
uses of atomic energy and allows the NRC to establish dose and concentration limits for
protection of workers and the public for activities under NRC jurisdiction. The NRC implements
its responsibilities under the AEA through regulations set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR).
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 668–668d) – The
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act makes it unlawful to take, pursue, molest, or disturb bald
and golden eagles, their nests, or their eggs anywhere in the United States. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (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 Air Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) – The Clean Air Act (CAA) is
intended to “protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources so as to promote the
public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” The CAA regulates air
emissions from stationary and mobile sources. The CAA establishes regulations to ensure
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-2
Appendix F
maintenance of air quality standards and authorizes individual States to manage permits.
Section 109 of the CAA directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) for criteria pollutants. The EPA has identified and set
NAAQSs for the following criteria pollutants: particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide,
ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. To meet the NAAQSs set forth by the EPA, States are
required to create State implementation plans and update the plans periodically. Section 111 of
the CAA requires establishment of national performance standards for new or modified
stationary sources of atmospheric pollutants. Section 112 requires specific standards for release
of hazardous air pollutants (including radionuclides). Section 118 of the CAA requires each
Federal agency, with jurisdiction over properties or facilities engaged in any activity that might
result in the discharge of air pollutants, to comply with all Federal, State, inter-State, and local
requirements with regard to the control and abatement of air pollution. Section 160 of the CAA
requires that specific emission increases be evaluated prior to permit approval in order to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality. The CAA requires sources to meet standards and
obtain permits to satisfy those standards. Nuclear power plants may be required to comply with
the CAA Title V, Sections 501–507, for sources subject to new source performance standards
or sources subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. Emissions of
air pollutants are regulated by the EPA in 40 CFR Parts 50 to 99.
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.) – The Clean Water Act (CWA; formerly the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972) was enacted to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s water. The Act requires all branches of the
Federal Government, with jurisdiction over properties or facilities engaged in any activity that
might result in a discharge or runoff of pollutants to surface waters, to comply with Federal,
State, inter-State, and local requirements.
As authorized by the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into
waters of the United States. The NPDES program requires all facilities that discharge pollutants
from any point source into waters of the United States to obtain a NPDES permit. A NPDES
permit is developed with two levels of controls: technology-based limits and water quality-based
limits. NPDES permit terms may not exceed 5 years, and the applicant must reapply at least
180 days prior to the permit expiration date. A nuclear power plant may also participate in the
NPDES General Permit for Industrial Stormwater due to stormwater runoff from industrial or
commercial facilities to waters of the United States. EPA is authorized under the CWA to directly
implement the NPDES program, but EPA has authorized many States to implement all or parts
of the national program.
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.
Section 401 of the CWA requires that an applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any
activity which may result in any discharge into navigable waters must provide the Federal
licensing or permitting agency with a certification from the State or appropriate water pollution
control agency in which the discharge originates or will originate. This water quality certification
implies that discharges from the activity or project to be licensed or permitted will comply with
F-3
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
CWA requirements, as applicable, including that the discharge will not cause or contribute to a
violation of applicable water quality standards. Under this section, the EPA or a delegated
agency, as applicable, has the authority to review and approve, condition, or deny all permits or
licenses that might result in a discharge to waters of the State, including wetlands. CWA
Section 401 [33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)] states: “No license or permit shall be granted until the
certification required by this section has been obtained or has been waived as provided in the
preceding sentence. No license or permit shall be granted if certification has been denied by the
State, interstate agency, or the Administrator, as the case may be.” Therefore, the NRC cannot
issue its license without a Section 401 Certification or an NRC determination that a waiver has
occurred, in accordance with 40 CFR 121.9. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(aa), conditions in
the Section 401 Certification become a condition of the NRC’s license.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead agency for enforcement of CWA
wetland requirements (33 CFR Part 320). A Section 404 permit would need to be obtained from
the USACE before implementing any action, such as earthmoving activities and certain erosion
controls, which could disturb wetlands. Federal and State permits/certifications are obtained
using the same form and permit applications for activities affecting waterways and wetlands and
are reviewed by the USACE in consultation with the FWS, the Soil Conservation Service, the
EPA, and the delegated State agency.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.) – Congress
enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972 to address the increasing
pressures of over-development upon the nation’s coastal resources. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration administers the Act. The CZMA 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. Participation by States is voluntary. To
encourage States to participate, the CZMA makes Federal financial assistance available to any
coastal State or territory, including those on the Great Lakes that are willing to develop and
implement a comprehensive coastal management program. Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the CZMA
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.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as amended
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.) – The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) includes
an emergency response program to respond to a release of a hazardous substance to the
environment. Releases of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material from a nuclear incident
are excluded from CERCLA requirements if the releases are subject to the financial protection
requirements of the AEA. CERCLA is intended to provide a response to, and cleanup of,
environmental problems that are not covered adequately by the permit programs of the many
other environmental laws, including the CAA, CWA, Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. § 300(f)
et seq.), Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.),
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.), and AEA. Under
Section 120 of CERCLA, each department, agency, and instrumentality (e.g., a municipality) of
the United States is subject to, and must comply with, CERCLA in the same manner as any
nongovernmental entity (except for requirements for bonding, insurance, financial responsibility,
or applicable time period). Under CERCLA, the EPA would have the authority to regulate
hazardous substances at a facility in the event of a release or a “substantial threat of a release”
of those materials. Releases greater than reportable quantities would be reported to the
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-4
Appendix F
National Response Center. Assessment of alternatives for environmental compliance includes
consideration of whether hazardous substances, in reportable quantity amounts, could be
present at power plants during the license renewal term.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. § 11001
et seq.) (also known as “SARA Title III”) – The Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), which is the major amendment to CERCLA (42 U.S.C.
§ 9601 et seq.), establishes the requirements for Federal, State, and local governments, Indian
Tribes, and industry regarding emergency planning and “Community Right-to-Know” reporting
on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The “Community Right-to-Know” provisions increase the
public’s knowledge of and access to information about chemicals at individual facilities, their
uses, and releases into the environment. States and communities working with facilities can use
the information to improve chemical safety and protect public health and the environment. This
Act requires emergency planning and notice to communities and government agencies
concerning the presence and release of specific chemicals. The EPA implements this Act under
regulations found in 40 CFR Part 355, Part 370, and Part 372.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.) – The Endangered
Species Act 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 Act requires
Federal agencies to consult with the FWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for
Federal actions that may affect listed species or designated critical habitats.
Environmental Standards for Uranium Fuel Cycle (40 CFR Part 190, Subpart B) – These
regulations establish maximum doses to the body or organs of members of the public as a result
of normal operational releases from uranium fuel cycle activities, including uranium enrichment.
These regulations were promulgated by the EPA under the authority of the AEA, as amended,
and have been incorporated by reference in the NRC regulations in 10 CFR 20.1301(e).
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.)
– The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, by the Federal
Environmental Pesticide Control Act and subsequent amendments, requires the registration of
all new pesticides with the EPA before they are used in the United States. Manufacturers are
required to develop toxicity data for their pesticide products. Toxicity data may be used to
determine permissible discharge concentrations for an NPDES permit.
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law 118-5) – The Fiscal Responsibility Act enacted
a number of amendments to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), aimed at
streamlining the decisionmaking process and codifying existing structures for cooperation
between Federal agencies. The Act established page and time limits for the environmental
review process. Environmental assessments are limited to 75 pages, not including citations or
appendices, while environmental impact statements (EISs) are limited to 150 pages, with a
300-page limit for EISs that address an agency action of “extraordinary complexity,” not
including citations or appendices. The environmental assessment should take no more than
1 year, while EISs are limited to 2 years. The Act also allows for common categorical exclusions
to be used between agencies and codifies agency use of programmatic environmental
documents to facilitate the NEPA review process.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) – The Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Act provides Federal technical and financial assistance to States for the
development of conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. The Fish and
F-5
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
Wildlife Conservation Act conservation plans identify significant problems that may adversely
affect nongame fish and wildlife species and their habitats and appropriate conservation actions
to protect the identified species. The Act also encourages Federal agencies to conserve and
promote the conservation of nongame fish and wildlife and their habitats.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 661–666e) – The
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires Federal agencies that construct, license, or permit
water resource development projects to consult with the FWS (or NMFS, when applicable) and
State wildlife resource agencies for any project that involves an impoundment of more than
10 ac (4 ha), diversion, channel deepening, or other waterbody modification regarding the
impacts of that action on fish and wildlife and any mitigative measures to reduce adverse
impacts.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.) – The
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act regulates the transportation of hazardous material
(including radioactive material) in and between states. According to the Act, States may regulate
the transport of hazardous material as long as their regulation is consistent with the Act or the
U.S. Department of Transportation regulations provided in 49 CFR Parts 171 through 177.
Other regulations regarding packaging for transportation of radionuclides are contained in
49 CFR Part 173, Subpart I.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 2021b et seq.)
– The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act amended the AEA to improve the procedures for
the implementation of compacts providing for the establishment and operation of regional
low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. It also allows Congress to grant consent for
certain inter-State compacts. The amended Act sets forth the responsibilities for disposal of
low-level waste by States or inter-State compacts. The Act states the amount of waste that
certain low-level waste recipients can receive over a set time period. The amount of low-level
radioactive waste generated by both pressurized and boiling water reactor types is allocated
over a transition period until a local waste facility becomes operational.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.) – The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act governs marine fisheries management in U.S. Federal waters. The Act created eight
regional fishery management councils and includes measures to rebuild overfished fisheries,
protect essential fish habitat, and reduce bycatch. Under Section 305(b) of the Act, Federal
agencies are required to consult with NMFS for any Federal actions that may adversely affect
essential fish habitat.
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.) – The Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA) 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. The NMFS
manages whales, porpoises, seals, and sea lions. The two agencies may issue permits under
MMPA Section 104 (16 U.S.C. 1374) to persons, including Federal agencies, that authorize the
taking or importing of specific species of marine mammals.
After the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce approves a State’s program,
the State can take over responsibility for managing one or more marine mammals. The MMPA
also established a Marine Mammal Commission whose duties include reviewing laws and
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-6
Appendix F
international conventions related to marine mammals, studying the condition of these mammals,
and recommending steps to Federal officials (e.g., listing a species as endangered) that should
be taken to protect marine mammals. Federal agencies are directed by MMPA Section 205
(16 U.S.C. 1405) to cooperate with the commission by permitting it to use their facilities or
services.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.) – The Migratory
Bird Treaty Act 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 Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) – NEPA
requires, in part, that Federal agencies integrate environmental values into their decisionmaking
process by considering the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects (impacts) of proposed
Federal actions and a reasonable range of alternatives to those actions. NEPA establishes
policy, sets goals (in Section 101), and provides means (in Section 102) for carrying out the
policy. Section 102(2) contains action-forcing provisions to ensure that Federal agencies follow
the letter and spirit of the Act. For major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment, Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, consistent with the provisions of NEPA except
where compliance would be inconsistent with other statutory requirements, requires Federal
agencies to prepare a detailed statement that includes the reasonably foreseeable
environmental effects of the proposed action and other specified information. This generic
environmental impact statement (GEIS) has been prepared in accordance with NEPA
requirements and NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 51) for implementing NEPA to ensure
compliance with Section 102(2).
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) – The
National Historic Preservation Act was enacted to create a national historic preservation
program, including the National Register of Historic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. Section 106 of the Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects
of their undertakings on historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
regulations implementing Section 106 of the Act, are found in 36 CFR Part 800. The regulations
call for public involvement in the Section 106 consultation process, including Indian Tribes and
other interested members of the public, as applicable.
National Marine Sanctuaries Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.) – The
National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) 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.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. § 3001) – The
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act establishes provisions for the
treatment of inadvertent discoveries of Indian remains and cultural objects. When discoveries
are made during ground-disturbing activities, the activity in the area must immediately stop, and
reasonable protective efforts, proper notifications, and appropriate disposition of the discovered
items must be pursued.
F-7
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq.) – The Noise Control Act delegates the
responsibility of noise control to State and local governments. Commercial facilities are required
to comply with Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements regarding noise control.
Section 4 of the Noise Control Act directs Federal agencies to carry out programs in their
jurisdictions “to the fullest extent within their authority” and in a manner that furthers a national
policy of promoting an environment free from noise that jeopardizes health and welfare.
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq.) – The Nuclear
Waste Policy Act provides for the research and development of repositories for the disposal of
high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and low-level radioactive waste. Title I includes
the provisions for the disposal and storage of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear
fuel. Subtitle A of Title I delineates the requirements for site characterization and construction of
the repository and the participation of States and other local governments in the selection
process. Subtitles B, C, and D of Title I deal with the specific issues for interim storage,
monitored retrievable storage, and low-level radioactive waste.
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.) – The Occupational
Safety and Health Act establishes standards to enhance safe and healthy working conditions in
places of employment throughout the United States. The Act is administered and enforced by
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a U.S. Department of Labor
agency. Employers who fail to comply with OSHA standards can be penalized by the Federal
Government. The Act allows States to develop and enforce OSHA standards if such programs
have been approved by the Secretary of Labor.
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq.) – The Pollution Prevention Act
establishes a national policy for waste management and pollution control that focuses first on
source reduction, then on environmental issues, safe recycling, treatment, and disposal.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as amended by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) – The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) requires the EPA to define and identify hazardous waste; establish standards for its
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal; and require permits for persons engaged in
hazardous waste activities. Section 3006 (42 U.S.C. 6926) allows States to establish and
administer these permit programs with EPA approval. EPA regulations implementing the RCRA
are found in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 283. Regulations imposed on a generator or on a
treatment, storage, and/or disposal facility vary according to the type and quantity of material or
waste generated, treated, stored, and/or disposed. The method of treatment, storage, and/or
disposal also affects the extent and complexity of the requirements.
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10 (33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.) – The Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.) requires USACE authorization in order to protect
navigable waters in the development of harbors and other construction and excavation.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. § 403) prohibits the unauthorized
obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. That section provides that
the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States, or the
accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or physical capacity
of such waters is unlawful unless the work has been authorized by the Secretary of the Army
through the USACE. Activities requiring Section 10 permits include structures (e.g., piers,
wharves, breakwaters, bulkheads, jetties, weirs, 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.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-8
Appendix F
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. § 300(f) et seq.) – The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) was enacted to protect the quality of public water supplies and sources of drinking
water and establishes minimum national standards for public water supply systems in the form
of maximum contaminant levels for pollutants, including radionuclides. Other programs
established by the SDWA include the Sole Source Aquifer Program, the Wellhead Protection
Program, and the Underground Injection Control Program. In addition, the Act provides
underground sources of drinking water with protection from contaminated releases and spills.
If a nuclear power plant is located within an area designated as a sole source aquifer pursuant
to Section 1424(e) of the SDWA, the supplemental environmental impact statement would be
subject to EPA review. If the EPA review raises concerns that plant operations are not
protective of groundwater quality, specific mitigation recommendations or additional pollution
prevention requirements may be required.
Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.) – The Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) regulates the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of certain chemicals not
regulated by RCRA or other statutes, including asbestos-containing material and
polychlorinated biphenyls. Any TSCA-regulated waste removed from structures (e.g.,
polychlorinated biphenyl-contaminated capacitors or asbestos) or discovered during the
implementation phase (e.g., contaminated media) would be managed in compliance with TSCA
requirements in 40 CFR Part 761.
F.3
Executive Orders
Executive orders establish policies and requirements for Federal agencies. Executive orders do
not have the force of law or regulation. Generally, executive orders are applicable to most
Federal agencies, although they may or may not be binding upon independent regulatory
agencies such as the NRC.
Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality
(35 FR 4247) – This Order (regulated by 40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508) requires Federal
agencies to continually monitor and control their activities to (1) protect and enhance the quality
of the environment, and (2) develop procedures to ensure the fullest practicable provision of
timely public information and understanding of the Federal plans and programs that may have
potential environmental impact so that views of interested parties can be obtained.
Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment
(36 FR 8921) – This Order directs Federal agencies to locate, inventory, and nominate qualified
properties under their jurisdiction or control to the National Register of Historic Places.
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management (42 FR 26951) – This Order requires
Federal agencies to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development whenever there is
a practicable alternative. A Federal agency is required to evaluate the potential effects of any
actions it may take in a floodplain. Federal agencies are also required to encourage and provide
appropriate guidance to applicants to evaluate the effects of their proposals on floodplains prior
to submitting applications for Federal licenses, permits, loans, or grants.
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands (42 FR 26961) – This Order requires Federal
agencies to avoid any short- or long-term adverse impacts on wetlands, wherever there is a
practicable alternative and to provide opportunity for early public review of any plans or
proposals for new construction in wetlands. Federal agencies are required to evaluate the
F-9
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
potential effects of any actions they may take on wetlands when carrying out their
responsibilities (e.g., planning, regulating, and licensing activities). However, this Executive
Order does not apply to the issuance by Federal agencies of permits, licenses, or allocations to
private parties for activities involving wetlands on non-Federal property.
Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (43 FR
47707), as amended by Executive Order 12580, Superfund Implementation (52 FR 2923) –
This Order directs Federal agencies to comply with applicable administrative and procedural
pollution controls standards established by, but not limited to, the CAA, the Noise Control Act,
the CWA, the SDWA, the TSCA, and the RCRA.
Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency Management (44 FR 43239) – This Order
transfers functions and responsibilities associated with Federal emergency management to the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Order assigns the Director the
responsibility to establish Federal policies for, and to coordinate all civil defense and civil
emergency planning, management, mitigation, and assistance functions of, Executive agencies.
Executive Order 12580, Superfund Implementation (52 FR 2923), as amended by
Executive Order 13308 (68 FR 37691) – This Order delegates to the heads of Executive
Departments and agencies the responsibility of undertaking remedial actions for releases or
threatened releases that are not on the National Priorities List, and removal actions, other than
emergencies, where the release is from any facility under the jurisdiction or control of Executive
Departments and agencies.
Executive Order 12656, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities
(53 FR 47491) – This Order assigns emergency preparedness responsibilities to Federal
departments and agencies.
Executive Order 12856, Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements
(58 FR 41981) – The Order directs Federal agencies to reduce and report toxic chemicals
entering any waste stream; improve emergency planning, response, and accident notification;
and meet the requirements of EPCRA.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629) – This Order calls for Federal
agencies to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations,
and directs Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations. In response to this Executive Order, the NRC
has issued a final policy statement on the “Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC
Regulatory and Licensing Actions” (69 FR 52040) and environmental justice procedures to be
followed in NEPA documents.
Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (61 FR 26771) – This Order directs Federal
agencies, to the extent permitted by law and not inconsistent with agency missions, to avoid
adverse effects on sacred sites and to provide access to those sites to Native Americans for
religious practices. The Order directs agencies to plan projects, provide protection of, and
access to sacred sites to the extent compatible with the project.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-10
Appendix F
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885), as amended by Executive Order 13229 (66 FR 52013), as
amended by Executive Order 13296 (68 FR 19931) – This Order requires Federal Executive
Branch agencies to make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and
safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and to ensure that its policies, programs,
activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from
environmental health or safety risks.
Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling,
and Federal Acquisition (63 FR 49643) – This Order requires each Federal agency to
incorporate waste prevention and recycling in its daily operations and work to increase and
expand markets for recovered materials. This Order states that it is national policy to prefer
pollution prevention whenever feasible. Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled;
pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe
manner. Disposal should be employed only as a last resort.
Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species (64 FR 6183) – This Order directs Federal agencies
to act to prevent the introduction of, or to monitor and control, invasive (non-native) species, to
provide for restoration of native species, to conduct research, to promote educational activities,
and to exercise care in taking actions that could promote the introduction or spread of invasive
species. During the implementation phase, rehabilitation of disturbed areas would be
accomplished by reseeding or revegetating areas with native plants and trees.
Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management
(64 FR 30851) – This Order sets goals for agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
facility energy use, reduce energy consumption per gross square foot of facilities, reduce energy
consumption per gross square foot or unit of production, expand use of renewable energy,
reduce the use of petroleum within facilities, reduce source energy use, and reduce water
consumption and associated energy use.
Executive Order 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental
Management (65 FR 24595) – This Order requires agencies to develop strategies and goals for
environmental compliance, right-to-know, and pollution prevention. It requires all Federal
facilities to have an environmental management system, requires compliance or environmental
management system audits, and requires that Federal Executive Branch agencies comply with
the requirements for toxic chemical release reporting in Section 313 of EPCRA.
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
(65 FR 67249) – This Order directs Federal agencies to establish regular and meaningful
consultation and collaboration with Tribal governments in the development of Federal policies
that have Tribal implications, to strengthen U.S. government-to-government relationships with
Indian Tribes, and to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates on Tribal governments. On
January 9, 2017, the NRC published its Tribal Policy Statement, which describes best practices
and principles in conducting the agency's government-to-government interactions with American
Indian and Alaska Native Tribes (82 FR 2402).
Executive Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring
Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis (86 FR 7037) – This Order lays out a broad policy
related to science, public health, environmental protection, environmental justice, and
associated job creation. The Order directs Federal agency heads to “immediately” review
actions taken during the Trump Administration “that are or may be inconsistent with, or present
F-11
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
obstacles to,” this policy and to develop and submit to certain Administration officials lists of
planned agency actions to rectify the identified issues. The Order also establishes an
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and revokes or
temporarily suspends a number of prior Orders and other White House issuances related to
environmental, infrastructure, and energy issues that were issued by President Trump.
Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (86 FR 7619) –
This Order addresses a number of areas related to climate change, including making climate
change issues central to U.S. foreign policy and national security and pursuing various
government-wide domestic initiatives. The aspects of the Order that have the most direct
applicability to the NRC are the provisions addressing the sustainability and climate-related
resilience of a Federal agency’s own operations. For example, the NRC will submit a draft
action plan describing steps the agency can take with regard to its facilities and operations to
bolster adaptation and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change and will also release
publicly progress reports as updates on the agency’s implementation efforts.
F.4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations and Associated Guidance
The AEA, as amended, allows the NRC to issue licenses for commercial power reactors to
operate up to 40 years. This license is based on adherence of the licensee to NRC’s
regulations, which are set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the CFR. The NRC regulations allow
for the renewal of the licenses for up to an additional 20 years beyond the initial licensing
period. The renewal of the license depends on the outcome of the NRC’s safety and
environmental reviews of the commercial power reactor license renewal applications. There are
no specific limitations in the AEA or NRC regulations restricting the number of times a license
may be renewed. The license renewal process includes a set of requirements, which are
designed to assure safe operation of nuclear power plants and protection of the environment.
The license renewal process includes two reviews: an environmental review and a safety
review. The reviews are based on the regulations published in 10 CFR Part 51 for the
environmental review and 10 CFR Part 54 for the safety review. These regulations prescribe the
format and content of license renewal applications, as well as the methods and criteria used by
NRC staff when evaluating these applications.
The license renewal environmental review relies upon the following regulations and guidance:
• Code of Federal Regulations – The scope of the environmental review is based on the
regulations provided in 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic
Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.”
• Preparation of Environmental Reports for License Renewal Applications (Supplement 1
to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2; NRC 2024c) – This document outlines the format and
content to be used by the applicant to discuss the environmental aspects of its license
renewal application. It also defines the information and analyses the applicant must include in
its environmental report submitted as part of the application.
• Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants –
Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2;
NRC 2024a) – This document describes how the NRC staff conducts its review of the
environmental issues associated license renewal.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-12
Appendix F
• Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
(NUREG-1437, Revision 2; NRC 2024b) – This document discusses the environmental
impacts from license renewal that are common to all or most nuclear power facilities. The
GEIS allows the applicant and NRC to focus on environmental issues specific to each site
seeking a renewed operating license. The staff’s review results in a plant-specific supplement
to the GEIS for each plant site.
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission License Termination Rule (10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E)
– The AEA assigns the NRC the responsibility for licensing and regulating commercial uses of
atomic energy. When a licensed facility has completed its mission, the facility must meet
standards for cleanup in order to terminate its license. The License Termination Rule
establishes that the NRC will consider a site acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual
radioactivity, that is distinguishable from background radiation, results in a total effective dose
equivalent to an average member of the critical group that does not exceed 25 mrem/yr,
including that from groundwater sources of drinking water, and the residual radioactivity has
been reduced to levels that are as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). The critical
group is the group of individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to
residual radioactivity for any applicable set of circumstances.
The License Termination Rule also provides for land use restrictions or other types of
institutional controls to allow termination of NRC licenses and releases of sites under restricted
conditions if decommissioning criteria for unrestricted use cannot be met. Plus, the License
Termination Rule establishes alternate criteria for license termination if the licensee provides
assurance that public health and safety would continue to be protected, and that it is unlikely
that the dose from all manmade sources combined, other than medical, would be more than
100 mrem/yr.
F.5
State Laws, Regulations, and Other Requirements
The AEA authorizes States to establish programs to assume NRC regulatory authority for
certain activities (the NRC’s Agreement State Program). The New York State Department of
Labor and Department of Environmental Conservation, for example, have established
requirements under this Agreement State Program. New York State Department of Labor has
jurisdiction in New York over commercial and industrial uses of radioactive material. Under the
New York Agreement State Program, New York Department of Environmental Conservation has
jurisdiction over discharges of radioactive material to the environment, including releases to the
air and water, and the disposal of radioactive wastes in the ground. In addition, States have
enacted their own laws to protect public health and safety, and the environment. State laws may
supplement or implement various Federal laws for protection of air, water quality, and
groundwater. State laws may also address solid waste management programs, locally rare or
endangered species, and historic and cultural resources.
In addition, the CWA allows for primary enforcement and administration through State agencies,
provided the State program (1) is at least as stringent as the Federal program, and (2) conforms
to the CWA. The primary CWA mechanism to control water pollution is the requirement that
direct dischargers obtain an NPDES permit or, in the case of States where the authority has
been delegated from the EPA, a State-issued permit.
F-13
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
One important difference between Federal regulations and certain State regulations is the
definition of waters regulated by the State. Certain State regulations may include underground
waters, while the CWA only regulates the navigable waters of the United States. For example, a
State permit is required under New York State law for all discharges to both surface waters and
groundwater.
F.5.1
State Environmental Requirements
Certain environmental requirements, including some discussed earlier, may have been
delegated to State authorities for implementation, enforcement, or oversight. Table F.5-1
through Table F.5-6 provide lists of representative State environmental requirements that may
affect license renewal applications for nuclear power plants.
Table F.5-1
State Environmental Requirements for Air Quality Protection
Law/Regulation
Requirements
Title V Permit Rules
Establishes the policies and procedures by which a State will administer
the Title V permit program under the CAA. Requires Title V sources to
apply for and obtain a Title V permit prior to operation of the source facility.
Permits to Install New
Sources of Pollution
Requires a permit prior to the installation of a new source of air pollutants
or the modification of an air contaminant source. Discusses exemptions
and conditions under which approval will be granted. Also requires an
impact analysis to determine whether the air contaminant source will cause
or contribute to violations of the NAAQSs.
Air Permits to Operate and
Variances
Requires a permit prior to the operation or use of any air contaminant
source in violation of any applicable air pollution control law, unless a
variance has been applied for and obtained from the State agency.
Accidental Release
Prevention Program
Requires the owner or operator of a stationary source, that has more than a
threshold quantity of a regulated substance, to comply with all the
provisions of the rule, including creating a hazard assessment, risk
management plan, a prevention program, and an emergency response
program.
General Conformity Rules
Rules on “general conformity” are mandated by the CAA to ensure that
Federal actions do not contribute to air quality violations within the State.
Discusses which Federal actions are subject to the conformity
requirements, the procedures for conformity analysis, public
participation/consultation, and the final conformity determination.
CAA = Clean Air Act; NAAQSs = National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Table F.5-2
State Environmental Requirements for Water Resources Protection
Law/Regulation
Requirements
NPDES Permits
Requires a permit prior to the discharge of pollutants from any point source
into waters of the United States. Each permit holder must comply with
authorized discharge levels, monitoring requirements, and other
appropriate requirements in the permit.
Permits to Install New
Sources of Pollution
Requires a permit prior to the installation of a new source of water
pollutants or the modification of any pollutant discharge source.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-14
Appendix F
Law/Regulation
Requirements
Water Quality Standards
Establishes water quality standards for surface waters in the State,
including beneficial use designations, numeric water quality criteria, and the
anti-degradation waterbody classification system. Water quality standards
are enforced through the NPDES permit.
Section 401 Water Quality
Certifications
Requires a Section 401 water quality certification and payment of
applicable fees before the issuance of any Federal permit or license to
conduct any activity that may result in discharges to waters of the State.
Public Water Systems
Licenses to Operate
Requires a public water system license prior to operating or maintaining a
public water system.
Design, Construction,
Installation, and Upgrading
for Underground Storage
Tank Systems
Establishes performance standards and upgrading requirements for
underground storage tanks containing petroleum (e.g., diesel fuel) or other
regulated substances. Requires an installation or upgrading permit for each
location where such installation or upgrading is to occur prior to beginning
either an installation or upgrading of a tank or piping comprising an
underground storage tank system.
Registration of
Underground Storage Tank
System
Establishes annual registration requirements for underground storage tanks
containing petroleum or other regulated substances.
Flammable and
Combustible Liquids
Requires a permit to install, remove, repair, or alter a stationary tank for the
storage of flammable or combustible liquids or modify or replace any line or
dispensing device.
NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
Table F.5-3
State Environmental Requirements for Waste Management and Pollution
Prevention
Law/Regulation
Requirements
Generator Standards
Requires any person who generates waste to determine whether that
waste is hazardous. Requires a generator identification number from EPA
or State agency prior to treatment, storage, disposal, transport, or offer for
transport of hazardous waste.
Licensing Requirements for
Solid Waste, Construction,
and Demolition Debris
Facilities
Requires an annual license for any municipal solid waste landfill, industrial
solid waste landfill, residual solid waste landfill, compost facility, transfer
facility, infectious waste treatment facility, or solid waste incineration facility
prior to operation. New facilities must obtain a permit to install, prior to
construction. Also, requires a license to establish, modify, operate, or
maintain a construction and demolition debris facility.
Radiation Generator and
Broker Reporting
Requirements
Requires completion of a low-level radioactive waste generator report
within 60 days of beginning to generate low-level waste. Additionally,
requires each generator to submit an annual report on the state of low-level
waste activities in their facility and pay applicable fees.
Hazardous Waste
Management System
Permits
Requires operation permits for any new or existing hazardous waste
facility.
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
F-15
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
Table F.5-4
State Environmental Requirements for Emergency Planning and Response
Law/Regulation
Requirements
Hazardous Chemical
Reporting
Requires the submission of Material Safety Data Sheets and an annual
Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory to local emergency
response officials for any hazardous chemicals that are produced, used, or
stored at the facility in an amount that equals or exceeds the threshold
quantity.
Emergency Planning
Requirements of Subject
Facilities
Requires any facility having an extremely hazardous substance present in
an amount equal to, or exceeding, the threshold planning quantity, to notify
the emergency response commission and the local emergency planning
committee within 60 days after onsite storage begins. Also requires the
designation of a facility representative who will participate in the local
emergency planning process as a facility emergency coordinator.
Toxic Chemical Release
Reporting
Establishes reporting requirements and schedule for each toxic chemical
known to be manufactured (including imported), processed, or otherwise
used in excess of an applicable threshold quantity. Applies only to facilities
of a certain classification.
Table F.5-5
State Environmental Requirements for Ecological Resources Protection
Law/Regulation
Requirements
State Endangered Plant
Species Protection
Establishes criteria for identifying threatened or endangered species of
native plants and prohibits injuring or removing endangered species without
permission.
State Endangered Fish and
Wildlife Species Protection
Establishes and requires periodic update of a State list of endangered fish
and wildlife species.
Permits for Impacts to
Isolated Wetlands
Requires a general or individual isolated wetland permit prior to engaging in
an activity that involves the filling of an isolated wetland.
Table F.5-6
State Environmental Requirements for Historic and Cultural Resources
Protection
Law/Regulation
Requirements
State Registry of
Archaeological Landmarks
Establishes a State registry of archaeological landmarks. Prohibits any
person from excavating or destroying such land, or from removing skeletal
remains or artifacts from any land, placed on the registry without first
notifying the State Historic Preservation Office.
Survey and Salvage;
Discoveries; Preservation
Directs State departments, agencies, and political subdivisions to
cooperate in the preservation of archaeological and historic sites and the
recovery of scientific information from such sites. Also, requires State
agencies and contractors performing work on public improvements to
cooperate with archaeological and historic survey and salvage efforts and
to notify the State Historic Preservation Office about archaeological
discoveries.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-16
Appendix F
F.6
Operating Permits and Other Requirements
Several operating permit applications may be prepared and submitted, and regulatory approval
and/or permits would be received, prior to license renewal approval by the NRC. Table F.6-1
through Table F.6-6 list representative Federal, State, and local permits.
Table F.6-1
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Air Quality
Protection
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
Responsible
Agency
Authority
Relevance and Status
Title V Operating Permit: Required EPA or State
for sources that are not exempt
agency
and are major sources, affected
sources subject to the Acid Rain
Program, sources subject to new
source performance standards, or
sources subject to National
Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants.
CAA, Title V,
Sections 501−507
(U.S.C., Title 42,
§§ 7661–7661f ])
Nuclear power plants are
subject to 40 CFR Part 70,
“State Operating Permit
Programs.”
Risk Management Plan: Required EPA or State
for any stationary source that has agency
a regulated substance (e.g.,
chlorine, hydrogen fluoride, nitric
acid) in any process (including
storage) in a quantity that is over
the threshold level.
CAA, Title 1,
These regulated substances
Section 112(R)(7) stored in quantities that
(42 U.S.C. § 7412) exceed the threshold levels
would require a Risk
Management Plan.
CAA Conformity Determination:
EPA or State
Required for each criteria pollutant agency
(i.e., sulfur dioxide, particulate
matter, carbon monoxide, ozone,
nitrogen dioxide, and lead) where
the total of direct and indirect
emissions in a nonattainment or
maintenance area caused by a
Federal action would equal or
exceed threshold rates.
CAA, Title 1,
CAA conformity determination
Section 176(c)
would be required at nuclear
(42 U.S.C. § 7506) power plants located in
nonattainment areas with
NAAQSs for criteria pollutants
or maintenance areas for any
criteria pollutant that would be
emitted as a result of license
renewal.
CAA = Clean Air Act; EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NAAQSs = National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
Table F.6-2
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Water
Resource Protection
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
Responsible
Agency
NPDES Permit: Construction Site EPA or State
Stormwater: Required before
agency
making point source discharges of
stormwater from a construction
project that disturbs more than
2 ha (5 ac) of land.
Authority
CWA (33 U.S.C.
§ 1251 et seq.);
40 CFR Part 122
F-17
Relevance and Status
Any plant refurbishment
involving construction of more
than 2 ha (5 ac) of land would
require a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan and
construction site stormwater
discharge permit.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
Responsible
Agency
Authority
Relevance and Status
NPDES Permit: Industrial Facility EPA or State
Stormwater: Required before
agency
making point source discharges of
stormwater from an industrial site.
CWA (33 U.S.C.
§ 1251 et seq.);
40 CFR Part 122
Stormwater would be
discharged from the nuclear
power plants during
operations. Stormwater would
discharge through existing
outfalls covered by a permit.
NPDES Permit: Process Water
EPA or State
Discharge: Required before
agency
making point source discharges of
industrial process wastewater.
CWA (33 U.S.C.
§ 1251 et seq.);
40 CFR Part 122
Process industrial wastewater
would be discharged through
existing outfalls covered by the
permit.
Spill Prevention Control and
EPA or State
Countermeasures Plan: Required agency
for any facility that could
discharge diesel fuel in harmful
quantities into navigable waters or
onto adjoining shorelines.
CWA (33 U.S.C.
§ 1251 et seq.);
40 CFR Part 112
A Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures Plan is
required at nuclear power
plants storing large volumes of
diesel fuel and/or other
petroleum products.
CWA Section 401 Water Quality
EPA or State
Certification: Required to be
agency
submitted to the agency
responsible for issuing any
Federal license or permit to
conduct an activity that may result
in a discharge of pollutants into
waters of a State.
CWA, Section 401
(33 U.S.C. §
1341); 40 CFR
121
Certification for operation of a
nuclear power plant may
require a Federal license or
permit (e.g., a CWA
Section 404 Permit).
New Underground Storage Tanks
System Registration: Required
within 30 days of bringing a new
underground storage tank system
into service.
EPA or State
agency
RCRA, as
amended, Subtitle
I (42 U.S.C.
§§ 6991a–6991i);
40 CFR 280.22
Required if new underground
storage tank systems would be
installed at a nuclear power
plant.
Above Ground Storage Tank: A
permit is required to install,
remove, repair, or alter any
stationary tank for the storage of
flammable or combustible liquids.
State Fire
Marshal
Required if new aboveground
diesel fuel storage tanks would
be installed at a nuclear power
plant.
ac = acre(s); CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; CWA = Clean Water Act; EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; ha = hectare(s); NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; RCRA = Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-18
Appendix F
Table F.6-3
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Waste
Management and Pollution Prevention
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
Registration and Hazardous
Waste Generator Identification
Number: Required before a
person who generates over
100 kg (220 lb) per calendar
month of hazardous waste ships
the hazardous waste offsite.
Responsible
Agency
Authority
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
EPA or State
agency
RCRA, as
amended
(42 U.S.C. § 6901
et seq.), Subtitle C
Generators of hazardous
waste must notify the EPA that
the wastes exist and require
management in compliance
with RCRA.
Hazardous Waste Facility Permit: EPA or State
Required if hazardous waste will
agency
undergo nonexempt treatment by
the generator, be stored onsite for
longer than 90 days by the
generator of 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) or
more of hazardous waste per
month, be stored onsite for longer
than 180 days by the generator of
between 100 and 1,000 kg
(220 and 2,205 lb) of hazardous
waste per month, disposed of
onsite, or be received from offsite
for treatment or disposal.
RCRA, as
amended
(42 U.S.C. § 6901
et seq.), Subtitle C
Hazardous wastes are usually
not disposed of onsite at
nuclear power plants.
Hazardous wastes generated
onsite are not generally stored
for more than 90 days.
However, should a nuclear
power plant store waste onsite
for greater than 90 days for
characterization, profiling, or
scheduling for treatment or
disposal, a Hazardous Waste
Facility Permit would be
required.
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; lb = pound(s); kg = kilogram(s); RCRA = Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.
Table F.6-4
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Emergency
Planning and Response
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
Responsible
Agency
Authority
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
List of Material Safety Data
Sheets: Submission of a list of
Material Safety Data Sheets is
required for hazardous chemicals
(as defined in 29 CFR Part 1910)
that are stored onsite in excess of
their threshold quantities.
State and local
emergency
planning
agencies
EPCRA,
Section 311
(42 U.S.C.
§ 11021); 40 CFR
370.20
Nuclear power plant operators
are required to submit a list of
Material Safety Data Sheets to
State and local emergency
planning agencies.
Annual Hazardous Chemical
Inventory Report: The report must
be submitted when hazardous
chemicals have been stored at a
facility during the preceding year
in amounts that exceed threshold
quantities.
State and local
emergency
response
agencies; local
fire department
EPCRA,
Section 312
(42 U.S.C.
§ 11022); 40 CFR
370
If hazardous chemicals have
been stored at a nuclear power
plant during the preceding year
in amounts that exceed
threshold quantities, then plant
operators would be required to
submit an annual Hazardous
Chemical Inventory Report.
F-19
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
Responsible
Agency
Notification of Onsite Storage of
an Extremely Hazardous
Substance: Submission of the
notification is required within
60 days after onsite storage
begins of an extremely hazardous
substance in a quantity greater
than the threshold planning
quantity.
State and local
emergency
response
agencies
EPCRA,
Section 304
(42 U.S.C.
§ 11004); 40 CFR
355.30
If an extremely hazardous
substance will be stored at a
nuclear power plant in a
quantity greater than the
threshold planning quantity,
plant operators would prepare
and submit the Notification of
Onsite Storage of an
Extremely Hazardous
Substance.
Annual Toxics Release Inventory
Report: Required for facilities that
have 10 or more full-time
employees and are assigned
certain Standard Industrial
Classification Codes.
EPA or State
agency
EPCRA,
Section 313
(42 U.S.C.
§ 11023); 40 CFR
Part 372
If required, nuclear power plant
operators would prepare and
submit a Toxics Release
Inventory Report to the EPA.
Hazardous
Materials
Transportation Act
(49 U.S.C. § 5101
et seq.); AEA, as
amended
(42 U.S.C. § 2011
et seq.); 49 CFR
Part 172, Part 173,
Part 174, Part 177,
and Part 397
When shipments of radioactive
materials are made, nuclear
power plant operators would
comply with USDOT
packaging, labeling, and
routing requirements.
Transportation of Radioactive
USDOT
Wastes and Conversion Products
Packaging, Labeling, and Routing
Requirements for Radioactive
Materials: Required for packages
containing radioactive materials
that will be shipped by truck or
rail.
Authority
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
AEA = Atomic Energy Act; CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
EPCRA = Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; USDOT = U.S. Department of Transportation.
Table F.6-5
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Ecological
Resource Protection
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
Threatened and Endangered
Species Consultation: Required
between the responsible Federal
agencies and FWS and/or NMFS
to ensure that the project is not
likely to: (1) jeopardize the
continued existence of any
species listed at the Federal or
State level as endangered or
threatened, or (2) result in
destruction of critical habitat of
such species.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Responsible
Agency
FWS and
NMFS
Authority
ESA of 1973, as
amended
(16 U.S.C. § 1531
et seq.)
F-20
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
For actions that may affect
listed species or designated
critical habitat, the NRC would
consult with the FWS and/or
NMFS under Section 7 of the
ESA.
Appendix F
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
Essential Fish Habitat
Consultation: Required between
the responsible Federal agency
and NMFS to ensure that Federal
actions authorized, funded, or
undertaken do not adversely
affect essential fish habitat.
Responsible
Agency
NMFS
Authority
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
MSA, as amended For actions that may adversely
(16 U.S.C.
affect essential fish habitat, the
§§ 1801–1891d)
NRC would consult with NMFS
in accordance with 50 CFR
Part 600, Subpart J.
CWA Section 404 (Dredge and
USACE
Fill) Permit: Required to place
dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States, including
areas designated as wetlands,
unless such placement is exempt
or authorized by a nationwide
permit or a regional permit; a
notice must be filed if a nationwide
or regional permit applies.
CWA (33 U.S.C.
§ 1251 et seq.);
33 CFR Parts 323
and 330
Any dredging or placement of
fill material into wetlands within
the jurisdiction of the USACE
at a nuclear power plant would
require a Section 404 permit.
CWA = Clean Water Act; ESA = Endangered Species Act; FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; MSA = MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service; NRC = U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Table F.6-6
Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements for Historic and
Cultural Resource Protection
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
Archaeological and Historical
Resources Consultation: Required
before a Federal agency approves
a project in an area where
archaeological or historic
resources might be located.
Responsible
Agency
State Historic
Preservation
Officer and/or
Tribal Historic
Preservation
Officer
Authority
National Historic
Preservation Act of
1966, as amended
(54 U.S.C.
§ 300101 et seq.);
Archeological and
Historical
Preservation Act of
1974 (54 U.S.C. §
312501 et seq.);
Antiquities Act of
1906 (54 U.S.C.
§ 320301–320303
and 18 U.S.C.
§ 1866(b));
Archaeological
Resources
Protection Act of
1979, as amended
(54 U.S.C. §
302107)
F-21
License, Permit, or Other
Required Approval
The NRC would consult with
the State and/or Tribal Historic
Preservation Officers and
representative Indian Tribes
regarding the impacts of
license renewal and the results
of archaeological and
architectural surveys at
nuclear power plant sites.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
F.7
Emergency Management and Response Laws, Regulations, and Executive
Orders
This section discusses the response laws, regulations, and executive orders that address the
protection of public health and worker safety and require the establishment of emergency plans.
These laws, regulations, and executive orders relate to the operation of nuclear power plants.
For ease of the reader, certain items are repeated from previous sections in this appendix.
F.7.1
Federal Emergency Management Response Laws
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. § 11001
et seq.) (also known as “SARA Title III”) – EPCRA, which is the major amendment of
CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9601), establishes the requirements for Federal, State, and local
governments, Indian Tribes, and industry regarding emergency planning and “Community
Right-to-Know” reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The “Community Right-to-Know”
provisions increase the public’s knowledge and access to information about chemicals at
individual facilities, their uses, and releases into the environment. States and communities
working with facilities can use the information to improve chemical safety and protect public
health and the environment. This Act requires emergency planning and notice to communities
and government agencies concerning the presence and release of specific chemicals. The EPA
implements this Act under regulations found in 40 CFR Part 355, Part 370, and Part 372.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(42 U.S.C. § 9604(I)) (also known as “Superfund”) – This Act provides authority for Federal
and State governments to respond directly to hazardous substance incidents. The Act requires
reporting of spills, including radioactive spills, to the National Response Center.
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C.
§ 5121) – This Act, as amended, provides an orderly, continuing means of providing Federal
Government assistance to State and local governments in managing their responsibilities to
alleviate suffering and damage resulting from disasters. The President, in response to a State
governor’s request, may declare an “emergency” or “major disaster” to provide Federal
assistance under this Act. The President, in Executive Order 12148 (44 FR 43239), delegated
all functions except those in Sections 301, 401, and 409 to the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. The Act provides for the appointment of a Federal
coordinating officer who will operate in the designated area with a State coordinating officer for
the purpose of coordinating State and local disaster assistance efforts with those of the Federal
Government.
Justice Assistance Act of 1984 (34 U.S.C. § 50101 et seq.) – This Act establishes emergency
Federal law enforcement assistance to State and local governments in responding to a law
enforcement emergency. The Act defines the term “law enforcement emergency” as an
uncommon situation that requires law enforcement, that is or threatens to become of serious or
epidemic proportions, and with respect to which State and local resources are inadequate to
protect the lives and property of citizens or to enforce the criminal law. Emergencies that are not
of an ongoing or chronic nature (for example, the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption) are
eligible for Federal law enforcement assistance including funds, equipment, training, intelligence
information, and personnel.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-22
Appendix F
Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (42 U.S.C. § 2210) – The Price-Anderson
Act provides insurance protection to victims of a nuclear accident. The main purpose of the Act
is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents
while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act requires NRC
licensees and U.S. Department of Energy contractors to enter into agreements of
indemnification to cover personal injury and property damage to those harmed by a nuclear or
radiological incident, including the costs of incident response or precautionary evacuation, costs
of investigating and defending claims, and settling suits for such damages.
F.7.2
Federal Emergency Management and Response Regulations
Quantities of Radioactive Materials Requiring Consideration of the Need for an
Emergency Plan for Responding to a Release (10 CFR 30.72, Schedule C) – This section of
the regulations provides a list that is the basis for both the public and private sector to determine
whether the radiological materials they handle must have an emergency response plan for
unscheduled releases.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration Emergency Response, Hazardous Waste
Operations, and Worker Right-to-Know (29 CFR Part 1910) – This regulation establishes
OSHA requirements for employee safety in a variety of working environments. It addresses
employee emergency and fire prevention plans (Section 1910.38), hazardous waste operations
and emergency response (Section 1920.120), and hazards communication (Section 1910.1200)
to make employees aware of the dangers they face from hazardous materials in their
workplace. These regulations do not directly apply to Federal agencies. However, Section 19 of
the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. § 668) requires all Federal agencies to have
occupational safety programs “consistent” with Occupational Safety and Health Act standards.
Emergency Management and Assistance (44 CFR Section 1.1) – This regulation contains
the policies and procedures for the Federal Emergency Management Act, National Flood
Insurance Program, Federal Crime Insurance Program, Fire Prevention and Control Program,
Disaster Assistance Program, and Preparedness Program, including radiological planning and
preparedness.
Hazardous Materials Tables and Communications, Emergency Response Information
Requirements (49 CFR Part 172) – This regulation defines the regulatory requirements for
marking, labeling, placarding, and documenting hazardous material shipments. The regulation
also specifies the requirements for providing hazardous material information and training.
F.7.3
Emergency Management and Response Executive Orders
Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency Management (44 FR 43239) – This Order
transfers functions and responsibilities associated with Federal emergency management to the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Order assigns the Director the
responsibility to establish Federal policies and to coordinate all civil defense and civil
emergency planning for the management, mitigation, and assistance functions of Executive
agencies.
Executive Order 12656, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities
(53 FR 47491) – This Order assigns emergency preparedness responsibilities to Federal
departments and agencies.
F-23
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
Executive Order 12938, Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (59 FR 59099) –
This Order states that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (“weapons
of mass destruction”) and the means of delivering such weapons constitutes an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States,
and that a national emergency would be declared to deal with that threat.
F.8
Consultations with Agencies and Federally Recognized Indian Tribes
Certain laws, such as the ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq.), and the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 300101
et seq.), require consultation and coordination by the NRC with other governmental entities
including other Federal, State, and local agencies and Federally recognized Indian Tribes.
These consultations must occur on a timely basis and are generally required before any land
disturbance can begin. Most of these consultations are related to biotic resources, historic
properties, cultural resources, and recognize NRC’s Federal trust responsibility to Indian Tribes.
The biotic resource consultations generally pertain to the potential for activities to disturb
sensitive species or habitats. Cultural resource consultations relate to the potential for disruption
of important cultural resources and archaeological sites. Consultations with Indian Tribes are
conducted on a government-to-government basis.
F.9
References
10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for
Protection Against Radiation.”
10 CFR Part 30. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 30, “Rules of General
Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material.”
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 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for
Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”
29 CFR Part 1910. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Labor, Part 1910, “Occupational
Safety and Health Standards.”
33 CFR Part 320. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters,
Part 320, “General Regulatory Policies.”
33 CFR Part 323. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters,
Part 323, “Permits for Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material into Waters of the United States.”
33 CFR Part 330. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters,
Part 330, “Nationwide Permit Program.”
36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,
Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-24
Appendix F
40 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 70,
“State Operating Permit Programs.”
40 CFR Part 112. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 112,
“Oil Pollution Prevention.”
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 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,
“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”
40 CFR Part 280. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 280,
“Technical Standards and Corrective Action Requirements for Owners and Operators of
Underground Storage Tanks (UST).”
40 CFR Part 355. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 302,
“Emergency Planning and Notification.”
40 CFR Part 370. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 370,
“Hazardous Chemical Reporting: Community Right-To-Know.”
40 CFR Part 372. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 372,
“Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community Right-To-Know.”
40 CFR Part 761. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 761,
“Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution in Commerce, and
Use Prohibitions.”
40 CFR Parts 50–99. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment,
Subchapter C, Parts 50–99, “Air Programs.”
40 CFR Parts 239–282. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,
Parts 239–283, “EPA Regulations Implementing RCRA.”
40 CFR Parts 1500–1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment,
Subchapter A, “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations.”
44 CFR Part 1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Emergency Management and
Assistance, Part 1, “Rulemaking, Policy, and Procedures.”
49 CFR Part 172. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 172, “Hazardous
Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency
Response Information, Training Requirements, and Security Plans.”
49 CFR Part 173. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 173, “Shippers—
General Requirements for Shipments and Packagings.”
F-25
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
49 CFR Part 174. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 174, “Carriage by
Rail.”
49 CFR Part 177. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 177, “Carriage by
Public Highway.”
49 CFR Part 397. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Part 397,
“Transportation of Hazardous Materials; Driving and Parking Rules.”
49 CFR Parts 171–177. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Transportation, Subchapter C,
“Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR Parts 171–177).”
35 FR 4247. March 7, 1970. “Executive Order 11514 of March 5, 1970: Protection and
Enhancement of Environmental Quality.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
36 FR 8921. May 15, 1971. “Executive Order 11593 of May 13, 1971: Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural Environment.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
42 FR 26951. May 25, 1977. “Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977: Floodplain
Management.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
42 FR 26961. May 25, 1977. “Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977: Protection of Wetlands.”
Federal Register, Office of the President.
43 FR 47707. October 17, 1978. “Executive Order 12088 of October 13, 1978: Federal
Compliance with Pollution Control Standards.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
44 FR 43239. July 24, 1979. “Executive Order 12148 of July 28, 1979: Federal Emergency
Management.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
52 FR 2923. January 29, 1987. “Executive Order 12580 of January 23, 1987: “Superfund
Implementation.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
53 FR 47491. November 23, 1988. “Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988: Assignment
of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
58 FR 41981. August 6, 1993. “Executive Order 12856 of August 3, 1993: Federal Compliance
With Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements.” Federal Register, Office of
the President.
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.
59 FR 59099. November 16, 1994. “Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994: Proliferation
of Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
61 FR 26771. May 29, 1996. “Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996: Indian Sacred Sites.”
Federal Register, Office of the President.
62 FR 19885. April 23, 1997. “Executive Order 13045 of April 21, 1997: Protection of Children
From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-26
Appendix F
63 FR 49643. September 16, 1998. “Executive Order 13101 of September 14, 1998: Greening
the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and Federal Acquisition.” Federal
Register, Office of the President.
64 FR 6183. February 8, 1999. “Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999: Invasive Species.”
Federal Register, Office of the President.
64 FR 30851. June 8, 1999. “Executive Order 13123 of June 3, 1999: Greening the Government
Through Efficient Energy Management.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
65 FR 24595. April 26, 2000. “Executive Order 13148 of April 21, 2000: Greening the
Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management.” Federal Register, Office of
the President.
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.
66 FR 52013. October 11, 2001. “Executive Order 13229 of October 9, 2001: Amendment to
Executive Order 13045, Extending the Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks to Children.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
68 FR 19931. April 23, 2003. “Executive Order 13296 of April 18, 2003: Amendments to
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
68 FR 37691. June 24, 2003. “Executive Order 13308 of June 20, 2003: Further Amendment to
Executive Order 12580, as amended, Superfund Implementation.” 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.
82 FR 2402. January 9, 2017. “Tribal Policy Statement.” Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
86 FR 7037. January 25, 2021. “Executive Order 13990 of January 20, 2021: Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis.” Federal
Register, Office of the President.
86 FR 7619. February 1, 2021. “Executive Order 14008 of January 27, 2021: Tackling the
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.” Federal Register, Office of the President.
33 U.S.C. § 401. U.S. Code Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Section 401,
“Construction of Bridges, Causeways, Dams or Dikes, Generally; Exemptions.”
33 U.S.C. § 403. U.S. Code Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Section 403
“Obstruction of Navigable Waters Generally; Wharves; Piers, etc.; Excavations and Filing in.”
F-27
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
33 U.S.C. § 1341. U.S. Code Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 26, “Water
Pollution Prevention and Control,” Subchapter IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 1341
“Certification.”
34 U.S.C. § 50101 et seq. U.S. Code Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement, Chapter
501, “Emergency Federal Law Enforcement Assistance.”
42 U.S.C. § 6991a–6991i. U.S. Code Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Section 6991,
“Notification” – 6991i, “Operator training.”
42 U.S.C. § 7412. U.S. Code Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Clean Air Act Section
112, “Hazardous Air Pollutants.”
42 U.S.C. § 7506. U.S. Code Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Clean Air Act Section
176, “Limitations on Certain Federal Assistance.”
42 U.S.C. § 7661 – 7661f. U.S. Code Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Clean Air Act
Section 7661, “Definitions” – 7661f, “Small business stationary source technical and
environmental compliance assistance program.”
42 U.S.C. § 9604. U.S. Code Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Section 9604, “Response
authorities.”
42 U.S.C. § 11004. U.S. Code Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Section 11004,
“Emergency notification.”
42 U.S.C. § 11021. U.S. Code Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Section 11021, “Material
safety data sheets.”
42 U.S.C. § 11022. U.S. Code Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Section 11022,
“Emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms.”
42 U.S.C. § 11023. U.S. Code Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, Section 11023, “Toxic
chemical release forms.”
American Indian Religious Freedom Act, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 1996 et seq.
Antiquities Act of 1906, as amended. 54 U.S.C. § 320301–320303 and 18 U.S.C. § 1866(b).
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended. 54 U.S.C. § 302107 et seq.
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 of 1940. 16 U.S.C. § 668-668d et seq.
Clean Air Act of 1970. 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-28
Appendix F
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended.
42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. 42 U.S.C. § 11001 et seq.
Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act).
33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. Public Law No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10.
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980. 16 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 661 et seq.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. 49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq.
Justice Assistance Act of 1984. 34 U.S.C. § 50101 et seq.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. 42 U.S.C. § 2021b et seq. Public Law 96-573.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1801
et seq.
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended. 33 U.S.C. § 1401
et seq.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. 16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 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 of 1966, as amended. 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. 25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.
Noise Control Act of 1972. 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024a. Standard Review Plans for Environmental
Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, Final Report.
NUREG-1555, Revision 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML23201A227.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Revision 2, Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Package Accession No. ML24087A133.
F-29
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix F
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2024c. Regulatory Guide 4.2 - Supplement 1,
Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 4.2 Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for
Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, Final Report. Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML ML23201A144.
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 10101 et seq.
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended. 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990. 42 U.S.C. § 13101 et seq.
Price-Anderson Act of 1957, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 2210 et seq.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988. 42 U.S.C. § 5121
et seq.
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq.
Toxic Substances Control Act, as amended. 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
F-30
APPENDIX G
–
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR LR GEIS ANALYSES
APPENDIX G
–
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR LR GEIS ANALYSES
This appendix provides additional descriptions of the affected resources, including the
description of the nuclear power plant built environment, and region of influence (ROI) that are
described in Chapter 3 of this revision of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS).1 This appendix also provides
additional descriptions of how the impact assessments were conducted in Chapter 4, except for
cumulative effects, where the governing methodology is referenced and described in Chapter 4,
Section 4.13.
G.1
Nuclear Power Plant Site Facilities and Environs
G.1.1
Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence
Nuclear power plants contain a number of buildings or structures and other physical
infrastructure. These components of the human-built environment interact with the natural and
physical environment.
G.1.1.1
Nuclear Power Plant Appearance and Setting
The following list describes typical structures located on most nuclear power plant sites.
• Containment or reactor building. The containment or reactor building in a pressurized
water reactor (PWR) is a massive concrete or steel structure that houses the reactor vessel,
reactor coolant piping and pumps, steam generators, pressurizer, pumps, and associated
piping. The reactor building structure of a boiling water reactor (BWR) generally includes a
containment structure and a shield building. The reactor containment building is a very large
concrete or steel structure that houses the reactor vessel, the reactor coolant piping and
pumps, and the suppression pool. It is located inside another structure called the shield
building. The shield building for a BWR also generally contains the spent fuel pool and the
new fuel pool.
• The reactor containment building for both PWRs and BWRs is designed to withstand natural
disasters, such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes. The containment building’s ability
1
This appendix primarily consists of material relocated from Appendix D in the draft LR GEIS. In addition,
the information and analyses included in Section G.1 and Sections G.12.1.1 through G.12.1.7 consist of
certain relocated text from Chapter 3 of the draft LR GEIS to address changes to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) from the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023
(Public Law No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10). The text was relocated to revise the document to be less than the
300-page limit (not including appendices, citations, figures, tables, and other graphics) for environmental
impact statements analyzing proposed agency actions of “extraordinary complexity” specified in the
revised NEPA statute. Changes made in response to comments in this final LR GEIS, additions of new
text, as well as corrective and substantial editorial revisions are marked with a change bar (vertical line)
on the side margin of the page where the changes or additions were made. Minor editorial revisions and
those limited to formatting are not marked. Text that was simply relocated from Chapter 3 and
Appendix D, along with associated references, and not otherwise changed is not marked with a change
bar.
G-1
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
to withstand such events and to contain the effects of accidents initiated by system failures
constitutes a principal protection against releasing radioactive material to the environment.
• Fuel building. For PWRs, the fuel building has a fuel pool that is used to store and service
spent fuel and prepare new fuel for insertion into the reactor. This building is connected to the
reactor containment building by a transfer tube or channel that is used to move new fuel into
the reactor and move spent fuel out of the reactor for storage.
• Turbine building. The turbine building houses the turbines, generators, condenser,
feedwater heaters, condensate and feedwater pumps, waste-heat rejection system, pumps,
and equipment that support those systems. In BWRs, primary coolant circulates through
these systems, thereby causing them to become slightly contaminated. In PWRs, primary
coolant is not circulated through the turbine building systems. However, it is not unusual for
portions of the turbine building to become mildly contaminated because of leaks from the
primary system into the secondary side during power generation at PWRs.
• Auxiliary buildings. Auxiliary buildings house support systems, such as the ventilation
systems, emergency core cooling systems, laundry facilities, water treatment systems, and
waste treatment systems. An auxiliary building may also contain the emergency diesel
generators and, in some PWRs, the diesel fuel storage facility. The facility’s control room is
often located in the auxiliary building.
• Diesel generator building. Often a separate building houses the emergency diesel
generators if they are not located in the auxiliary building. The emergency diesel generators
do not become contaminated or activated.
• Pump houses. Various pump houses for circulating water, standby service water, diesel fuel,
or makeup water may be onsite.
• Cooling towers. Cooling towers are structures designed to remove excess heat from the
condenser without dumping the heat directly into waterbodies, such as lakes or rivers. There
are two principal types of cooling towers: mechanical draft towers and natural draft towers.
Most nuclear power plants that have once-through cooling do not have cooling towers
associated with them. However, several operating nuclear power plants with once-through
cooling also have cooling towers that are used to reduce the temperature of the water before
it is released to the environment.
• Radioactive waste (radwaste) facilities. Radioactive waste facilities may be contained in an
auxiliary building or located in a separate solid radwaste building. For example, the
radioactive waste storage facility may be a separate building.
• Ventilation stack. Many older nuclear power plants, particularly BWRs, have ventilation
stacks to discharge gaseous waste effluents and ventilation air directly to the outside. These
stacks can be 300 ft (90 m) tall or higher and contain monitoring systems to ensure that
radioactive gaseous discharges are below fixed release limits. Radioactive gaseous effluents
are treated and processed before being discharged out the stack.
• Switchyard and transmission lines. Plant sites also typically contain a large switchyard,
where the electric voltage is stepped up and fed into the regional power distribution system.
Electricity generated at the plant is carried offsite by transmission lines. Only those
transmission lines that connect the plant to the switchyard where electricity is fed into the
regional power distribution system (encompassing those lines that connect the plant to the
first substation of the regional electric power grid) and power lines that feed the plant from the
grid during outages are considered within the regulatory scope of license renewal
environmental review and this LR GEIS. The transmission lines that comprise the regional
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-2
Appendix G
power distribution system, and which are beyond the scope of the environmental review,
would be expected to remain energized regardless of nuclear power plant license renewal.
• Administrative, training, and security buildings. Normally, the administrative, training, and
security buildings are located outside the radiation protection zones; no radiological
contamination is present; and radiation exposures are at general background levels.
• Independent spent fuel storage installations (ISFSIs). An ISFSI is designed and
constructed for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials
associated with spent fuel storage. ISFSIs may be located at the site of a nuclear power plant
or at another location. The most common design for an ISFSI, at this time, is a concrete pad
with dry casks containing spent fuel bundles. ISFSIs are used by operating plants that require
increased spent fuel storage capability because their spent fuel pools have reached capacity.
G.1.1.2
Utility and Transportation Infrastructure
Electricity
Nuclear power plants generate electricity for other users and they also use electricity to operate.
The amount of electrical power needed to run a 1,000 MWe nuclear power plant is relatively
small compared to the amount it generates. Nuclear power plants must have at least two
connections to the electrical distribution system to receive power from offsite sources. One
serves as a primary source for power and a separate one serves as a backup to run the
engineered safety features and emergency equipment in case of a loss of the first source. Each
power plant has backup sources (e.g., diesel generators) to supply power if the power plant
loses both offsite sources. The backup generators are tested periodically and power the
emergency systems automatically in case external sources of electrical power are interrupted.
Fuel
An operating 1,000 MWe PWR contains approximately 220,000 pounds (lb) (100 metric tons
[MT]) of nuclear fuel in the form of uranium dioxide (UO2) at any one time. Only about one-third
of that fuel is replaced during every refueling. Assuming that the reactor is refueled once every
18 months, the amount of nuclear fuel needed (and spent fuel generated) would be roughly
44,000 lb (20 MT) per year. Fresh fuel is brought to the site and stored at the site until it is
needed.
In addition to nuclear fuel, a nuclear power plant needs a certain amount of diesel fuel to
operate the emergency diesel power generators. To meet emergency demands, a certain
quantity of diesel fuel is stored onsite in fuel storage tanks. Fuel is also needed for space
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (i.e., HVAC) purposes. Plants use a variety of energy
sources for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, including electricity, natural gas, or fuel oil.
Some plants have waste oil incinerators onsite to burn their used oil. The heat generated by
such an incinerator is used to heat buildings during winter.
Water
Systems designed to provide cooling water at nuclear power plants are described in Chapter 3,
Section 3.1.3 of this LR GEIS. In addition to needing water for cooling, plants need water for
sanitary reasons and for everyday use by the personnel (e.g., drinking, showering, cleaning,
laundry, toilets, and eye washes). Because most nuclear power plants are located in more rural
areas away from population centers, they are typically not connected to community (public)
G-3
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
water systems and need to be self-sufficient in meeting their water needs. Many plants continue
to rely on onsite groundwater (e.g., the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Limerick
Generating Station, South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Byron Station, Braidwood
Station, LaSalle County Station, Surry Power Station, North Anna Power Station, and Point
Beach Nuclear Plant) and some on surface waterbodies (e.g., nearby rivers and lakes) (e.g., the
Columbia Generating Station and Peach Bottom plant) to obtain potable water. An increasing
number of plants obtain potable water from public water systems (e.g., Seabrook Station, Enrico
Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Waterford Steam Electric Station, River
Bend Station, and Turkey Point Nuclear Plant).
The amount of water needed for sanitary reasons is generally much smaller than the amount
needed for cooling. After use, the potable water is processed as part of the sanitary wastewater
treatment system. As described in Chapter 3, Section 3.11.4 of this LR GEIS, sanitary waste is
either treated onsite, collected in septic tanks and then shipped offsite to be treated at a local
sewage treatment plant, or discharged directly to a publicly owned treatment system.
Transportation Systems
All nuclear power plants are served by controlled access roads. In addition to the roads, many
of the plants also have railroad connections for moving heavy equipment and other materials.
Some of the plants that are located on navigable waters, such as rivers, the Great Lakes, or
oceans, have facilities to receive and ship loads on barges.
Trucks are the most common mode of transportation for delivering materials to and from the
sites. Deliveries are accepted at and shipments are made from designated areas on the sites
under controlled conditions and by following established procedures. Workers generally use
their personal vehicles to commute to work. Visitors use passenger cars or light pickup trucks to
get to and from the sites. Parking areas are available on every site for workers and visitors.
There is also a network of roads and sidewalks for vehicles and pedestrians on each site.
G.1.2
Description of Impact Assessment
Changes in the nuclear power plant physical infrastructure, including utility systems and
resource utilization, were considered in terms of assessing potential impacts of nuclear power
plant operations and any refurbishment during the initial license renewal (initial LR) and
subsequent license renewal (SLR) terms. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
reviewed initial LR and SLR supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) prepared
since development of the 2013 LR GEIS for new information pertaining to changes in nuclear
power plant infrastructure that could contribute to new or different environmental effects during
the initial LR or SLR term.
G.2
G.2.1
Land Use and Visual Resources
Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence
Land use includes the land on and adjacent to each nuclear power plant site, the physical
features that influence current or proposed uses, pertinent land use plans and regulations, and
land ownership and availability. The ROI for land use impacts varies due to the effects of tax
payments to local jurisdictions, land ownership, land use patterns, population and housing
development trends, and other geographic or safety considerations but generally includes the
site and areas immediately surrounding the power plant site.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-4
Appendix G
Onsite land use that could be affected by the continued operation of the nuclear power plant
during the license renewal term (initial LR or SLR) includes all the land within the nuclear plant
site boundary and licensee property. For license renewal, current onsite industrial land use is
assumed to remain unchanged. Offsite land use includes all land use near the nuclear power
plant that could be affected by continued power plant operations and refurbishment activities
associated with license renewal. Transmission lines do not preclude the use of land in
right-of-ways for other purposes, such as agriculture and recreation. However, certain land use
activities in transmission line right-of-ways are restricted.
Visual resources are natural and human-made features that give the landscape its character
and aesthetic quality. Landscape character is determined by the visual elements of form, line,
color, and texture. All four elements are present in every landscape, but they exert varying
degrees of influence. The stronger the influence exerted by these elements in a landscape, the
more interesting the landscape. The ROI for visual resources includes the geographic area from
which the nuclear power plant may be seen. This would generally involve higher elevations and
public roadways. Transmission lines connecting the nuclear plant to the electrical grid are no
different from transmission lines connecting any other power plant.
G.2.2
Description of Impact Assessment
License renewal supplemental environmental impact statements (LR SEISs) were examined to
determine the extent of onsite and offsite land use and aesthetic impacts from license renewal
and refurbishment activities at nuclear power plants. The amount of land disturbed and changes
to existing land use were considered to determine potential land use impacts. The LR GEIS
generically evaluates potential land use impacts caused by power plant operations both on and
off the nuclear plant site. The analysis focuses on the amount of land area affected, changes to
existing land use, proximity to special areas, and other factors pertaining to land use. The visual
appearance of the nuclear power plant and transmission lines have been well established.
These conditions are expected to remain unchanged during the initial LR or SLR term
regardless of the number of years of nuclear plant operation.
G.3
G.3.1
Air Quality and Noise
Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence
Similar to most industrial facilities, nuclear power plants and other fuel-cycle facilities generate
air pollutants2 and propagate noise. Air quality designations (e.g., attainment, nonattainment
with respect to National Ambient Air Quality Standards) are typically made at the county level.
Therefore, the ROI for air quality is typically the county where the nuclear power plant is located.
If a nuclear power plant is located within two counties or near the border of an adjacent county,
both counties should be considered as part of the ROI. Sources at nuclear power plants that
contribute to criteria air pollutants include backup diesel generators, boilers, fire pump engines,
and cooling towers. Fossil fuel-fired equipment is operated intermittently, primarily during testing
or outages. Refurbishment activities associated with continued operations that might be
necessary to support license renewal terms include fugitive dust from site excavation and
grading and emissions from motorized equipment, construction vehicles, and workers’ vehicles.
2
Both radiological and nonradiological (criteria air pollutants) releases are covered in the LR GEIS. See
Appendix G.9 for a description of the region of influence and the impact assessment for radiological
releases.
G-5
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
Nuclear power plants generate noise primarily from the operation and use of cooling towers,
turbine generators, transformers, main steam safety valves, transmission lines, and firing
ranges. Noise from nuclear plant operations can often be detected offsite relatively close to the
plant site boundary. The ROI for noise impacts includes a 1 mi (1.6 km) radius from the nuclear
power plant.
The narrative, figures, and tables provide supplemental data and information in support of the
air quality and noise impacts provided in Chapter 3, Section 3.3 and Chapter 4, Section 4.3 of
this LR GEIS.
G.3.1.1
Climatology
Continental U.S. maximum and minimum average annual temperatures from 1991 through 2020
are shown in Figure G.3-1 and Figure G.3-2, respectively. The average annual precipitation
during the same period is shown in Figure G.3-3.
G.3.1.2
Noise
Table G.3-1 presents common noise sources and their respective noise levels. A whisper is
normally 30 A-weighted decibels (dBA) and is considered very quiet. Noise levels can become
very annoying at 80 dBA (CDC 2022). Noise levels attenuate rapidly with distance. When
distance is doubled from a point source, noise levels decrease by 6 dBA (DOT 2017).
Generally, a 3 dBA change over existing noise levels is considered to be a “just noticeable”
difference, a 5 dBA increase is readily perceptible, and a 10 dBA increase is subjectively
perceived as a doubling in loudness (DOT 2017).
Table G.3-1
Common Sources of Noise and Decibels Levels
Everyday Sounds and Noises
Average Sound Level dB
Normal breathing
Soft whisper
Refrigerator hum
Normal conversation
Washing machine
City traffic
Lawnmower
Motorcycle
Approaching subway
10
30
40
60
70
80–85
80–85
95
100
dB = decibel.
Source: CDC 2022.
There are no Federal Regulations for public exposures to noise. In 1972, Congress passed the
Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq.) establishing a national policy to promote
an environment free of noise that affects the health and welfare of the public. However, in 1982
there was a shift in Federal noise control policy to transfer the responsibility of regulation of
noise to State and local governments. The Noise Control Act of 1972 was never rescinded by
Congress but remains unfunded (EPA 2023). The Department of Housing and Urban
Development considers day-night average sound level outside a residence acceptable if it is
less than 65 dBA. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a day-night sound
level threshold of 55 dBA in residential areas to prevent activity interference and annoyance.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-6
G-7
(Permission to use this copyrighted material is granted by PRISM Group, Oregon State University)
Copyright © 2022, PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, https://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/. Map created April 26, 2022.
Appendix G
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Figure G.3-1 Average Annual Maximum Temperatures across the Continental United States (1991–2020)
Appendix G
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-8
Figure G.3-2 Average Annual Minimum Temperatures across the Continental United States (1991–2020)
(Permission to use this copyrighted material is granted by PRISM Group, Oregon State University)
Copyright © 2022, PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, https://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/. Map created April 26, 2022.
G-9
(Permission to use this copyrighted material is granted by PRISM Group, Oregon State University)
Copyright © 2022, PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, https://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/. Map created April 26, 2022.
Appendix G
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Figure G.3-3 Average Annual Precipitation across the Continental United States (1991–2020)
Appendix G
G.3.2
Description of Impact Assessment
The 2013 LR GEIS identified air quality impacts from continued operations and refurbishment
activities as a Category 1 issue. Initial LR and SLR SEISs completed since development of the
2013 LR GEIS were reviewed for new information pertaining to air quality impacts from
continued operations and refurbishment activities at nuclear power plants that would indicate
different impacts during the initial LR or SLR term, but none were noted. In these SEISs, the
NRC concluded that fossil fuel-fired equipment is operated intermittently, primarily during testing
or outages, annual air emissions are minor, and air emissions and sources would not be
expected to change or have different impacts on air quality during the initial LR or SLR term.
SEISs have also concluded that vehicle exhaust emissions during plant refurbishment activities
are minor and do not exceed de minimis thresholds prescribed in the General Conformity
Regulations (40 CFR 93.152(b)).
The 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs (NRC 1996, NRC 2013) determined that the impacts of
continued operation on offsite noise levels would be SMALL. Initial LR and SLR SEISs
completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS were reviewed for new information
pertaining to noise impacts from continued operations and refurbishment activities at nuclear
power plants. In these SEISs, the NRC documented that noise levels near noise-sensitive
receptors are below 65 dBA, or noise levels that exceeded 65 dBA were not attributed to
operation of the nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants have received noise complaints
associated with operation activities. In response to noise complaints, licensees have provided
advance notice to the public about upcoming activities when there is a potential for temporary
increase in noise levels. In the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, the NRC noted that there have been
few noise complaints at power plants and that noise impacts have been found to be small.
Initial LR and SLR SEISs completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS were reviewed to
identify any trends or changes in public perception of plant noise.
G.4
G.4.1
Geologic Environment
Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence
An understanding of geologic and soil conditions, as well as the presence of geologic hazards,
has been well established at all nuclear power plants during the current licensing term. Changes
in the potential for hazards, such as earthquakes, are not within the scope of this LR GEIS
because any such changes during the period of extended operation would not be the result of
nuclear reactor operations. The geologic and soil resources considered in this LR GEIS are
those that could be affected by an additional 20 years of reactor operation during the initial LR
and SLR terms and by any refurbishment activities within the nuclear power plant site property
boundaries and nearby offsite areas. Because land and soil disturbance during license renewal
could occur in undisturbed and undeveloped areas either onsite or possibly offsite, the locations
of power plants relative to areas of important farmland soils (e.g., prime farmland) were
considered. In addition, the region of potentially affected geologic resources considered extends
to offsite areas because the presence of a nuclear power plant may restrict rock, mineral, and
fossil fuel extraction operations beyond the site boundaries.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-10
Appendix G
G.4.2
Description of Impact Assessment
Geologic and soil resources could be affected by construction or any refurbishment projects
during the license renewal (initial LR or SLR) term or subsequently during plant
decommissioning. These actions would include activities that disturb surface soils, sediments,
and underlying geologic strata, resulting in effects such as erosion, loss of soil resources, and
increased suspended solids in nearby surface waterbodies.
Initial LR and SLR SEISs completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS were reviewed for
new information pertaining to geologic and soil impacts from continued operations and any
refurbishment, as documented in Chapter 4 of this LR GEIS. The magnitude of the impact of
potential ground-disturbing activities on geology and soils and local geologic resources would
depend on plant-specific factors such as the nature of geologic strata and soils, facility location,
construction planning, and site-specific resource mapping.
G.5
G.5.1
Water Resources
Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence
Most U.S. nuclear power plants are located near significant surface waterbodies that are either
natural or human-made. Therefore, the ROI for water resources includes those on and adjacent
to each nuclear power plant site that could be affected by water withdrawals, effluent
discharges, and spills or stormwater runoff associated with continued operations and
refurbishment activities. Thus, the surface water resources considered include those onsite,
downstream of the site (in the case of river settings), or throughout some portion of a body of
water (in the case of an ocean, lake or Great Lake, bay, reservoir, or pond) adjacent to the site.
The ROI for groundwater impacts includes areas both onsite (local water table) and offsite
(regional aquifer).
G.5.2
Description of Impact Assessment
Sources of information about surface water and groundwater issues regarding water use, water
use conflicts, and water quality included the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs and plant-specific
supplements to the LR GEIS. All SEISs for initial LR and SLR reviews completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS were reviewed for new information pertaining to water
issues.
To analyze the condenser flow rate requirements and consumptive loss associated with specific
categories of cooling system technologies (see Chapter 3, Sections 3.1.3 and 3.5.1.1 in this
LR GEIS), data and insights retained from the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs and from recent
technical literature, such as from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2019a; Marston et al.
2018), were compiled. The flow rates and consumptive loss rates were normalized by electricity
generation or to a specific power capacity to allow comparisons.
Permitting requirements related to surface water withdrawal and groundwater use were
summarized, and recent information was reviewed to assess water use quality issues and water
use conflicts in the vicinity of specific nuclear power plants.
Initial LR and SLR SEISs completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS were reviewed for
new information related to surface water and groundwater resources, as documented in
Chapter 4 of this LR GEIS.
G-11
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
G.6
G.6.1
Ecological Resources
Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence
Terrestrial resources potentially affected by nuclear power plant operations during the license
renewal term (initial LR and SLR) were determined at a broad level by obtaining the Level III
ecoregion data (EPA 2013) (Table G.6-1) and land cover data (USGS 2019b) for the vicinity of
each operating nuclear power plant. An ecoregion describes a broad landscape in which the
ecosystems have a general similarity. It can be characterized by the spatial pattern and
composition of biotic and abiotic features, such as vegetation, wildlife, physiography, climate,
soils, and hydrology (CEC 1997). The Level I ecoregions of the United States in which the
operating nuclear power plants are located are shown in Figure G.6-1. Each ecoregion is
subdivided into subregions. Level III ecoregions range from the warm, arid Sonoran Basin and
Range ecoregion with cactus-shrub habitats, in which the Palo Verde plant in Arizona is located,
to the cool, moist Northeastern Coastal Zone ecoregion with oak and oak-pine forests, which
includes the Seabrook plant in New Hampshire. Level III ecoregions in the vicinity of the
operating nuclear power plants are presented in Table G.6-2. The ROI for each operating
nuclear power plant was considered to be the area within a radius of 5 mi (8 km) as well as the
in-scope transmission lines associated with each nuclear power plant.
Within a radius of 5 mi (8 km) of operating nuclear power plants, an average of 23.5 percent of
the land area is forested, 4.2 percent is grassland, and 4.2 percent is shrubland, as determined
from land cover data (USGS 2019b). Agricultural lands are also present in the vicinity of all
operating nuclear power plants with an average of 22.2 percent of the area within 5 mi (8 km)
around all nuclear plants designated as cultivated crops or pasture. Wetland types within 5 mi
(8 km) of each nuclear power plant were determined by obtaining National Wetland Inventory
data (EPA 2013) (Table G.6-3). Open water areas (or deepwater habitats) were assigned to
National Wetland Inventory classification based on the National Wetland Inventory classification
methodology.
Aquatic habitats and the types of aquatic organisms (including federally protected resources)
that could be affected by nuclear power plant operations during the license renewal term
(initial LR or SLR) were determined at a broad level based on the location of the plant and the
source waterbody of the plant cooling water system. In cases where cooling systems could
affect more than one type of system (e.g., freshwater and estuarine), impacts on both systems
were considered in the analysis. Similarly, the potential for migratory aquatic species to be
affected by a particular nuclear power plant was based on reported occurrences of such species
in source waterbodies. In general, impingement and entrainment rates and thermal impacts on
aquatic organisms from cooling water systems were considered to be lower for nuclear power
plants with cooling towers that operate in a fully closed-cycle mode, because those plants
withdraw smaller volumes of water for cooling and discharge comparatively less thermal
effluent.
Additional information regarding terrestrial and aquatic resources in the vicinity of specific
nuclear power plants was obtained from scientific articles and reports and SEISs for initial LR
and SLR reviews completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS. The NRC staff used this
information to describe the general types of nuclear power plant interactions with ecological
resources and to illustrate the types of impacts observed at nuclear power plant sites.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-12
Table G.6-1
Level I Ecoregions and Corresponding Level III Ecoregions That Occur in the Vicinity of Operating
U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
Level I Ecoregion
Level III Ecoregion
Level III Description
G-13
Arkansas Valley
Forest, pasture, cropland; bottomland deciduous forest on
floodplains
Eastern Temperate Forests
Central Corn Belt Plains
Agriculture and cropland; tallgrass prairie, oak-hickory forest
Eastern Temperate Forests
Driftless Area
Agriculture and cropland; prairie, hardwood forest
Eastern Temperate Forests
Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands
Agriculture and cropland; mixed coniferous-deciduous forest
Eastern Temperate Forests
Erie Drift Plain
Agriculture; mixed oak and maple-beech-birch forest;
wetlands
Eastern Temperate Forests
Huron/Erie Lake Plains
Agriculture and cropland; maple, ash, oak, hickory forest
Eastern Temperate Forests
Interior Plateau
Oak-hickory forest, cropland, pasture; bluestem prairie, cedar
glades
Eastern Temperate Forests
Interior River Valleys and Hills
Cropland; pasture; forested valley slopes, bottomland
deciduous forest, swamp forest, mixed oak forest, oakhickory forest
Eastern Temperate Forests
Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Pine and oak-hickory-pine forest, swamp, marsh, estuaries;
oak, gum, cypress near rivers; cropland; dunes, barrier
islands
Eastern Temperate Forests
Mississippi Alluvial Plain
Cropland; bottomland deciduous forest; oxbow lakes and
ponds
Eastern Temperate Forests
Mississippi Valley Loess Plains
Cropland; oak-hickory forest and oak-hickory-pine forest;
perennial and intermittent streams
Eastern Temperate Forests
North Central Hardwood Forests
Mosaic northern hardwood forest, wetlands and lakes,
cropland, pasture
Eastern Temperate Forests
Northeastern Coastal Zone
Oak and oak-pine forest; lakes, streams, wetlands
Eastern Temperate Forests
Northern Piedmont
Agriculture and cropland, Appalachian oak forest, perennial
streams
Eastern Temperate Forests
Piedmont
Oak-hickory-pine woodland; cropland; perennial streams
Appendix G
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Eastern Temperate Forests
Level III Ecoregion
Level III Description
G-14
Eastern Temperate Forests
Ridge and Valley
Appalachian oak forest, oak-hickory-pine forest, pasture;
cropland; streams, springs, caves, reservoirs
Eastern Temperate Forests
Southern Michigan/Northern Indiana Drift
Plains
Lakes, marsh; agriculture; oak-hickory forest, northern
swamp forest, beech forest; pasture
Eastern Temperate Forests
Southeastern Plains
Mosaic of cropland, pasture, woodland, mixed forest
Eastern Temperate Forests
Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains
Agriculture; mosaic of hardwood forest, oak savanna,
tallgrass prairie
Eastern Temperate Forests
Southern Coastal Plain
Coastal lagoons, marsh, swamp, barrier islands; pine, oakgum-cypress forest; citrus groves, pasture; lakes
Eastern Temperate Forests
Western Allegheny Plateau
Mixed mesophytic forest, mixed oak forest; pasture, cropland
Great Plains
Central Irregular Plains
Mosaic of grassland, wide riparian forest; cropland
Great Plains
Cross Timbers
Rangeland, pasture; little bluestem grassland with scattered
oaks
Great Plains
Western Corn Belt Plains
Cropland, pasture; tallgrass prairie; narrow riparian forest
Great Plains
Western Gulf Coastal Plain
Grassland, cropland
North American Deserts
Columbia Plateau
Arid sagebrush steppe and grassland; agriculture
North American Deserts
Sonoran Basin and Range
Hot climate; creosotebush and bursage; large areas of palo
verde-cactus shrub and giant saguaro cactus
Mediterranean California
Southern and Central California Chaparral
and Oak Woodlands
Mediterranean climate: hot dry summers, cool moist winters
Tropical Wet Forests
Southern Florida Coastal Plain
Frost-free climate; flat plains with wet soils; marshland,
swamp, everglades, palmetto prairie
Sources: EPA 2013; Wiken et al. 2011.
Appendix G
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Level I Ecoregion
G-15
Appendix G
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Figure G.6-1 Level I Ecoregions of the United States (EPA 2013)
Site Name
Ecoregions in the Vicinity of Operating U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants
Level I Description
Level III Ecoregion(s)
G-16
Arkansas
Eastern Temperate Forests
Arkansas Valley
Beaver Valley
Eastern Temperate Forests
Western Allegheny Plateau
Braidwood
Eastern Temperate Forests
Central Corn Belt Plains
Browns Ferry
Eastern Temperate Forests
Interior Plateau
Brunswick
Eastern Temperate Forests
Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Byron
Eastern Temperate Forests
Central Corn Belt Plains
Callaway
Eastern Temperate Forests
Interior River Valleys and Hills
Calvert Cliffs
Eastern Temperate Forests
Southeastern Plains, Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Catawba
Eastern Temperate Forests
Piedmont
Clinton
Eastern Temperate Forests
Central Corn Belt Plains
Columbia
North American Deserts
Columbia Plateau
Comanche Peak
Great Plains
Cross Timbers
Cooper
Great Plains
Western Corn Belt Plains
Davis-Besse
Eastern Temperate Forests
Huron/Erie Lake Plains
D.C. Cook
Eastern Temperate Forests
S. Michigan/N. Indiana Drift Plains
Diablo Canyon
Mediterranean California
Southern and Central California Chaparral and Oak Woodlands
Dresden
Eastern Temperate Forests
Central Corn Belt Plains
Farley
Eastern Temperate Forests
Southeastern Plains
Fermi
Eastern Temperate Forests
Huron/Erie Lake Plains
FitzPatrick
Eastern Temperate Forests
Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands
Ginna
Eastern Temperate Forests
Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands
Grand Gulf
Eastern Temperate Forests
Mississippi Valley Loess Plains, Mississippi Alluvial Plain
Harris
Eastern Temperate Forests
Piedmont, Southeastern Plains
Hatch
Eastern Temperate Forests
Southeastern Plains, Southern Coastal Plain
Appendix G
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table G.6-2
Site Name
Level I Description
Level III Ecoregion(s)
G-17
Eastern Temperate Forests
Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
LaSalle
Eastern Temperate Forests
Central Corn Belt Plains
Limerick
Eastern Temperate Forests
Northern Piedmont
McGuire
Eastern Temperate Forests
Piedmont
Millstone
Eastern Temperate Forests
Northeastern Coastal Zone
Monticello
Eastern Temperate Forests
North Central Hardwood Forests
Nine Mile Point
Eastern Temperate Forests
Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands
North Anna
Eastern Temperate Forests
Piedmont
Oconee
Eastern Temperate Forests
Piedmont
Palisades(a)
Eastern Temperate Forests
S. Michigan/N. Indiana Drift Plains
Palo Verde
North American Deserts
Sonoran Basin and Range
Peach Bottom
Eastern Temperate Forests
Northern Piedmont
Perry
Eastern Temperate Forests
Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands, Erie Drift Plain
Point Beach
Eastern Temperate Forests
Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains
Prairie Island
Eastern Temperate Forests
Driftless Area
Quad Cities
Eastern Temperate Forests and
Great Plains
Interior River Valleys and Hills, Western Corn Belt Plains, Central Corn Belt
Plains
River Bend
Eastern Temperate Forests
Mississippi Valley Loess Plains, Mississippi Alluvial Plain
Robinson
Eastern Temperate Forests
Southeastern Plains
Salem
Eastern Temperate Forests
Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Seabrook
Eastern Temperate Forests
Northeastern Coastal Zone
Sequoyah
Eastern Temperate Forests
Ridge and Valley
South Texas
Great Plains
Western Gulf Coastal Plain
St. Lucie
Eastern Temperate Forests
Southern Coastal Plain
Summer
Eastern Temperate Forests
Piedmont
Surry
Eastern Temperate Forests
Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, Southeastern Plains
Appendix G
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Hope Creek
Level I Description
Level III Ecoregion(s)
Susquehanna
Eastern Temperate Forests
Ridge and Valley
Turkey Point
Tropical Wet Forests
Southern Florida Coastal Plain
Vogtle
Eastern Temperate Forests
Southeastern Plains
Waterford
Eastern Temperate Forests
Mississippi Alluvial Plain
Watts Bar
Eastern Temperate Forests
Ridge and Valley
Wolf Creek
Great Plains
Central Irregular Plains
(a) Shutdown in May 2022.
Source: EPA 2013.
Appendix G
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Site Name
G-18
Appendix G
G.6.2
Description of Impact Assessment
A wide range of issues related to the potential impacts of license renewal on ecological
resources were evaluated by considering how continued operations would affect ecological
resources compared to current conditions. Potential impacts on terrestrial and aquatic resources
were identified and evaluated, in part, through the NRC staff’s review of published literature
related to power facility operation and SEISs for initial LR and SLR reviews completed since
development of the 2013 LR GEIS, and from documents associated with interagency
consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service
(e.g., biological assessments, biological opinions, and essential fish habitat assessments).
Although some of the impacts identified were specific to nuclear power plant operation
(e.g., effects of radionuclides on biota), the staff also reviewed impacts associated with other
types of power facilities (e.g., the effects of bird collisions with cooling towers and plant
structures or the effects of impingement, entrainment, and thermal effluents on fish and other
aquatic organisms). The NRC staff also considered new information concerning nuclear power
plant operations during an initial LR or SLR term that is presented in SEISs since development
of the 2013 LR GEIS.
The NRC staff evaluated the potential impacts of exposure of terrestrial and aquatic organisms
to radionuclides from normal operations of nuclear power plants by reviewing Radiological
Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) reports (primarily annual radiological environmental
operating reports) for the year 2020 for a subset of operating PWR and BWR plants3 selected to
determine radionuclide levels present in environmental media. This review yielded expected
radionuclide concentrations in the environment that may be sourced from nuclear power plants.
In addition to regulated Lower Limits of Detection (LLDs) stated in NUREG-1301 and
NUREG-1302 (NRC 1991a, NRC 1991b), the NRC staff obtained site-specific radionuclide
concentrations and LLDs in water, sediment, and soils when available from the REMP reports.
3
The subset of plants included the following PWR plants: Comanche Peak, D.C. Cook, Palo Verde 1–3,
Robinson, Salem 1–2, Seabrook, and Surry; and the following BWR plants: Fermi 2, Hatch 1–2, Hope
Creek, Limerick, and Columbia.
G-19
Draft NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Percent of Area Occupied by Wetland and Deepwater Habitats within 5 Miles of Operating Nuclear Power
Plants
Estuarine
Estuarine
Nuclear
and Marine and Marine
Power Plant Deepwater(a)
Wetland
Freshwater
Emergent
Wetland
Freshwater
Forested/
Shrub
Wetland
Freshwater
Pond
Lake(a)
Riverine(a)
Other(b)
Total
Wetland(c)
Total
Deepwater
Habitats
Arkansas
0
0
0
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.7
0
0.9
0.9
Beaver Valley
0
0
0.2
0.1
0.2
1.7
4.3
0
0.5
6
Braidwood
0
0
1.1
1
1.8
8
1.8
0
3.9
9.8
Browns Ferry
0
0
0.9
10.9
0.2
26.1
0.2
0
11.9
26.3
25.2
14.1
1
16.6
0.6
0.3
0.3
0
32.3
25.8
Byron
0
0
0.6
1
0.1
1.9
0.9
0
1.8
2.8
Callaway
0
0
0.9
1.8
0.5
0.4
1.9
0
3.3
2.3
53.1
0.4
0.3
1.3
0.2
0.4
0.1
0
2.1
53.6
Catawba
0
0
0
0.4
0.4
12.2
0.9
0
0.7
13.1
Clinton
0
0
0.1
0.4
0.2
8.4
0.4
0
0.7
8.7
Columbia
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
5.5
0
0
0.3
5.6
Comanche
Peak
0
0
0.1
0.6
0.4
0
1.4
0
1.1
1.4
Cooper
0
0
0.9
3.2
0.3
0.1
3.4
0
4.4
3.5
Davis-Besse
0
0
8
2.8
0.7
52.6
2.8
0
11.6
55.4
D.C. Cook
0
0
0.5
2.3
0.3
49.6
0.2
0
3.1
49.8
Diablo
Canyon
0
0.3
0
0.5
0
0
0.1
0
0.7
0.2
Dresden
0
0
5.4
3.6
1.8
10.9
0.9
0
10.7
11.8
Farley
0
0
0.9
10.3
0.5
1.6
0.4
0
11.8
2
Fermi
0
0
4
1.7
0.4
47.3
1
0
6
48.4
FitzPatrick
0
0
0.1
3.1
0.1
59.6
0.2
0
3.4
59.8
Brunswick
G-20
Calvert Cliffs
Appendix G
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Table G.6-3
Estuarine
Estuarine
Nuclear
and Marine and Marine
Power Plant Deepwater(a)
Wetland
Freshwater
Emergent
Wetland
Freshwater
Forested/
Shrub
Wetland
Freshwater
Pond
Lake(a)
Riverine(a)
Other(b)
Total
Wetland(c)
Total
Deepwater
Habitats
0
0
0.2
3.7
0.4
49.5
0.6
0
4.3
50.2
Grand Gulf
0
0
0
24.9
0.3
2.3
12.7
0
25.3
15
Harris
0
0
0
3.5
0.4
9.4
0.6
0
3.9
10
Hatch
0
0
0.6
20
0.9
0
2.3
0
21.4
2.3
46.3
33.9
1.6
1.5
0.3
0
0.2
0
37.4
46.5
LaSalle
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
5.1
0.8
0
0.6
5.9
Limerick
0
0
0.1
0.5
0.3
0
1.8
0
1
1.8
McGuire
0
0
0.1
1.7
0.3
21
0.4
0
2.1
21.4
Millstone
1.9
1.3
0.2
2.8
0.2
0.4
0.2
0
4.5
2.6
Monticello
0
0
0.5
1
0.1
0
0.3
0
1.6
0.3
Nine Mile
Point
0
0
0.1
3.1
0.1
58.1
0.2
0
3.4
58.3
North Anna
0
0
0.2
3.1
0.3
18.6
0.4
0
3.6
19
Oconee
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.1
22.2
0.6
0
0.8
22.8
Palisades(d)
0
0
0.9
8.7
0.4
48.5
0.2
0
10
48.7
Palo Verde
0
0
0
0
0.1
1.6
1.9
0
0.1
3.5
Peach
Bottom
0
0
0.2
0.3
0.2
14.5
0.6
0
0.6
15.1
Perry
0
0
0
1.7
0.4
48.4
0.5
0
2.1
48.9
Point Beach
0
0
0.2
4.3
0.1
44.6
0.3
0
4.6
44.8
Prairie Island
0
0
7.1
10.9
0.5
5.7
5.6
0
18.5
11.3
Quad Cities
0
0
2
9.2
0.9
6.6
3.1
0
12.1
9.7
River Bend
0
0
0.9
15.8
1
1
8.2
0
17.7
9.2
Robinson
0
0
0.3
8.9
0.4
4.4
0.3
0
9.6
4.7
Hope Creek
G-21
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
Ginna
Freshwater
Emergent
Wetland
Freshwater
Forested/
Shrub
Wetland
Freshwater
Pond
Lake(a)
Riverine(a)
Other(b)
Total
Wetland(c)
Total
Deepwater
Habitats
Salem
47.2
34.6
1.6
1.3
0.3
0
0.1
0
37.9
47.4
Seabrook
23.9
13.3
1.5
6
0.4
0.1
0.3
0
21.2
24.2
Sequoyah
0
0
0
0.1
0.4
15.4
0.9
0
0.5
16.3
South Texas
0
0
2.9
3.1
0.2
14.2
1.4
2.3
6.2
15.6
St. Lucie
60.9
3.5
4.1
1
0.9
0.6
0.2
0
9.5
61.7
Summer
0
0
0.3
1.9
0.2
17.6
1.3
0
2.5
18.9
34.3
2.8
3.8
2.8
0.3
0.9
17.2
0
9.6
52.3
Susquehanna
0
0
0.1
1
0.3
0.2
3.8
0
1.4
4
Turkey Point
50.5
15
15.4
9.2
0.1
0
0.4
0
39.7
51
Vogtle
0
0
1.6
24.6
0.3
0.3
1.2
0
26.5
1.5
Waterford
0
0
11.9
45.3
1.1
1.7
7.7
0
58.3
9.4
Watts Bar
0
0
0.2
1.1
0.2
9.9
1.2
0
1.5
11.1
Wolf Creek
0
0
0.8
0.5
0.9
12.7
0.9
0
2.1
13.6
AVERAGE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9.3
21.2
Surry
G-22
(a) Deepwater habitats are permanently flooded and lie below the deepwater/wetland boundary (Cowardin et al. 1979; FGDC 2013).
(b) Includes land that was once palustrine wetland habitat that is now farmed, but if farming were discontinued wetland habitat would be reestablished; classified
as Palustrine-Farmed. Does not include deepwater habitats.
(c) Does not include deepwater habitats.
(d) Shutdown in May 2022.
No entry is denoted by “-”.
Sources: National Wetlands Inventory (FWS 2022); Pacific Northwest National Laboratory calculations.
Appendix G
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Estuarine
Estuarine
Nuclear
and Marine and Marine
Power Plant Deepwater(a)
Wetland
Appendix G
To estimate radiological dose to ecological receptors, the NRC staff used the RESRAD-BIOTA
dose evaluation model (DOE 2004) to calculate estimated dose rates to biota. The values
reported in the reviewed REMP reports were frequently listed as being below the LLD.
Measurements below the LLD are too low to statistically confirm the presence of the
radionuclide in the sample. Accordingly, the staff conducted a RESRAD-BIOTA analysis using
either the maximum values from a measured media concentration or an LLD, when all
measurements for that radionuclide are below detection limits. Potassium-40 was excluded from
this analysis because it is a common naturally occurring radionuclide. The list of radionuclides
included in the RESRAD-BIOTA analysis included any radionuclide that was detected in a
surface water or sediment/soil sample, as well as the most common radionuclides included in
the REMP reports where either a regulatory LLD or site-specific minimum detectable activity
was available as a surrogate conservative value. The staff then aggregated these values to form
a single RESRAD-BIOTA analysis run.4 This method is considered a bounding analysis
because it assumes that all radionuclides included in the RESRAD-BIOTA analysis are present
in the environment, even though some radionuclides are not confirmed to actually be present
(i.e., those radionuclides that are below the LLD). Furthermore, it is conservative because it is
an aggregated run of every maximum media measurement from all of the subset of plants.
The RESRAD-BIOTA code was developed at Argonne National Laboratory based on the
U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) graded approach for evaluating radiation doses to aquatic
and terrestrial biota (DOE 2002). The RESRAD-BIOTA code includes three levels
corresponding to a graded approach. The NRC staff conducted the evaluation presented in
Chapter 4, Section 4.6.1.1.2 of this LR GEIS using RESRAD-BIOTA Level 2. Because
RESRAD-BIOTA default Biv values (bioaccumulation transfer factors) for certain radionuclides
are relatively high for screening purposes, the staff replaced the transfer factors for zinc-65,
cesium-134, and cesium-137 with the maximum value from the wildlife parameter transfer
database (IAEA/IUR 2020). These values represent the maximum values used in international
publications and in estimates of radiological impacts on the International Commission on
Radiation Protection’s (ICRP) Reference Animals and Plants, as described in ICRP 108 (ICRP
2008a).
For all ecological receptors, the NRC staff used RESRAD-BIOTA’s default bioaccumulation
factors and dose limits.5 The NRC staff evaluated radionuclides at the selected nuclear power
plants by comparing the sum of the total estimated dose to the default dose limits (i.e., the DOE
guidance dose rates of riparian animal, 0.1 rad/d; terrestrial animal, 0.1 rad/d; terrestrial plant,
1.0 rad/d; and aquatic organisms, 1.0 rad/d). Estimated doses that were less than the default
dose limits were determined to represent an acceptable radiological risk to the receptor,
whereas estimated doses above the dose limit were determined to represent an unacceptable
radiological risk to the receptor.
Additionally, the NRC staff estimated doses to a riparian animal using the ICRP biota dose
calculator for a small subset of reactors.6 The NRC staff used the ICRP calculator to develop
dose coefficients (DCs, expressed in μGy h−1 per Bq kg−1) for water and soil/sediment exposure
of a generic organism. A hypothetical small burrowing mammal with mass of 0.016 kg was
4
RESRAD-BIOTA does not include all radionuclides; radionuclides not available in RESRAD-BIOTA were
excluded from analysis.
5 More information about the RESRAD-BIOTA code, including instructions for using the model, can be
found at https://resrad.evs.anl.gov/codes/resrad-biota/.
6 The subset of plants includes Comanche Peak, Columbia, and Callaway.
G-23
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
chosen as a representative “riparian” organism. The mass and dimensions of the animal are
similar to that of the meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius), a common North American
rodent (Smith 1999; ICRP 2008b).
The staff developed the DCs using the ICRP’s BiotaDC v.1.5.2, which incorporates the
radionuclide decay data of ICRP 107 (ICRP 2008b). The staff’s specific assumptions for these
DCs include the following:
• External DCs for aquatic (water) calculations presumed uniform isotropic (4 pi) exposure. This
means that the dose rate is constant through the medium being evaluated.
• The ICRP calculator determines the absorbed fraction from external and internal sources
based on the shape and mass of the organism (ICRP 2017).
• Absorbed dose rate (mean radiation energy absorbed per unit mass per time) was calculated;
no radiation weighting factors were used to weight the DCs for radionuclides selected for this
calculation (all were beta/gamma emitters).
• Internal tissue DCs were derived based on simple ellipsoid geometry. For purpose of
developing the DCs in this analysis, the animal is assumed to have dimensions of 1:1:0.6 (an
oblate spheroid).
• For this analysis, the organism was assumed to burrow into the soil and be exposed under
these conditions for 100 percent of the time. The ICRP calculator calculation assumes that
the burrowed organism is in the “middle of a 50-cm thick source” (ICRP 2017). This is a
conservative estimate of dose.
• For this analysis, the organism was also assumed to be completely surrounded by water
100 percent of the time. This is a conservative estimate of dose.
• Total dose rate was calculated as the product of the media- and organism-specific DC
(e.g., tissue, water, or sediment/soil in μGy h−1 per Bq kg−1 for the 0.016 kg organism) and a
relevant media activity concentration (tissue, water, or soil, in Bq kg−1), and summed over the
external and internal contributors to dose.
• No air submersion calculations were considered, as this is presumed to be substantially less
than water or sediment dose rates.
• Internal dose rates were estimated based on maximum reported tissue concentrations for
each analyzed nuclear power plant or the LLD when samples were below detection limits.
This is a conservative estimate of dose.
• External dose rates from water were calculated based on the assumption of radionuclide
concentrations occurring at the reported limits of detection. This is a conservative assumption
as the majority of the REMP findings were below the LLDs.
• Reported sediment limits for specific sites in the REMP reports were used when available, or
a substitute value from another site or regulatory value was used in cases when they were
unavailable in the REMP reports.
• The sediment concentrations were reported as dry weight; no dilution was used in estimating
the wet weight concentrations, as this is highly variable, and could range from about
50 percent to less than 10 percent of the reported dry weight concentration. This approach is
conservative.
• The radioactivity was assumed uniformly distributed in organism tissue and in the
environment.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-24
Appendix G
This approach to determining the potential radiological dose rate to a hypothetical riparian
organism is conservative. Chapter 4, Section 4.6.1.1.2 of this LR GEIS presents the results of
the NRC staff’s RESRAD-BIOTA analysis and ICRP biota dose calculator analysis described
above. Additionally, Chapter 4, Section 4.6.1.2.8 of this LR GEIS briefly summarizes these
results.
G.7
G.7.1
Historic and Cultural Resources
Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence
The NRC considers historic and cultural resources as an all-inclusive term that includes
precontact (i.e., prehistoric), historic, traditional cultural properties and historic properties. In this
revision, the definitions of precontact and historic eras were updated. The National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA; 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.) requires agencies to take into account the
effects of their undertakings on historic properties, in consultation with the appropriate
consulting parties as defined in 36 CFR 800.2(c). The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) requires the consideration of the cultural environment,
which includes “aesthetic, historic, and cultural resources as these terms are commonly
understood, including such resources as sacred sites” (CEQ and ACHP 2013). Thus, the issue
is termed “Historic and Cultural Resources.” The NRC uses the NEPA process to comply with
NHPA Section 106 review and consultation requirements pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(c) to
conduct a plant-specific site assessment. Refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.7 of this LR GEIS for
expanded definitions of historic property and historic and cultural resources.
The ROI is the area of potential effects (APE). The license renewal (initial LR and 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 (see Chapter 3, Section 3.7 of this LR GEIS).
The NRC is required to identify historic and cultural resources located within the defined APE.
G.7.2
Description of Impact Assessment
LR SEISs were examined to identify any trends concerning impacts from continued operation
and refurbishment activities on historic and cultural resources. Historic and cultural resources
were identified as resources to be considered for license renewal in the 1996 and 2013
LR GEISs, where they were identified as a Category 2 issue. The current assessment is in
agreement with this categorization. Due to geographic, cultural, and historic differences, a
plant-specific assessment of historic and cultural resources must be performed. Refer to
Chapter 4, Section 4.7 of this LR GEIS for an expanded discussion of how initial LR and SLR
can affect historic properties and historic and cultural resources located in the APE.
G.8
G.8.1
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice
Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence
Socioeconomic impacts are defined in terms of changes in the economic characteristics and
social conditions of a region. For example, the number of jobs created by the proposed action
could affect regional employment, income, and expenditures. Job creation is characterized by
G-25
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
two types: (1) refurbishment (construction-related) jobs, which are transient, short in duration,
and less likely to have a long-term socioeconomic impact; and (2) operation-related jobs in
support of nuclear power plant operations, which have the greater potential for permanent,
long-term socioeconomic impact.
Nuclear power plant operations and refurbishment activities affect socioeconomic conditions in
communities near the nuclear plant, including the county in which the nuclear plant is located
and the counties where the majority of nuclear plant workers reside. The socioeconomic ROI is
determined by where the majority of nuclear plant operations workers and their families reside,
spend income, and obtain goods and services. This reflects a residential location preference by
current nuclear plant employees and is used to estimate the distribution of new workers
associated with refurbishment (construction) activities and operation under the replacement
energy alternatives. The economic data used in the LR GEIS update were derived from SEISs
prepared for both initial LR and SLR reviews since development of the 2013 LR GEIS
(NRC 2018a, NRC 2018b, NRC 2019a, NRC 2019b, NRC 2019c, NRC 2021a, NRC 2021b).
These NEPA documents were used to describe the socioeconomic environment at 12 nuclear
power plants (Table G.8-1).
Table G.8-1
Plant
Definition of Regions of Influence at 12 Nuclear Plants
Counties in Region of Influence
State
Davis-Besse
Ottawa
Ohio
Comanche Peak
Somervell
Texas
Cooper
Cass, Johnson, Nemaha, Otoe,
and Richardson
Nebraska
Ginna
Wayne
New York
North Anna
Louisa and Orange
Virginia
Peach Bottom
Lancaster and York
Pennsylvania
Point Beach
Brown and Manitowoc
Wisconsin
River Bend
East Baton Rouge and West
Feliciana parishes
Louisiana
South Texas
Matagorda
Texas
Surry
Isle of Wight and Surry
Virginia
Turkey Point
Miami-Dade
Florida
Waterford
St. Charles and Jefferson parishes
Louisiana
Sources: NEI 2015a, NEI 2015b, NEI 2015c, NEI 2018; NRC 2018a, NRC 2018b, NRC 2019a, NRC 2019b, NRC
2019c, NRC 2021a, NRC 2021b.
G.8.2
Estimation of Direct and Indirect Economic Effects
Nuclear power plants provide employment and income in communities near the nuclear plant
and tax revenue to State and local governments. The demand for goods and services by
nuclear power plant workers and their families creates additional employment and income
opportunities in the local, regional, and State economies. The magnitude of the economic effect
is determined by the extent of changes in employment and demand for goods and services
during the license renewal term and refurbishment activities at each nuclear plant.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-26
Appendix G
Workforce requirements of power plant operations were evaluated in order to measure their
possible effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region. Estimates for the ROI were combined
with projected workforce requirements to determine the extent of impacts on regional economic
and demographic (population) characteristics, including levels of demand for housing,
community services, and local transportation impacts.
The socioeconomic effects of reactor operations and refurbishment-related activities vary based
on the size of the workforce, expenditures at each nuclear power plant, and economic
conditions in the region. To assess the socioeconomic impact, nuclear power plants were
classified according to whether they are located in rural or urban areas.
G.8.3
Environmental Justice Assessment Methods
Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations,” (59 FR 7629), directs each Federal agency to
identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and
low-income populations.” Although independent agencies, like the NRC, were only requested,
rather than directed, to comply with the Executive Order, the NRC Chairman, in a March 1994
letter to the President, committed the NRC to endeavoring to carry out its measures “… as part
of the NRC’s efforts to comply with the requirements of NEPA” (NRC 1994).
The environmental justice impact analysis (1) identifies minority populations, low-income
populations, and Indian Tribes that could be affected by continued reactor operations during the
license renewal term and refurbishment activities at a nuclear power plant; (2) determines
whether there would be any human health or environmental effects on these populations; and
(3) determines whether these effects may be disproportionately high and adverse. The NRC
strives to engage with representatives of affected environmental justice communities and Tribal
nations to establish long-term relationships and identify license renewal-related concerns and
issues to be addressed during the NEPA review. Minority and low-income populations, Indian
Tribes, and environmental justice issues are different at each nuclear power plant site.
The analysis considers minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes within a
50 mi (80 km) radius of a nuclear power plant. Data on these populations are collected and
analyzed at the census block group level.
Minority individual(s) identify themselves as members of the following population groups:
Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African-American, Native
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races. Census forms allow individuals to
designate multiple population group categories to reflect their ethnic or racial origin. The term
minority includes all persons who do not classify themselves as White alone.
Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority population of an affected area exceeds
50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is “meaningfully
greater than” the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate
unit of geographic analysis. Minority populations may be communities of individuals living in
close geographic proximity to one another, or a geographically dispersed or transient set of
individuals, such as migrant workers or American Indians, who, as a group, experience common
conditions of environmental exposure or effect. The appropriate unit of geographic analysis may
be a political jurisdiction, county, region, or State or other similar unit that is chosen so as not to
artificially dilute or inflate the affected minority population.
G-27
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
Low-income populations are comprised of people and families whose annual income falls below
the annual statistical poverty threshold, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current
Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. Poverty thresholds take into account
family size and the age of individuals. For any given family below the poverty line, all family
members are considered as being below the poverty line for the purposes of analysis.
Low-income populations are identified using the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey
5-year Estimates (American Community Survey Tables B17002 [USCB 2023a] and C17002
[USCB 2023b]). Low-income populations may be communities of individuals living in close
geographic proximity to one another, or a set of individuals, such as migrant workers or Native
Americans, who, as a group, experience common conditions of environmental exposure or
effect.
Adverse health effects are measured in terms of the risks and rates of fatal or nonfatal exposure
to an environmental hazard. Adverse health effects may include bodily impairment, infirmity,
illness, or death. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur when the risk
or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority population, low-income population,
or Indian Tribe to an environmental hazard is significant (as employed by NEPA) and
appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed the risk or exposure rate for the general
population or for another appropriate comparison group, and when they occur in a minority
population, low-income population, or Indian Tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse
exposures from environmental hazards (CEQ 1997).
Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects occur when an impact on the natural
or physical environment significantly (as employed by NEPA) and adversely affects a minority
population, low-income population, or Indian Tribe. Such effects may include ecological,
cultural, human health, economic, or social impacts on minority communities, low-income
communities, or Indian Tribes when those impacts are interrelated with impacts on the natural
or physical environment. Disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects occur when
environmental effects are significant (as employed by NEPA) and are or may be having an
adverse impact on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes that
appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed those on the general population or other
appropriate comparison group, and when they occur or would occur in a minority population,
low-income population, or Indian Tribe affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures
from environmental hazards (CEQ 1997).
G.9
G.9.1
Human Health
Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence
The NRC considers human health an all-inclusive term that includes both radiological and
nonradiological human health effects for both occupational workers and members of the public.
Both of these human health effects are discussed in this section.
Low doses of radiation can cause a variety of health effects. The most significant of these
are induced cancer incidence. As discussed in the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs in detail, the
National Research Council’s Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation has
prepared a series of reports about the health consequences of radiation exposure, as
presented in Chapter 3, Section 3.9 of this LR GEIS. Since the development of the 2013
LR GEIS, the NRC has determined that the linear, no-threshold model continues to provide
a sound regulatory basis for minimizing the risk of unnecessary radiation exposure to both
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-28
Appendix G
members of the public and radiation workers; three petitions for rulemaking to move away
from the linear, no-threshold model were denied in 2021 (86 FR 45923).
Radiological exposures from nuclear power plants include offsite doses to members of the
public and onsite doses to members of the workforce. Nuclear power plants must be licensed by
the NRC and comply with NRC regulations and conditions specified in the license. The
licensees are required to comply with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart C, “Occupational Dose Limits,”
and 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D, “Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public”
(see Chapter 3, Section 3.9 of this LR GEIS). Individual occupational doses are measured by
NRC licensees as required by the basic NRC radiation protection standard, 10 CFR Part 20
(see Chapter 3, Section 3.9 of this LR GEIS). This standard includes requirements for summing
internal and external dose equivalents to yield the total effective dose equivalent. For this
LR GEIS revision, worker dose information was obtained from the 53rd annual report titled
Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities
2020 (NRC 2022). The report summarizes the occupational exposure data maintained by the
NRC’s Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System. The licensees submit
occupational radiation exposure records for each monitored individual.
Commercial nuclear power plants, under normal operations, release small amounts of
radioactive materials to the environment. The effluent releases (gaseous and liquid) result in
radiation doses to humans. Nuclear power plant licensees must comply with Federal
Regulations (e.g., 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 50.36a, and
40 CFR Part 190) and conditions specified in the operating license (see Chapter 3, Section 3.9
of this LR GEIS). Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical values for radioactive
effluent design objectives. In addition, each plant license contains technical specification
requirements for controlling and limiting the discharge of radioactive gaseous and liquid
effluents.
Every year licensees submit two reports to the NRC: an annual radiological environmental
monitoring report and an annual radioactive effluent release report. For this LR GEIS update,
public doses from gaseous and liquid effluent releases were obtained from a series of annual
radioactive effluent release reports.
Nonradiological hazards considered for this human health assessment include chemical
hazards, microbiological hazards, electromagnetic fields, and physical hazards (i.e., hazardous
physical conditions and electric shock). In nuclear power plants, chemical effects could result
from discharges of chlorine or other biocides, small-volume discharges of sanitary and other
liquid wastes, chemical spills, and heavy metals leached from cooling system piping and
condenser tubing. Human health impacts from chemicals were assessed based on information
provided in the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs, published literature, and SEISs published to date.
Microbiological hazards occur when workers or members of the public come into contact with
disease-causing microorganisms, also known as etiological agents. Microbiological organisms
of concern for public and occupational health include enteric pathogens (bacteria that
typically exist in the intestines of animals and humans [e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa]),
thermophilic fungi, bacteria (e.g., Legionella spp. and Vibrio spp.), free-living amoebae (e.g.,
Naegleria fowleri and Acanthamoeba spp.), as well as organisms that produce toxins that affect
human health (e.g., dinoflagellates [Karenia brevis] and blue-green algae). These issues were
evaluated by reviewing the information in the 1996 and 2013 LR GEISs and published literature
about organisms that could be enhanced by plant operation. SEISs were also reviewed for new
information pertaining to microbiological issues.
G-29
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
Electromagnetic fields are generated by any electrical equipment. All nuclear power plants have
electrical equipment and power transmission systems associated with them. Occupational
workers or members of the public near transmission lines may be exposed to electromagnetic
fields produced by the transmission lines. As described in the 2013 LR GEIS, it should be noted
that the scope of the evaluation of transmission lines includes only transmission lines that
connect the plant to the switchyard where electricity is fed into the regional power distribution
system (encompassing lines that connect the plant to the first substation of the regional electric
power grid), and power lines that feed the plant from the grid are considered within the
regulatory scope of license renewal environmental review.
Nuclear power plants are industrial facilities that have many of the typical occupational hazards
found at any other electric power generation facility. Workers at or around nuclear power plants
would be involved in some maintenance activities, electrical work, electric power line
maintenance, and repair work and would be subject to potentially hazardous physical conditions
(excessive heat, cold, pressure, etc.). The human health impact from occupational hazards was
not discussed in the 1996 LR GEIS but was considered in the 2013 LR GEIS (Section 3.9.5).
The physical hazards to workers were evaluated by comparing the rate of fatal injuries and
nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses in the utility sector with the rate in all industries
combined (see Chapter 3, Section 3.9 of this LR GEIS). The workers and general public located
at or around nuclear power plants and along the transmission lines are exposed to the potential
for acute electrical shock from transmission lines. The shock hazard was evaluated by referring
to the National Electric Safety Code.
G.9.2
Description of Impact Assessment
Sources of information about radiological and nonradiological hazards to human health were
included in the 1996 LR GEIS and 2013 LR GEIS and plant-specific supplements to the
LR GEIS. Potential impacts on human health were reviewed for new information through the
review of published literature related to power facility operation, SEISs for initial LR and SLR
reviews completed since development of the 2013 LR GEIS, and radiological monitoring reports
including environmental and occupational, as required by facility license.
The only minor change in this revision is under microbiological hazards to include discharge to
waters of the United States accessible to the public to ensure that both fresh and salt
waterbodies are reviewed for potential impacts from plant operation on microbiological hazards.
The microbiological organisms of concern for public and occupational health were also updated
based on SEISs for initial LR and SLR reviews completed since development of the 2013
LR GEIS updates to remove Salmonella and Shigella and add organisms that produce toxins
that affect human health (e.g., dinoflagellates [Karenia brevis] and blue-green algae).
G.10 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention
G.10.1
Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence
Similar to most industrial facilities, nuclear power plants and other fuel-cycle facilities generate
waste during their operation. The waste materials are often shipped offsite by truck, train, or in
some cases by barge, either for disposal or for processing. The wastes that are sent to a
processing facility may be reused or recycled or they may be sent to a disposal facility after
processing. The processing and handling that occur at the site of generation, including any
packaging and loading of the wastes onto conveyance vehicles for shipment offsite, are
considered part of the normal operations at that site, and the impacts associated with them are
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-30
Appendix G
assessed as part of the normal operational impacts. Impacts associated with transportation and
offsite processing and disposal are considered under the waste management impacts.
The primary resource affected by the disposal of waste materials is the land that is used for
disposal. This land is assumed to be an irreversibly and irretrievably committed resource. The
resources that are affected during processing and disposal of the wastes are similar to the
resources affected during operation of any nuclear fuel-cycle facility, including nuclear power
plants. As discussed in Chapter 4 of this LR GEIS, these resources include land use and visual
resources, air quality and noise, geology and soils, hydrology, ecology, historic and cultural
resources, socioeconomics, human health and safety, and environmental justice. During
transportation, the main resources affected are human health and safety, air quality and noise,
and socioeconomics. The impact assessment methodologies and the ROIs for these resource
areas are covered in other sections of this appendix.
G.10.2
Description of Impact Assessment
Historical data and experience were used to estimate the characteristics and quantities of
wastes generated at nuclear power plants. These values are discussed in the main body of this
document under waste management (see Chapter 3, Section 3.11 and Chapter 4, Section 4.11
of this LR GEIS). Table 4.14-1 in this LR GEIS was the main source for waste generation
numbers at other nuclear fuel-cycle facilities. The assessment of impacts associated with
transportation of waste materials to and from a nuclear power plant relied on the information
provided in Table 4.14-2, whereas the impacts of transportation among other nuclear fuel-cycle
facilities are addressed as part of Table 4.14-1 and discussed in Section 4.14.1. The impacts at
the offsite processing and disposal facilities are not explicitly evaluated in this document
because each of these facilities would be operated pursuant to a permit or license issued by
either a Federal or State agency. The impacts at those facilities would be addressed as part of
the permitting or licensing process for those facilities. All operations including disposal activities
at the disposal facilities would be within the bounds of analyses conducted to obtain the facility’s
permit or license. For example, the waste shipped to the disposal facility would have to meet
that facility’s waste acceptance criteria.
The issues associated with the availability of disposal facilities for low-level waste are discussed
in Chapter 4, Section 4.11.1.1 of this LR GEIS. Section 4.11.1.2 of this LR GEIS discusses the
onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the licensing term of a reactor. For all other waste
types, it is assumed that permitted processing and/or disposal facilities will be available when
needed. Historical evidence suggests that this assumption is valid.
Pollution prevention and waste minimization practices generally employed at the nuclear power
plant sites are discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.11.5 of this LR GEIS. These practices are
based on the requirements placed on the licensees by the NRC, EPA, or other Federal or State
agencies and the licensee’s own efforts to minimize the emissions to the environment and
minimize the quantities of wastes generated or sent offsite for treatment or disposal.
G.11 Alternative Energy Sources
To ensure that the analysis of replacement power alternatives focused only on realistic options,
the NRC staff used data published by the DOE’s Energy Information Administration to identify
the current and projected contributions made to the commercial electric power sector by various
fossil fuel, new nuclear, and renewable energy technologies. The staff reviewed Federal and
State regulations, as well as applicable information from Federal and State regulatory agencies
G-31
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
and State coalitions, to identify current and anticipated energy trends and environmental
externalities that would most likely also influence alternative energy technology selections. As a
result of these reviews, staff identified three fossil fuel energy technologies, two nuclear energy
technologies, and seven renewable energy technologies as possible alternatives for replacing
the existing generating capacity of a retiring nuclear reactor.
In addition, the NRC staff considered three non-power generating approaches for offsetting,
rather than replacing, existing generating capacity. Alternatives include energy efficiency and
demand response measures (collectively, part of a range of demand-side management
measures), delayed retirement of existing non-nuclear plants, and purchased power from other
electricity generators within or outside of a region.
The environmental consequence analyses for the fossil fuel, new nuclear, and renewable
energy technologies identified as possible alternatives are summarized in Chapter 2 and further
described in Appendix D and are based on data from a variety of sources. Engineering and
environmental performance data for fossil fuel technologies were obtained from reports
published by DOE’s Energy Information Administration, National Energy Technology
Laboratory, and the EPA. Published environmental impact statements, regulatory guidance,
early site permit applications, and public information provided by reactor developers provided
the basis for the environmental consequence analysis of the nuclear energy alternatives.
Reports and technology overviews published by DOE’s Energy Information Administration,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, along with the Department of Interior’s United States Geographic Survey and
Bureau of Land Management, served as the principal sources of data about the environmental
impacts of the selected renewable energy technologies. Additional data regarding the
environmental consequences of renewable energy technologies were obtained from
environmental impact statements published by Federal and State agencies and from other
sources within the open literature.
G.12 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
G.12.1
Description of Affected Resources
Gases found in the Earth’s atmosphere that trap heat and play a role in the Earth’s climate are
collectively termed greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Earth’s climate responds to changes in the
concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere because these gases affect the amount of energy
absorbed and heat trapped by the atmosphere. Increasing concentrations of these gases in the
atmosphere generally increase the Earth’s surface temperature. Carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases (termed long-lived GHGs) are well mixed throughout the
Earth’s atmosphere, and their impact on climate is long lasting and cumulative in nature as a
result of their long atmospheric lifetime (EPA 2016). Therefore, the extent and nature of climate
change are not specific to where GHGs are emitted, and the impact of a GHG emission source
on climate is global. Operations at nuclear power plants release GHG emissions from stationary
combustion sources (e.g., diesel generators, pumps, diesel engines, boilers), refrigeration
systems, electrical transmission and distribution systems, and mobile sources (worker vehicles
and delivery vehicles). In 2020, U.S. gross GHG emissions totaled 6,692 million tons
(5,981 million MT) of CO2eq (EPA 2022). In 2020, the total amount of CO2eq emissions related
to fossil fuel electricity generation was 1,586 million tons (1,439 million MT) (EPA 2022). As
noted by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (88 FR 1196), while the effects of GHG
emissions are global and broad, a global or national-level ROI assessment is not beneficial in
determining the GHG emission impacts on climate change. GHG emissions of a proposed
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-32
Appendix G
action would represent a very small percentage of global or national GHG emissions. Therefore,
the NRC defines the ROI for GHG emissions to not be greater than the county where the
nuclear power plant is located, and the quantified GHG emissions from license renewal
(whether initial LR or SLR) should be considered within context of quantified GHG emissions
from operations of alternative energy sources.
Climate change and its impacts on resources can vary regionally. Observed climate change
indicators and resource impacts have not been uniform across the United States, and climate
model projections indicate that changes in climate will differ across the United States. To
provide localized information, the United States Global Change Research Program’s Annual
Climate Assessments (USGCRP 2014, USGCRP 2018) describe observed and projected
changes in climate by U.S. geographic regions: Northeast, Southeast, Caribbean, Midwest,
Northern Great Plains, Southern Great Plains, Northwest, Southwest, Midwest, Alaska, Hawaii,
and U.S. Pacific Islands. Therefore, the NRC defines the ROI for climate change impacts on
environmental resources as the United States Global Change Research Program region where
the power plant is located. The discussions below provide a summary of the observed climate
changes by the contiguous U.S. region, with a focus on regions in which operating nuclear
power plants are located.
G.12.1.1 Northeast
In the Northeast region of the United States, average annual air temperatures increased by
1.98°F (1.1°C) between 1895 and 2011 (USGCRP 2014). This observed warming has not been
uniform; average temperatures increased less than 1°F (0.6°C) in West Virginia and 3°F (1.6°C)
or more across New England (USGCRP 2018). The frost-free season has increased by 10 days
across the Northeast during the 1986 to 2015 timeframe relative to 1901 to 1960 timeframe
(USGCRP 2017). Between 1958 and 2016, the Northeast experienced a 55 percent increase in
heavy precipitation events (i.e., the amount of annual precipitation falling in the heaviest
1 percent of events). This is the largest increase of any region in the United States (USGCRP
2018). Heavy precipitation events can lead to an increase in flooding because of greater runoff
(USGCRP 2014, USGCRP 2018). Since the 1920s, the magnitude of river flooding has been
increasing across the Northeast region by up to 12 percent per decade (USGCRP 2014). Sea
level rise along the Northeast coast has increased by 1 ft (0.3 m) since 1900, a rate that
exceeds the global average of 8 in. (20 cm) (USGCRP 2014). From 1982 to 2006, sea surface
temperatures in coastal waters of the Northeast warmed at almost twice the global rate of
warming during this period (USGCRP 2014). Surface ocean temperatures in the Northeast have
warmed faster than 99 percent of the global ocean since 2004, and a peak temperature in 2012
was part of a large “ocean heat wave” in the northwest Atlantic that persisted for nearly
18 months (USGCRP 2017). In the Indian Point initial LR SEIS, the NRC staff noted a sea level
rise along the New York State coastline of 1.2 in. (3 cm) per decade since 1900 and a long-term
warming trend in the Hudson River Estuary of 0.027°F (0.015°C) per year over the course of
63 years (1946 to 2008) (NRC 2018c). As discussed in the Indian Point and Seabrook license
renewal SEISs, warming sea temperatures have shifted the distribution and abundance of
aquatic species northward (NRC 2018c, NRC 2015).
G.12.1.2 Southeast
In the Southeast, ambient air temperature increases have generally been uneven across the
region. It is one of the few regions in the world where there has not been an overall increase in
surface temperatures (NOAA 2013a; USGCRP 2018). The overall lack of long-term warming in
the Southeast has been termed “the warming hole” (NOAA 2013a, NOAA 2013b; USGCRP
G-33
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
2017; Partridge et al. 2018). Nonetheless, since the 1970s, average annual temperatures have
steadily increased across the Southeast and have been accompanied by an increase in the
number of hot days with maximum temperatures above 95°F (35°C) in the daytime and above
75°F (23.9°C) in the nighttime (NOAA 2013a; USGCRP 2009, USGCRP 2014, USGCRP 2018).
Annual average temperatures have warmed by 0.46°F (0.28°C) between 1986–2016 (relative to
1901–1960) (USGCRP 2014, USGCRP 2017). The average annual number of hot days
observed since the 1960s remains lower than the average number during the first half of the
20th century. In contrast, the number of warm nights above 75°F (23.9°C) has doubled on
average in the Southeast region compared to the first half of the 20th century (USGCRP 2018).
Average annual precipitation data for the Southeast region do not exhibit an increasing or
decreasing trend overall for the long-term period (1895–2011) (NOAA 2013b). Precipitation in
the Southeast region varies considerably throughout the seasons, and average precipitation has
generally increased in the fall and decreased in the summer (NOAA 2013b; USGCRP 2009).
Across parts of the Southeast region, decreases in annual average precipitation of up to
10 percent have occurred over the period 1986–2015 (relative to 1901–1960 for the contiguous
United States) (USGCRP 2018). Between 1958 and 2016, heavy precipitation (i.e., the amount
of annual precipitation falling in the heaviest 1 percent of events) has increased by an average
of 27 percent across the Southeast region (USGCRP 2018).
Plant-specific environmental reviews of initial LR and SLR applications considered localized
observed changes in sea level rise. The variability of sea level rise along U.S. coasts becomes
apparent when comparing data presented in the NRC’s license renewal SEISs. For instance, in
the Waterford initial LR SEIS, the NRC noted that the relative sea level along the Louisiana
coast increased by more than 8 in. (20 cm) between 1960 and 2015 (NRC 2018d). Sea level
rise in coastal Louisiana is partially driven by land subsidence, both as a result of natural and
anthropogenic processes (Jones et al. 2016). The Turkey Point SLR SEIS found that the
relative sea level rise trend at Miami, Florida, is 0.09 in/yr (0.24 cm/yr), or about 9 in. (23 cm)
per century (NRC 2019d). The Surry SLR SEIS found that the relative sea level rise trend at
Sewells Point, Virginia, near the mouth of the James River, is 0.18 in./yr (0.46 cm/yr), or about
18 in. (46 cm) per century (NRC 2020). Sea level rise is causing an increase in the frequency of
high tide flood events in coastal areas of the Southeast region and saline water migrating
upstream in estuaries (USGCRP 2018).
G.12.1.3 Midwest
Across the Midwest region, the annual average temperature from 1905–2012 has warmed by
1.5°F (0.5°C) (USGCRP 2014). The rate of warming over recent decades has accelerated, with
average temperatures increasing twice as quickly between 1950 and 2010 relative to
1900–2010 (USGCRP 2014; NOAA 2013c). The frost-free season has increased by 9 days
across the Midwest during the 1986 to 2015 timeframe relative to the 1901 to 1960 timeframe
(USGCRP 2017). Precipitation in the Midwest from 1895–2011 has increased 0.31 in. (0.78 cm)
per decade (NOAA 2013c). The Great Lakes have experienced increases in surface
temperatures, declining lake ice cover, increasing summer evaporation rates, and earlier
seasonal stratification of temperatures (USGCRP 2018). For instance, the NRC noted in the
Point Beach SLR SEIS that for the 1995–2019 period, the average rate of warming in Lake
Michigan has been 0.56–0.72°F (0.31–0.40°C), with the greatest warming occurring in October
(NRC 2021a). In the Fermi initial LR SEIS, the NRC staff obtained modeled monthly Lake Erie
surface water temperatures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great
Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. For the 1950 to 2012 period, Lake Erie annual
surface water temperatures increased at a rate of 0.067°F (0.037°C) per decade (NRC 2016).
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-34
Appendix G
G.12.1.4 Northern Great Plains
Temperature data for the northern Great Plains region between 1986–2016 exhibit an increase
of 1.69°F (0.95°C) (USGCRP 2017). The frost-free season has increased by 11 days across the
northern Great Plains during the 1986 to 2015 timeframe relative to the 1901 to 1960 timeframe
(USGCRP 2017). Annual precipitation between 1986–2015 showed differences featuring a
general mixture of decreases in the western portion of the region and increases in the eastern
portion of the region. Between 1958 and 2016, the northern Great Plains experienced a
29 percent increase in heavy precipitation events (USGCRP 2018).
G.12.1.5 Southern Great Plains
Temperature data for the southern Great Plains region between 1986–2016 exhibit an increase
of 1.61°F (0.9°C) (USGCRP 2017). Long-term (1895 to 2012) average annual precipitation data
for the southern Great Plains also exhibit an increasing trend. Since 1991, precipitation has
increased by 8 percent in the southern Great Plains. Between 1958 and 2016, heavy
precipitation events have increased by 12 percent (USGCRP 2014, USGCRP 2018). The
frost-free season has increased by 7 days across the southern Great Plains during the 1986 to
2015 timeframe relative to the 1901 to 1960 timeframe (USGCRP 2017). Sea level rise along
the Texas Gulf Coast is twice that of the global average (USGCRP 2018). The Gulf Coast of
Texas has experienced several record-breaking floods and tropical cyclones, including
Hurricane Harvey (USGCRP 2018).
G.12.1.6 Northwest
The Northwest region has warmed significantly. Temperature data for the Northwest region
since 1900 exhibit an increase of 2°F (1.1°C) (USGCRP 2018). Warmer winters have resulted in
a reduction in mountain snowpack and river streamflow. For instance, since 1950, the
area-averaged snowpack in the Cascade Mountains has decreased by approximately
20 percent. The frost-free season has increased by 17 days across the Northwest during the
1986 to 2015 timeframe relative to the 1901–1960 timeframe (USGCRP 2017).
Precipitation has generally increased, but the trends are small compared to natural variability
(USGCRP 2014). Between 1958 and 2016, the Northwest experienced an 8 percent increase in
heavy precipitation events. This is the smallest increase of any region in the United States
(USGCRP 2018). An increase in coastal and river water temperatures has been observed.
Surface ocean temperatures along the Northwest coast have increased by 1.2°F (0.64°C) from
1900 to 2016 (USGCRP 2017). In July 2015, water temperature in the lower Columbia River
and tributaries was higher than any year on record (USGCRP 2018). As noted in the Columbia
initial LR SEIS, warmer water temperatures combined with less snowpack and lower stream
flows have changed the balance of aquatic resources in the Columbia River Basin (NRC 2012).
The 2015 record temperatures led to a high rate of mortality for endangered sockeye and
threatened Chinook in the Columbia River (USGCRP 2018).
G-35
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
G.12.1.7 Southwest
Across the Southwest region, annual average temperature between 1901 and 2016 has
warmed by 1.6°F (0.9°C) (USGCRP 2017). Temperatures have increased across the entire
region from 1901 to 2016, with the greatest increases occurring in California and western
Colorado. Increased temperatures have decreased the snowpack and its water content and
ultimately the water cycle across this region. The frost-free season increased by 17 days across
the Southwest during the 1986 to 2015 timeframe relative to the 1901–1960 timeframe
(USGCRP 2017).
While temperature increases have been relatively uniform throughout the region, that has not
been the case for precipitation. For instance, precipitation since 1991 (relative to 1901–1960)
increased across western California, but decreased in Arizona (USGCRP 2014). Unlike other
regions of the United States, a trend in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in the
Southwest is not evident (NOAA 2013d; USGCRP 2014). The Southwest region experienced
the wettest conditions in the 1980s and 1990s, which coincide with El Niño-Southern Oscillation
events (NOAA 2013d). El Niño-Southern Oscillation events involve periodic warming in sea
surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean that influence global and
regional precipitation and are typically associated with heavy rainfall in the Southwest
(USGCRP 2014). Over the last 50 years, there have been reductions in snowpack as a result
of higher temperatures causing a shift from snow to rain, with early springtime warming resulting
in earlier snowmelt-fed streamflow and less runoff throughout the summer season
(USGCRP 2014; Thorne et al. 2012). Surface ocean temperatures along the Southwest coast
have increased by 1.3°F (0.73°C) per century from 1900 to 2016 (USGCRP 2017). Sea level
fluctuations along the California coast vary and result from a combination of factors, including
tides, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, and coastal winds (Bromirski et al. 2012). At the Golden
Gate Bridge in San Francisco, sea level rose 9 in. (22 cm) between 1854 and 2016, and in
San Diego, sea level rose 9.5 in. (24 cm) from 1906 to 2016 (USGCRP 2018).
G.12.2
Description of Impact Assessment
GHG emissions associated with nuclear power plant operations and climate change impacts on
environmental resources were not identified as either generic or plant-specific issues in the
2013 LR GEIS. GHGs and climate change impacts were identified and evaluated through the
NRC staff’s review of initial LR and SLR SEISs completed since development of the
2013 LR GEIS, U.S. Global Climate Change Program National Climate Assessment reports,
and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports.
To analyze GHG emissions and impacts on climate change, the NRC compiled direct and
indirect GHG emissions from operations at nuclear power plants presented in initial LR and SLR
SEISs. The contribution to GHG emissions during the license renewal term serves as a proxy
when assessing the impact from continued power plant operation on climate change. Observed
changes in climate by U.S. geographic region were summarized from various climate change
reports, including the U.S. Global Climate Change Program, EPA climate indicator, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. To
analyze climate change impacts on environmental resources, the NRC summarized and
compared differences in projected climate change effects across the United States and the
associated impacts on environmental resources areas (e.g., land use, air quality, water
resources, etc.) that could also be affected by the continued operation of nuclear power plants
as assessed in initial LR and SLR SEISs.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-36
Appendix G
G.13 References
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.”
36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property,
Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.”
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 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190,
“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”
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.
86 FR 45923. August 17, 2021. “Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection
Against Radiation.” Petition for Rulemaking; Denial, Federal Register, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
88 FR 1196. January 9, 2023. “National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change.” Notice of interim guidance; request for
comments, Federal Register, Council on Environmental Quality.
Bromirski, P.D., D.R. Cayan, N. Graham, R.E. Flick, and M. Tyree. 2012. Coastal Flooding
Potential Projections: 2000-2100. CEC-500-2012-011, California Energy Commissions,
Sacramento, CA. Accessed April 27, 2023, at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8887j9br.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2022. “What Noises Cause Hearing Loss?”
Atlanta, GA. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html#:~:text=A%20w
hisper%20is%20about%2030,immediate%20harm%20to%20your%20ears.
CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 1997. Ecological Regions of North America,
Toward a Common Perspective. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Accessed April 24, 2023, at
http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/1701-ecological-regions-north-america-towardcommon-perspective-en.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.
G-37
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18019A904.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2002. A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to
Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota. DOE-STD-1153-2002, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML21140A436.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2004. RESRAD-BIOTA: A Tool for Implementing a Graded
Approach to Biota Dose Evaluation. ISCORS Technical Report 2004-02, Interagency Steering
Committee on Radiation Standards, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21140A412.
DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2017. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement
Policy and Guidance. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML13023A373.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Level III and IV Ecoregions of the
Continental United States. Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18023A341.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2016. Climate Change Indicators in the United
States 2016. Fourth Edition, EPA 430-R-16-004, Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/climate_indicators_2016.pdf.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2022. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2020. EPA 430-R-22-003. Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12,
2023, at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-04/us-ghg-inventory-2022-maintext.pdf.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2023. EPA History: Noise and the Noise Control
Act. Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12, 2023, at https://www.epa.gov/history/epa-historynoise-and-noise-control-act.
Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. Public Law No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10.
FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013, Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee,
Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.
Accessed April 24, 2023, at https://www.fgdc.gov/standards/projects/wetlands/nwcs-2013.
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2022. National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Data Layer.
Washington, D.C. Accessed May 5, 2022, at https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlandsinventory/wetlands-data.
IAEA/IUR (International Atomic Energy Agency & International Union of Radioecologists). 2020.
“Wildlife Transfer Parameter Database.” Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://www.wildlifetransferdatabase.org/mainpage.asp.
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2008a. “Environmental Protection – the Concept and Use of Reference Animals and Plants.” ICRP Publication 108, Annals of the
ICRP 38(4-6), Ottawa, Canada. Accessed May 12, 2023 at
https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=icrp%20publication%20108.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-38
Appendix G
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2008b. “Nuclear Decay Data for
Dosimetric Calculations.” ICRP Publication 107, Ann. ICRP 38(3):7-96, Ottawa, Canada.
Accessed April 24, 2023, at
https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20107.
ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection). 2017. “Dose Coefficients for Nonhuman Biota Environmentally Exposed to Radiation.” ICRP Publication 136, Ann. ICRP 46(2).
Ottawa, Canada. Accessed April 24, 2023, at
https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20136.
Marston, L., Y. Ao, M. Konar, M.M. Mekonnen, and A.Y. Hoekstra. 2018. High-Resolution Water
Footprints of Production of the United States. Water Resources Research 54:2288-2316,
American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR021923.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2015a. Economic Impacts of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 21, 2023, at https://www.nei.org/resources/reportsbriefs/economic-impacts-davis-besse-nuclear-powerstation#:~:text=Davis%2DBesse's%20operation%20results%20in,local%2C%20state%20and%
20federal%20governments.
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2015b. Economic Impacts of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power
Plant. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 21, 2023, at
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/green1/docs/nei-feb15.pdf.
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2015c. The Economic Benefits of Texas’ Nuclear Power Plants.
Washington, D.C. Accessed April 21, 2023, at https://silo.tips/download/the-economic-benefitsof-texas-nuclear-power-plants.
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2018. Economic Impacts of the Cooper Nuclear Station an
Analysis by the Nuclear Energy Institute. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 21, 2023, at
https://www.nei.org/resources/reports-briefs/%E2%80%8Beconomic-impacts-of-the-coopernuclear-station.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013a. Regional Climate Trends
and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 2. Climate of the Southeast U.S.
Technical Report NESDIS 142-2. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 24, 2023, at
https://scenarios.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/NOAA_NESDIS_Tech_Report_142-2Climate_of_the_Southeast_U.S_0.pdf.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013b. Regional Climate Trends
and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 9. Climate of the Contiguous
United States. Technical Report NESDIS 142-9. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 24, 2023, at
https://nesdis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/NOAA_NESDIS_Tech_Report_142-9Climate_of_the_Contiguous_United_States.pdf.
G-39
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013c. Regional Climate Trends
and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 3. Climate of the Midwest U.S.
Technical Report NESDIS 142-3. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 24, 2023, at
https://scenarios.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/NOAA_NESDIS_Tech_Report_142-3Climate_of_the_Midwest_U.S_0.pdf.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013d. Regional Climate Trends
and Scenarios for the U.S. National Climate Assessment, Part 5. Climate of the Southwest U.S.
Technical Report NESDIS 142-5. Washington, D.C. Accessed April 24, 2023, at
https://scenarios.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/NOAA_NESDIS_Tech_Report_142-5Climate_of_the_Southwest_U.S_0.pdf.
Noise Control Act of 1972. 42 U.S.C. § 4901 et seq.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1991a. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Pressurized Water Reactors (Generic
Letter 89-01, Supplement No. 1). NUREG-1301, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML091050061.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1991b. Offsite Dose Calculation Manual
Guidance: Standard Radiological Effluent Controls for Boiling Water Reactors (Generic Letter
89-01, Supplement No. 1). NUREG-1302, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML091050059.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1994. Letter from I. Selin to The President dated
March 31, 1994, regarding “…Executive Order 12898 and the accompanying Memorandum For
the Heads of all Departments and Agencies…” Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML033210526.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705, ML040690738.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from D. Morey, Chief, to A. Javorik,
Vice President, dated April 6, 2012, regarding “Notice of Availability of the Final Plant-Specific
Supplement 47, Volume 1 and 2, to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Columbia Generating Station (TAC No. ME3121).”
Washington, D.C. ADAMS Package Accession No. ML12097A267.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Package Accession No. ML13107A023.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2015. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 46: Regarding Seabrook Station, Final
Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 46, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
Nos. ML15209A575, ML15209A870.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-40
Appendix G
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2016. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 56: Regarding Fermi 2 Nuclear Power
Plant, Final Report, Chapter 1 to 8. NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML16259A103.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 58: Regarding River Bend Station, Unit 1
Final. NUREG-1437, Supplement 58, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18310A072.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 59: Regarding Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3, Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 59, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML18323A103.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 38: Regarding Indian Point Nuclear
Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Final. NUREG-1437, Supplement 38, Volume 5, Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML18107A759.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2018d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 59: Regarding Waterford Steam Electric
Station, Unit 3. Final Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 59, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML18323A103.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019a. 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, Draft
Report for Comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 10, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C.
ADAMS Accession No. ML19210D453.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 5, Second Renewal: Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 3 and 4.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 5, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML19290H346.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019c. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 6, Second Renewal: Regarding Subsequent
License Renewal for Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment. NUREG1437, Supplement 6, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML19274C676.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2019d. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 5, Second Renewal: Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Unit Nos. 3 and 4, Final
Report. NUREG-1437, Supplement 5, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession
No. ML19290H346.
G-41
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix G
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 6, Second Renewal: Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG1437, Supplement 6, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML20071D538.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23: Second Renewal Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for
Comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 23, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML21306A226.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2021b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7, Second Renewal: Regarding
Subsequent License Renewal for North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for
Comment. NUREG-1437, Supplement 7, Second Renewal, Washington, D.C. ADAMS
Accession No. ML21228A084.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2022. 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. ML22276A269.
OSU (Oregon State University). 2022. “PRISM Climate Data.” PRISM Climate Group, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, OR. Accessed July 24, 2023, at https://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/.
Partridge, T.F., J.M. Winter, E.C. Osterberg, D.W. Hyndman, A.D. Kendall, and F.J. Magilligan.
2018. “Spatially Distinct Seasonal Patterns and Forcings of the U.S. Warming Hole.”
Geophysical Research Letters 45(4):2055–2063. DOI: 10.1002/2017GL076463. Washington,
D.C. Accessed May 17, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076463.
RESRAD (RESRAD Family of Codes). 2016. “RESRAD-BIOTA.” Version 1.8, Argonne National
Laboratory, Lemont, IL. Accessed October 16, 2023, at https://resrad.evs.anl.gov/codes/resradbiota/.
Smith, J. 1999. “Zapus hudsonius Meadow Jumping Mouse.” Animal Diversity Web, Ann Arbor,
MI. Accessed May 12, 2023, at https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Zapus_hudsonius/.
Thorne, J.H., R. Boynton, L. Flint, A. Flint, and T. N’goc Le. 2012. Development and Application
of Downscale Hydroclimatic Predictor Variable for Use in Climate Vulnerability and Assessment
Studies. CEC-500-2012-010. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. Accessed May
11, 2023, at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/160016sh.
USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2023a. American Community Survey; Ratio of Income to Poverty
Level in the Past 12 Months, Table B17002. Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=b17002.
USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 2023b. American Community Survey; Ratio of Income to Poverty
Level in the Past 12 Months, Table C17002. Washington, D.C. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=c17002.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
G-42
Appendix G
USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in
the United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (editors). Cambridge University
Press, New York, NY. ADAMS Accession No. ML100580077.
USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the
United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. J.M. Melillo, T.C. Richmond, and G.W.
Yohe (eds.). U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML14129A233.
USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2017. Climate Science Special Report:
Fourth National Climate Assessment. Volume I. D.J. Wuebbles, D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J.
Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.). Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No.
ML19008A410. DOI: 10.7930/J0J964J6.
USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2018. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in
the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment. Volume II. D.R. Reidmiller, C.W. Avery,
D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.). Washington,
D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19008A414.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2019a. “Withdrawal and Consumption of Water by
Thermoelectric Power Plants in the United States, 2015.” M.A. Harris and T.H. Diehl (eds).
Scientific Investigations Report 2019–5103, Reston, VA. Accessed May 12, 2023, at
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2019/5103/sir20195103.pdf.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2019b. “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.
Wiken, E., F. Jiménez Nava, and G. Griffith. 2011. North American Terrestrial Ecoregions-Level
III. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Montreal, Canada. Accessed May 12, 2023 at
http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/10415-north-american-terrestrial-ecoregionslevel-iiien.pdf.
G-43
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
APPENDIX H
–
LIST OF PREPARERS
APPENDIX H
–
LIST OF PREPARERS
This revision of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS) was prepared by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff in
the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (see Table H-1) with assistance from other
NRC organizations, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Table H-2).
Table H-1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Preparers
Name
Education/Expertise
Contribution
Beth Alferink
M.S., Environmental Engineering;
M.S., Nuclear Engineering;
B.S., Nuclear Engineering; 27 years of national
laboratory, industry, and government experience
including radiation detection and measurements,
nuclear power plant emergency response,
operations, health physics, decommissioning,
shielding and criticality
Human Health; Waste
Management;
Decommissioning
Briana Arlene
Masters Certification, National Environmental
Policy Act;
B.S., Conservation Biology; 18 years of
experience in ecological impact analysis,
Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations,
and Essential Fish Habitat consultations
Aquatic Resources;
Terrestrial Resources;
Federally Protected
Ecological Resources
Phyllis Clark
M.S., Nuclear Engineering;
M.B.A., Business Administration;
B.S., Physics; over 40 years of industry and
government experience including nuclear power
plant and production reactor operations, systems
engineering, reactor engineering, fuels
engineering, criticality analysis, safety analysis,
nuclear power plant emergency response, and
project management
Waste Management;
Uranium Fuel Cycle;
Human Health
Jennifer Davis
B.A., Historic Preservation and Classical
Civilization (Archaeology); 5 years of
archaeological fieldwork; 22 years of experience
in NEPA compliance, project management,
cultural resources impact analysis, and National
Historic Preservation Act Section 106
consultations
Project Manager; Historic
and Cultural Resources
Jerry Dozier
M.S., Reliability Engineering;
M.B.A., Business Administration;
B.S., Mechanical Engineering; 32 years of
experience including operations, reliability
engineering, technical reviews, and NRC branch
management
Postulated Accidents;
Severe Accident
Mitigation Alternatives
H-1
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix H
Name
Education/Expertise
Contribution
Kevin Folk
M.S., Environmental Biology;
B.A., Geoenvironmental Studies; 35 years of
experience in NEPA compliance; geologic,
hydrologic, and water quality impacts analysis;
utility infrastructure analysis, environmental
regulatory compliance; and water supply and
wastewater discharge permitting
Project Manager;
Geologic Environment;
Water Resources;
Cumulative Effects;
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Climate
Change
Lifeng Guo
Ph.D., M.S., Geology;
B.S., Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology;
Certified Professional Geologist; over 30 years of
combined experience in hydrogeologic
investigation, remediation, and research
Water Resources
Bob Hoffman
B.S., Environmental Resource Management;
37 years of experience in NEPA compliance,
environmental impact assessment, alternatives
identification and development, and energy
facility siting
Alternatives;
Meteorology, Air Quality,
and Noise; Historic and
Cultural Resources
Nancy Martinez
A.M., Earth and Planetary Science;
B.S., Earth and Environmental Science; 11 years
of experience in environmental impact analysis
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Climate
Change; Meteorology, Air
Quality, and Noise;
Socioeconomic
Resources;
Environmental Justice;
Water Resources
Don Palmrose
Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering;
M.S., Nuclear Engineering;
B.S., Nuclear Engineering; 37 years of
experience including operations on U.S. Navy
nuclear powered surface ships, technical safety
and NEPA analyses, nuclear authorization basis
support for DOE, and NRC project management
Uranium Fuel Cycle;
Postulated Accidents;
Severe Accident
Mitigation Alternatives;
Human Health
Jeffrey Rikhoff
M.R.P., Regional Environmental Planning;
M.S., Development Economics;
B.A., English; 44 years of combined industry and
Government experience in NEPA compliance for
DOE Defense Programs/NNSA and Nuclear
Energy, DoD, and DOI; project management;
socioeconomics and environmental justice
impact analysis, historic and cultural resource
impact assessments, consultation with American
Indian tribes, and comprehensive land-use and
development planning studies
Land Use;
Socioeconomics;
Environmental Justice;
Alternatives; Cumulative
Effects; Termination of
Reactor Operations and
Decommissioning
A.M. or M.A. = Master of Arts; B.A. = Bachelor of Arts; B.S. = Bachelor of Science; DoD = U.S. Department of
Defense; DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; DOI = U.S. Department of Interior; M.B.A. = Master of Business
Administration; M.R.P. = Master of Regional Planning; M.S. = Master of Science; NEPA = National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969; NNSA = National Nuclear Security Administration; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Ph.D. = Doctor of Philosophy.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
H-2
Appendix H
Table H-2 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory(a) Preparers
Name
Education/Expertise
Contribution
Dave Anderson
M.S., Forest Economics;
B.S., Forest Resources; 27 years of experience
in NEPA compliance, socioeconomics, and
environmental justice impact analysis
Socioeconomic
Resources;
Environmental Justice
Teresa Carlon
B.S., Information Technology; 27 years
SharePoint Administrator and database
experience
Reference Coordinator
Garill Coles
B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 32 years of
nuclear safety analysis, Probabilistic Risk
Assessment, risk research, and review of riskinformed applications for NRC
Postulated Accidents;
Severe Accident
Mitigation Alternatives
Caitlin Condon
Ph.D., Radiation Health Physics;
B.S., Environmental Health and Industrial
Hygiene; 5 years of experience in NEPA
compliance in human health, waste
management/fuel cycle, and decommissioning
Human Health; Waste
Management/Fuel Cycle;
Decommissioning
Susan Ennor(b)
B.J., Journalism; more than 40 years of
experience in full-spectrum communications and
document production services
Document production,
technical
editing/formatting
Julia Flaherty
M.S., Environmental Engineering;
B.S., Civil Engineering; 19 years of experience in
boundary layer meteorology, emergency
response, project management, and NEPA
Meteorology, Air Quality,
and Noise
Harish Gadey(b)
Ph.D., Nuclear Engineering (Health Physics
Minor);
M.S., Nuclear Engineering;
B.S., Mechanical Engineering; 8 years of
experience in radiation detection, simulations,
and spent fuel analysis
Human Health; Waste
Management/Fuel Cycle;
Decommissioning
Dave Goodman
J.D., Law;
B.S., Economics; 14 years of experience in
NEPA compliance, land use and visual
resources, noise, and alternatives
Land Use and Visual
Resources; Noise;
Alternatives
Ellen Kennedy(b)
M.A., Anthropology;
B.A., Anthropology; 25 years of experience in
NEPA and NHPA Section 106 assessment and
consultation, and Tribal Nation engagement
Historic and Cultural
Resources
Kim Leigh
B.S., Environmental Science; 22 years of
experience in NEPA compliance, project
management, and human health
Deputy Team Lead;
Human Health
Hayley McClendon
B.S., Environmental Science; 1 year of
experience in NEPA compliance, 6 years of
experience in environmental regulatory
compliance
Reference Coordinator
H-3
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix H
Name
Education/Expertise
Contribution
Philip Meyer
Ph.D., Civil Engineering;
M.S., Civil Engineering;
B.A., Physics; 32 years of experience in the
application of hydrologic principles to the solution
of environmental and engineering problems,
including 15 years of NEPA experience in water,
soil, and geological resources impact evaluations
Groundwater Resources;
Geological Environment;
Cooling Water Systems
Ann Miracle
Ph.D., Molecular Genetics;
M.S., Population Genetics;
B.A., Biology; 14 years of experience in NEPA
compliance and 27 years in ecological resources
Ecological Resources
Sadie Montgomery
B.S., Mathematics; 14 years of experience in GIS
data processing, visualizations, and mapping
Geographic Information
Systems
Jon Napier
Ph.D. and M.S. in Radiation Health Physics;
B.S., Environmental Science; 5 years of
experience in Radiological Air Monitoring
Inspection and Licensing, 2 years of experience
in Occupational Health Physics, 1 year
experience in NEPA compliance, human health,
waste management/fuel cycle, and
decommissioning
Human Health; Waste
Management/Fuel Cycle;
Decommissioning
Tara O’Neil
M.B.A., Business Administration;
B.A., Anthropology; 32 years of experience in
project management, NEPA compliance,
environmental impact assessment, cultural
resource compliance, NHPA Section 106
consultation, Tribal engagement
Historic and Cultural
Resources; Program
Management
Mike Parker
B.S., English Literature and Creative Writing;
27 years of experience copyediting, document
design, and formatting, and 22 years of
experience in technical editing
Technical Editing
Rajiv Prasad
Ph.D., Civil and Environmental Engineering;
Master in Technology, Hydraulic and Water
Resources Engineering;
B.E., Civil Engineering; 27 years of experience in
applying hydrologic principles to water resources
engineering, hydrologic design, flooding
assessments, environmental engineering, and
impacts assessment including 17 years of
experience in NEPA environmental assessments
of surface water resources
Water Resources
Bo Saulsbury(b)
M.S., Planning;
B.A., History; 37 years of experience in NEPA
environmental assessment, land use,
socioeconomics, and alternatives
Alternatives
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
H-4
Appendix H
Name
Education/Expertise
Contribution
Kacoli Sen
Diploma in Environmental Law;
Ph.D., Cancer Biology;
M.S., Zoology (Ecology specialization);
B.S., Zoology; 3 years post-doctoral experience
in cancer nanotherapeutics; and 5 years of
editing experience
Document Production;
Technical
Editing/Formatting;
References
Steven Short
M.S., Nuclear Engineering;
M.B.A., Business Administration;
B.S., Nuclear Engineering; 40 years of
experience including nuclear safety analysis,
probabilistic risk assessment, technical reviews
of risk-informed license amendment requests
and severe accident mitigation alternative
analyses
Postulated Accidents;
Severe Accident
Mitigation Alternatives
Isaiah Steinke
Ph.D., Electrical Engineering;
M.S., Data Analytics;
B.S., Materials Science and Engineering; 10+
years of technical and scientific editing
Technical Editing
Kazi Tamaddun
Ph.D., Civil and Environmental Engineering;
M.B.A., Business Administration;
M.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering;
B.S., Civil Engineering; 10 years of experience in
hydrologic, hydraulic, ecosystem, and water
systems modeling; hydro-climatology; climate
change modeling and analysis
Water Resources
Kenneth Thomas
M.S., Mathematics;
B.S., Mathematics; 37 years of experience in
operations in Navy nuclear and conventional
powered surface ships, and teaching at Naval
Nuclear Power Training Command; training,
operations, and emergency preparedness at two
commercial nuclear power plants; nuclear reactor
licensing, policy and rulemaking at the NRC; and
emergency management policy at NNSA
Senior Advisor; Nuclear
power plant operations
and infrastructure
In Memoriam:
Matthew Urie
LL.M., Environmental Law;
J.D., Law;
B.A., Political Science; 40 years in the practice of
law, including litigation in State and Federal
courts; 35 years of experience in the practice of
environmental law with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the DOI, the
Department of Justice, and the DOE.
Team Lead
Katie Wagner
M.S., Biology;
B.S., Biology; 14 years of experience in project
management and aquatic ecology; 10 years of
experience in NEPA compliance and ecological
resources
Team Lead; Ecological
Resources
H-5
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix H
Name
Anita Waller
Education/Expertise
M.A., American Studies;
B.A., English; 20+ years of experience in
reference management, developmental and
copyediting, and document production.
Contribution
Technical Editing
A.M. or M.A. = Master of Arts; B.A. = Bachelor of Arts; B.J. = Bachelor of Journalism; B.S. = Bachelor of Science;
DOE = U.S. Department of Energy; DOI = U.S. Department of Interior; GIS = geographic information system;
J.D. = Juris Doctor; M.B.A. = Master of Business Administration; M.R.P. = Master of Regional Planning;
M.S. = Master of Science; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; NHPA = National Historic Preservation
Act; NNSA = National Nuclear Security Administration; NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Ph.D. = Doctor
of Philosophy.
(a) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is managed for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial
Institute.
(b) Staff formerly with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
H-6
APPENDIX I
–
DISTRIBUTION LIST
APPENDIX I
–
DISTRIBUTION LIST
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notified the individuals and/or organizations
listed below (where contact information was provided by the individuals or organizations) of the
issuance and availability of this revision of NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS). Notification was also provided to
individuals who submitted a generic campaign letter sponsored by the Nuclear Information and
Resource Service (see Accession Numbers ML23135A775, ML23135A776, ML23135A777, and
ML23135A779). The NRC will provide hard copies to interested individuals and organizations
upon request.
Paul Aitken
Dominion Energy (Dominion)
Richard Arnold
Tribal Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee
Ellery Baker
Dominion
Tony Banks
Dominion
Joseph Bashore
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Mavis Belisle
Dallas Peace and Justice Center
Reed Bilz
Member of the Public
Jana Bergman
Curtiss-Wright
Stephanie Bilenko
Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS)
Jan Boudart
NEIS
George Brozowski
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6
Andrew Burgess
Ameren Missouri
Lon Burnam
Citizens for Fair Utility Regulation
Chip Cameron
Prairie Island Indian Community (PIIC)
Jonathan Carson
Member of the Public
Rafael Casals
Town of Cutler Bay, FL
Daniel Cassiere
Member of the Public
Candice Chou
Kinectrics
LaVonne Cockerell
Member of the Public
Charlotte Collins
Member of the Public
Charlotte Connelly
Member of the Public
Glenn Corbin
Texas Department of State Health Services, Radiation Control
Program
Carolyn Croom
Member of the Public
Diane Curran
Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP
I-1
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix I
Cliff Custer
Preferred Licensing Services, Inc.
Michael Davis
NextEra Energy
Jim DeLano
Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Anthony Devoe
Member of the Public
Ted Evgeniadis
Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association
Geoffrey Fettus
Natural Resources Defense Council
Earl Fordham
Washington Department of Health, Office of Radiation Protection
Meshelle Francis
Member of the Public
Harrison Frankl
Member of the Public
Michael Gallagher
Member of the Public
Lloyd Generette
EPA, Region 4
Susybelle Gosslee
Member of the Public
Dan Green
TVA
Paul Gunter
Beyond Nuclear
Karen Hadden
Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition
Beki Halpin
Member of the Public
Laurie Hernandez
Tribal Radioactive Materials Transportation Committee
Jeremy Hutar
Member of the Public
Johnny Johnson
PIIC
Timothy Judson
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Glen Kaegi
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC
Arun Kapur
Duke Energy
Laurence Kirby
Member of the Public
Peter Kissinger
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
Elliott Korb
Radiant Industries, Inc.
David Kraft
NEIS
Nicci Lehto
PIIC
Anne Leidich
Pillsbury Winthrop Straw Pittman
Gary Lee
Member of the Public
Thomas Lentz
Energy Harbor
Tony Leshinskie
Vermont Public Service Department
Charles Lippert
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Department of Natural Resources
Brian Littleton
EPA
Leigh Lloveras
The Breakthrough Institute
Jeff Luse
Generation Atomic
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
I-2
Appendix I
Donald Macleod
Jensen Hughes
Beckie Maddox
Exelon
Brian Magnuson
Member of the Public
Matthew Marzano
Idaho National Laboratory
Lisa Matis
Tetra Tech
Janet Mattern
Member of the Public
Katrina Mcmurrian
Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition
Kristin Meek
Constellation Energy Generation (Constellation)
Alexandra McCleary
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, California
Kathy McCorry
South County Chambers of Commerce
Clif McReynolds
Member of the Public
Larry Nicholson
Certrec
Martin O’Neill
NEI
Masato Ono
NRA JAPAN
Richard Orthen
Member of the Public
Rebecca Ramsay
Member of the Public
Thomas Ray
Duke Energy
Bettina Rayfield
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Caroline Reiser
Natural Resources Defense Council
Laura Reynolds
Everglades Coalition
Elizabeth Riebschlaeger
Member of the Public
Bonnie Rippingille
Ocean Reef Community Association
Britsy Rizo
Member of the Public
Joseph Rustick
EPA
Maggie Sager
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Fisheries
Jay Santillan
EPA
Steven Schoedinger
Key Largo Utility Corporation
Daniel Schultheisz
EPA
Alberto Sifuentes
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Rachel Silverstein
Miami Waterkeeper
Stephen Sollom
Xcel Energy
Amanetta Somerville
EPA, Region 4
Lisa Spadafina
Miami-Dade County Division of Environmental Resources
Management
I-3
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix I
Allison Stalker
Constellation
Adam Stein
The Breakthrough Institute
Kevin Stewart
California Department of Public Health
Philip Stoddard
City of South Miami
Dianne Strand
Florida Power & Light Company
Akira Tanaka
Japan Electric Power Information Center USA (JEPIC-USA)
Kevin Taylor
AECOM
Brett Titus
NEI
Robert Tomiak
EPA, Office of Federal Activities
Jackie Toth
Good Energy Collective
Rachel Turney-Work
Enercon Services, Inc.
Jennifer Uhle
NEI
Steve Vance
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Heather Westra
PIIC
Jessica York
Loving Endeavors 3
Jason Zorn
Constellation
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
I-4
APPENDIX J
–
GLOSSARY
APPENDIX J
–
GLOSSARY
absorbed dose: The energy imparted by ionizing radiation per unit mass of tissue. The units of
absorbed dose are the rad and the gray (Gy).
acid: A solution with a potential of hydrogen (pH) measurement less than 7.
acid rain: Also called acid precipitation or acid deposition, acid rain is precipitation containing
harmful amounts of nitric and sulfuric acids formed from the smokestacks of coal and oil burning
power plants and from nitrogen oxides emitted by motor vehicles. It can be wet precipitation
(rain, snow, or fog) or dry precipitation (absorbed gaseous and particulate matter, aerosol
particles, or dust). The term pH is a measure of acidity or alkalinity and ranges from 0 to 14. A
pH measurement of 7 is regarded as neutral. Normal rain has a pH of about 5.6, which is
slightly acidic. Acid rain has a pH below 5.6.
activation products: Radionuclides produced from the interaction of radiation with matter.
Generally, it is the neutrons that interact with stable atoms and make them radioactive.
activity: The rate of disintegration (transformation) or decay of radioactive material. The units of
radioactivity are the curie (Ci) and the becquerel (Bq).
acute effects: Effects resulting from short-term exposure to relatively high levels of a stressing
factor (e.g., contaminant, disease, electromagnetic field, noise, and radionuclides) over long
periods.
acute radiation exposure: A single accidental exposure to high doses of radiation for a short
period of time, which may produce biological effects within a short time after exposure.
adverse environmental impacts: Impacts that are determined to be harmful to the
environment.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP): Established by the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, the ACHP is an independent Federal agency that promotes the
preservation, enhancement, and productive use of the nation's historic resources and advises
the President and the Congress on national historic preservation policy. The agency provides
guidance on the application of Federal law concerning cultural resources and serves as an
arbiter when disputes arise.
aerobic: Requiring the presence of oxygen to support life.
air quality: Assessment of the health-related and visual characteristics of the air often derived
from quantitative measurements of the concentrations of specific injurious or contaminating
substances. Air quality standards are the prescribed levels of substances in the outside air that
cannot be exceeded during a specific time in a specified area.
ALARA: Acronym for “as low as (is) reasonably achievable.” This means making every
reasonable effort to maintain exposures to ionizing radiation as far below the dose limits as
J-1
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
practical, consistent with the purpose for which the licensed activity is undertaken, taking into
account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to state of
technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and
safety, and other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and in relation to utilization of
nuclear energy and licensed materials in the public interest (see 10 CFR 20.1003).
alkalinity: The capacity of water to neutralize acids; a property imparted by the water's content
of carbonate, bicarbonate, hydroxide, and on occasion borate, silicate, and phosphate.
alluvial: Refers to soil or unconsolidated sediment that has been deposited by running water,
as in a riverbed, floodplain, or delta.
alluvial aquifer: An aquifer composed of alluvial sediments, generally located in a river valley.
alternatives to the proposed action considered in the license renewal generic
environmental impact statement (LR GEIS): (1) Not renewing the operating licenses of
commercial nuclear power plants (i.e., the no action alternative, which is the only alternative to
the proposed action that is within the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s [NRC’s]
decision-making authority); (2) replacing existing nuclear generating capacity with other energy
sources (including fossil fuel, new nuclear, and renewable energy); (3) offsetting existing
nuclear generation capacity by using demand-side management (conservation), delayed
retirement, or purchased power.
ambient air: The surrounding atmosphere as it exists around people, plants, and structures.
ambient noise level: The level of acoustic noise at a given location, such as in a room or
outdoors, that is representative of typical conditions unaffected by human activities.
ambient water temperature: The water temperature in a waterbody that is representative of
typical conditions unaffected by human activities (e.g., the temperature of the surface waterbody
away from the thermal effluent).
anadromous: Pertaining to fish that spend a part of their life cycle in the sea and return to
freshwater streams to spawn; for example, salmon, steelhead, and shad.
annual dose: Dose received in one year.
anoxic: Absence of oxygen. Usually used in reference to an aquatic habitat when the water
becomes completely depleted of oxygen and results in the death of any organism that requires
oxygen for survival.
anthropogenic: Made or generated by a human or caused by human activity.
aquatic biota: Consisting of, related to, or being in water; living or growing in, or near the water.
An organism that lives in, on, or near the water.
aquifer: An underground layer of permeable, unconsolidated sediments or porous or fractured
bedrock that yields usable quantities of water to a well or spring.
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979: Requires Federal permitting for
excavation or removal of archaeological resources from public or Native American lands.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-2
Appendix J
area of potential effects (APE): The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking
may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any
such properties exist. The license renewal (LR) (initial LR or subsequent LR [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 (see also 36 FR 800.16(d)).
Atomic Energy Act (AEA): The AEA of 1954 is a United States Federal law that is, according
to the NRC, “the fundamental U.S. law on both the civilian and the military uses of nuclear
materials.” It covers the laws for the “development and the regulation of the uses of nuclear
materials and facilities in the United States.” It was an amendment to the AEA of 1946 and
substantially refined certain aspects of the law, including increased support for the possibility of
a civilian nuclear industry.
attainment: An area is deemed in attainment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) when the air quality is monitored and the resultant concentrations are found to be
consistently below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Areas can be in
attainment for some pollutants, while designated as nonattainment for others. Some areas are
designated as “maintenance” areas. These are regions that were initially designated as
attainment or unclassifiable and have since attained compliance with the NAAQS.
attenuation: The reduction or lessening in amount, such as in the concentration or effects of a
pollutant.
auxiliary buildings: Auxiliary buildings house support systems, such as the ventilation system,
emergency core cooling system, laundry facilities, water treatment system, and waste treatment
system. An auxiliary building may also contain the emergency diesel generators and, in some
pressurized water reactors (PWRs), the fuel storage facility. The facility’s control room is often
located in the auxiliary building.
avian: Of, related to, or characteristic of birds.
background radiation: Radiation from cosmic sources; naturally occurring radioactive material,
including radon (except as a decay product of source or special nuclear material); and global
fallout as it exists in the environment from the testing of nuclear explosive devices or from past
nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl. Background radiation does not include radiation from
sources, by-products, or special nuclear materials regulated by the Commission.
baseline: A quantitative expression of conditions, costs, schedule, or technical progress that
constitutes the standard against which to measure the performance of an effort. For National
Environmental Policy Act evaluations, baseline is defined as the existing environmental
conditions against which impacts of the proposed action and its alternatives can be compared.
The environmental baseline is the site environmental conditions as they exist or are estimated
to exist in the absence of the proposed action.
becquerel: The unit of radioactive decay equal to 1 disintegration per second. 37 billion
(3.7 1010) becquerels = 1 curie.
J-3
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
BEIR reports: Series of reports issued by the National Research Council to advise the Federal
government on the relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and human health. BEIR
stands for Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation.
benthic: Of, related to, or occurring at the bottom of a body of water.
Best Available Control Technology (BACT): A pollution control standard created by the EPA
that is used to determine what air pollution control technology will be used to control a specific
pollutant to a specified limit.
best management practice (BMP): A practice or combination of pollution control techniques
that aim to reduce pollution.
beta particle: An electron that is ejected from the nucleus of a radioactive atom. It is much
lighter than an alpha particle and can travel a longer distance in air compared to an alpha
particle, but can still be stopped by a thin sheet of aluminum foil.
bioamplification: Also known as biological magnification and bioconcentration, is the
progressive increase in the concentration of chemical contaminants
(e.g., dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, polychlorinated biphenyls, methyl mercury) from
the bottom of the food chain (e.g., bacteria, phytoplankton, zooplankton) to the top of the
food chain (e.g., fishing-eating birds such as a bald eagle).
bioavailability: The degree to which chemicals can be taken up by organisms.
biocide: A chemical agent, such as a pesticide, that is used to kill and control living organisms.
biological assessment: Information prepared by or under the direction of the Federal agency
concerning listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may
be present in the action area and the evaluation of potential effects of the action on such
species and habitat.
biomass: Organic nonfossil material of biological origin constituting a renewable energy source.
biota: The combined flora and fauna of a region.
bituminous coal: A dense black or brown coal that has on average 45–86 percent carbon by
weight and a heating value as much as five times greater than lignite coal. U.S. deposits are
100–300 million years old and are found primarily in the States of West Virginia, Kentucky, and
Pennsylvania, with lesser amounts in the Midwest. Bituminous coal is the most abundant rank of
coal in the United States. It is used primarily to produce electricity, and in the industrial sector, to
produce heat and process steam and as a starting material for the production of coke, an
intensely hot-burning derivative fuel used in the steel industry.
blast furnace: A furnace in which solid fuel (coke) is burned with an air blast to smelt ore.
blowdown: Continual or periodic purging of a circulating working fluid to prevent buildup of
impurities in the fluid.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-4
Appendix J
boiler: A device for generating steam for power, processing, or heating; or hot water for heating
purposes or hot water supply. Heat from an external combustion source is transmitted to a fluid
contained within the tubes found in the boiler shell. This fluid is delivered to an end-use at a
desired pressure, temperature, and quality.
boiling water reactor (BWR): A reactor in which water, used as both coolant and moderator,
boils in the core to produce steam, which drives a turbine connected to an electrical generator,
thereby producing electricity.
brownfield site: Abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities in which
expansion or redevelopment is sometimes complicated by real or perceived environmental
contaminations. See also greenfield site.
Btu: British thermal unit. A measure of the energy required to raise the temperature of one
pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit.
burnup spent fuel: See spent fuel burnup.
cap and trade: An environmental policy instrument used by governments to limit the amount of
pollutants emitted to the environment. The total emissions are capped at a specified level but
polluters can trade the emission allowances among themselves as long as the total amount is
not exceeded.
capacity: See generator capacity.
capacity factor: The actual energy output of an electricity-generating device divided by the
energy output that would be produced if it operated at its rated power output for the entire year.
Generally expressed as percentage.
capacity rating: See rated power.
carbon: A naturally abundant nonmetallic element that occurs in many inorganic and in all
organic compounds, which exists freely as graphite and diamond and as a constituent of coal,
limestone, and petroleum. Carbon is capable of chemical self-bonding to form an enormous
number of chemically, biologically, and commercially important molecules. Carbon’s atomic
number is 6.
carbon capture and storage: Refers to the capture of carbon dioxide generated at fossil-fueled
power plants and the storing of carbon dioxide so it is not released into the air. Underground
storage media are being investigated for this feasibility (e.g., abandoned mines, depleted oil or
natural gas fields, and other types of geologic media).
carbon monoxide (CO): A colorless, odorless gas formed when carbon in fuel is not burned
completely. Motor vehicle exhaust is a major contributor to nationwide CO emissions, followed
by other engines and vehicles. CO interferes with the blood’s ability to carry oxygen to the
body’s tissues and results in numerous adverse health effects. CO is listed as a criteria air
pollutant under Title I of the Clean Air Act.
carbon sequestration: See carbon capture and storage.
carbonaceous: Consisting of, containing, related to, or yielding carbon.
J-5
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
carcinogenesis: The process by which normal cells are transformed into cancer cells.
cask: A heavily shielded container used to store and/or ship radioactive materials. Lead and
steel are common materials used in the manufacture of casks.
Category 1 issue: Environmental impact issues that meet all of the following criteria: (1) the
environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all
nuclear plants or, for some issues, to nuclear plants that have a specific type of cooling system
or other specified plant or site characteristics; (2) a single significance level (i.e., small,
moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective offsite radiological
impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent fuel disposal); (3) mitigation of
adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been
determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are likely not to be sufficiently
beneficial to warrant implementation. For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no
additional plant-specific analysis is required in future supplemental environmental impact
statements unless new and significant information is identified.
Category 2 issue: Environmental impact issues that do not meet one or more of the criteria of
Category 1, and, therefore, additional plant-specific review for these issues is required.
cesium: A metal that may be stable (nonradioactive) or unstable (radioactive). The most
common radioactive form of cesium is cesium-137. Another fairly common radioisotope is
cesium-134.
chain reaction: A reaction that initiates its own repetition. In a fission chain reaction, a
fissionable nucleus absorbs a neutron and fissions spontaneously, releasing additional
neutrons. These, in turn, can be absorbed by other fissionable nuclei, releasing more neutrons.
A fission chain reaction is self-sustaining when the number of neutrons released in a given time
equals or exceeds the number of neutrons lost by absorption in nonfissionable material or by
escape from the system.
chlorinated hydrocarbons: Organic compounds made up of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, and
chlorine. All chlorinated hydrocarbons have a carbon-chlorine bond. Sometimes hydrogen is not
present at all, as in carbon tetrachloride. Examples of chlorinated hydrocarbons include
dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane and polychlorinated biphenyls. Chlorinated hydrocarbons tend
to be very long-lived and persistent in the environment; they tend to be toxic; and they tend to
accumulate in the food web and undergo bioamplification.
chronic effects: Effects resulting from exposure to low levels of a stressing factor
(e.g., contaminant, disease, electromagnetic field, noise, and radionuclides) over long periods.
chronic radiation exposure: Long-term, low-level overexposure to radiation or radioactive
materials.
cladding: The thin-walled metal tube that forms the outer jacket of a nuclear fuel rod. It
prevents corrosion of the fuel by the coolant and the release of fission products into the coolant.
Aluminum, stainless steel, and zirconium alloys are common cladding materials.
Class I areas (Clean Air Act): Class I areas are Federally owned properties for which air
quality-related values are highly prized and for which no diminution of air quality, including
visibility, can be tolerated. Class I areas fall under the stewardship of four Federal agencies: the
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-6
Appendix J
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the U.S. Forest Service. Air quality impacts in Class I areas are strictly limited, while restrictions
in Class II areas are less strict.
Class II areas (Clean Air Act): See Class I areas.
Class 2B carcinogenic: Agents (e.g., electromagnetic fields) or substances that are possibly
carcinogenic to humans.
Clean Air Act (CAA): Establishes NAAQS and requires facilities to comply with emission limits
or reduction limits stipulated in State Implementation Plans. Under this Act, construction and
operating permits, as well as reviews of new stationary sources and major modifications to
existing sources, are required. The Act also prohibits the Federal government from approving
actions that do not conform to State Implementation Plans.
clean coal technologies: Technologies that would allow the continued use of coal (or coalderived synthetic fuels) for electricity production, while at the same time, mitigating the potential
adverse impacts to air quality and guaranteeing compliance with regulatory requirements. Clean
coal initiatives include coal-cleaning processes to remove constituents that would ultimately be
converted to problematic pollutants during combustion, synthesis of clean derivative fuels
through coal gasification technologies, improved combustion technologies and improved
devices, and ancillary support systems for capturing and sequestering pollutants.
Clean Water Act (CWA): An Act, which amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
requiring National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharges of
effluents to surface waters, permits for stormwater discharges related to industrial activity,
permits for discharges to or dredging of wetlands, notification of oil discharges to navigable
waters of the United States, and water quality certification from the State in which the discharge
will occur.
climatology: The meteorological study of climates and their phenomena.
closed-cycle cooling: In this type of cooling water system, the cooling water is recirculated
through the condenser after the waste heat is removed by dissipation to the atmosphere,
usually by circulating the water through large cooling towers constructed for that purpose.
coal: A readily combustible black or brownish-black rock whose composition, including inherent
moisture, consists of more than 50 percent by weight and more than 70 percent by volume of
carbonaceous material. It is formed from plant remains that have been compacted, hardened,
chemically altered, and metamorphosed by heat and pressure over geologic time.
coal combustion wastes: Wastes produced from the combustion of coal, which contains
concentrated levels of numerous contaminants, particularly metals like arsenic, mercury, lead,
chromium, cadmium, and radioactive elements found naturally in coal.
coal gasification: The process of converting coal into gas. The basic process involves crushing
coal to a powder, which is then heated in the presence of steam and oxygen to produce a gas.
The gas is then refined to reduce sulfur and other impurities. The gas can be used as a fuel or
processed further and concentrated into chemical or liquid fuel.
J-7
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): The codification of the general and permanent rules
published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal
government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to Federal regulation.
Each volume of the CFR is updated once each calendar year and is issued on a quarterly basis.
co-firing: The process of burning natural gas in conjunction with another fuel to reduce air
pollutants.
cold shutdown: The term used to define a reactor coolant system at atmospheric pressure and
at a temperature below 200 degrees Fahrenheit following a reactor cooldown.
collective dose: The sum of the individual doses received in a given period by a specified
population from exposure to a specified source of radiation.
combined cycle: A technology through which electricity is produced from otherwise lost waste
heat exiting from one or more gas (combustion) turbines. The exiting heat is routed to a
conventional boiler or to a heat recovery steam generator for utilization by a steam turbine in the
production of electricity. This process increases the efficiency of the electric generating unit.
combustion: Chemical oxidation accompanied by the generation of energy, typically in the form
of light and heat.
committed dose equivalent: The dose equivalent to organs or tissues of reference that will be
received from an intake of radioactive material by an individual during the 50-year period
following the intake.
compact: A group of two or more States formed to dispose of low-level radioactive waste on a
regional basis. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 encouraged States to form
compacts to ensure continuing low-level waste disposal capacity. As of December 2000,
44 States have formed 10 compacts. No compact has successfully sited and constructed a
disposal facility.
condenser: A large heat exchanger designed to cool exhaust steam from a turbine below the
boiling point so that it can be returned to the heat source as water. In a pressurized water
reactor, the water is returned to the steam generator. In a boiling water reactor, it returns to the
reactor core. The heat removed from the steam by the condenser is transferred to a circulating
water system and is exhausted to the environment, either through a cooling tower or directly into
a body of water.
coniferous: Of or related to or part of trees or shrubs bearing cones and evergreen leaves.
containment or reactor building: The containment or reactor building in a pressurized water
reactor is a massive concrete or steel structure that houses the reactor vessel, reactor
coolant piping and pumps, steam generators, pressurizer, pumps, and associated piping. The
reactor building structure of a BWR generally includes a containment structure and a shield
building. The BWR containment reactor building is a massive concrete or steel structure that
houses the reactor vessel, the reactor coolant piping and pumps, and the suppression pool.
It is located inside a somewhat less substantive structure called the shield building. The
shield building for BWR also generally contains the spent fuel pool and the new fuel pool. The
reactor building for both PWRs and BWRs is designed to withstand natural disasters, such
as hurricanes and earthquakes. The containment’s ability to withstand such events and
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-8
Appendix J
to contain the effects of accidents initiated by system failures constitutes the principal
protection against releasing radioactive material to the environment.
cooling pond: A natural or human-made body of water that is used for dissipating waste heat
from power plants.
cooling tower: Structures designed to remove excess heat from the condenser without
dumping the heated cooling water directly into waterbodies, such as lakes or rivers. There are
two principal types of cooling towers: mechanical draft towers and natural draft towers. Most
nuclear plants that have once-through cooling do not rely on cooling towers. However, five
facilities with once-through cooling also have cooling towers.
cooling tower drift: Water lost from a cooling tower in the form of liquid droplets entrained in
the exhaust air. Drift is independent of water lost through evaporation. Units may be in pounds
per hour (lb/hr) or a percentage of circulating water flow. Drift eliminators control this loss from
the tower.
cooling water intake structure: The structure and any associated constructed waterways used
to withdraw cooling water from waterbodies. The cooling water intake structure extends from the
point at which water is withdrawn from the surface water source to the first intake pump or
series of pumps.
corona discharge: The electrical breakdown of air into charged particles that results in the
creation of ions or charged particles in air due to electric field discharge near transmission lines,
most noticeable during thunder or rainstorms. Corona is a phenomenon associated with all
energized transmission lines. It is the electrical breakdown of air into charged particles. The
phenomenon appears as a bluish-purple glow on the surface of and adjacent to a conductor
when the voltage gradient exceeds a certain critical value, thereby producing light, audible noise
(described as crackling or hissing), and ozone.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): Established by the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508) describe
the process for implementing NEPA, including preparation of environmental assessments and
environmental impact statements, and the timing and extent of public participation.
criteria pollutants: A group of very common air pollutants whose presence in the environment
is regulated by the EPA based on certain criteria (information on health and/or environmental
effects of pollution). Criteria air pollutants are widely distributed all over the United States. There
are six common air pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards have been
established by the EPA under Title I of the Clean Air Act: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and lead. Standards were developed for
these pollutants based on scientific knowledge about their health and environmental effects.
critical habitat: Specific geographic areas, whether occupied by a listed species or not, that are
essential for its conservation and that have been formally designated by rules published in the
Federal Register.
criticality: A term used in reactor physics to describe the state when the number of neutrons
released by fission is exactly balanced by the neutrons being absorbed (by the fuel and
poisons) and escaping the reactor core. A reactor is said to be “critical” when it achieves a
self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction, as when the reactor is operating.
J-9
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
crude oil: A mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural underground
reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing through surface separating
facilities. Depending upon the characteristics of the crude stream, it may also include: (1) small
amounts of hydrocarbons that exist in the gaseous phase in natural underground reservoirs but
are liquid at atmospheric pressure; (2) small amounts of nonhydrocarbons produced with the oil,
such as sulfur and various metals, and (3) drip gases and liquid hydrocarbons produced from tar
sands, oil sands, gilsonite, and oil shale.
cultural resources: The remains of past human activities that have historic or cultural meaning.
They include archaeological sites (e.g., precontact campsites and villages), historic-era
resources (e.g., farmsteads, forts, and canals), and traditional cultural properties (e.g., resource
collection areas and sacred areas). Culture is understood to mean the traditions, beliefs,
practices, lifeways, arts, crafts, and social institutions of any community, be it an Indian Tribe, a
local ethnic group, or the people of the nation as a whole (see also National Park Service
Bulletin #38).
cumulative dose: The total dose resulting from repeated or prolonged exposures to ionizing
radiation over time.
cumulative effects: The effects (impacts) 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 (40 CFR 1508.1(i)(3)).
cumulative risk: The risk of a common toxic effect associated with concurrent exposure by all
relevant pathways and routes of exposure to a group of chemicals that share a common
mechanism of toxicity.
curie (Ci): The basic unit used to describe the intensity of radioactivity in a sample of material.
The curie is equal to 37 billion (3.7 × 1010) disintegrations per second, which is approximately
the activity of 1 gram of radium. A curie is also a quantity of any radionuclide that decays at a
rate of 37 billion disintegrations per second. It is named for Marie and Pierre Curie, who
discovered radium in 1898.
decibel, A-weighted (dBA): A standard unit for the measure of the relative loudness or
intensity of sound. The relative intensity is the ratio of the intensity of a sound wave to a
reference intensity. In general, a sound doubles in loudness with every increase of 10 dB. By
convention, the intensity level of sound at the threshold of hearing for a young healthy individual
is 0 dB.
deciduous: Trees and shrubs that shed their leaves on an annual cycle.
decommissioning: The process of closing down a facility followed by reducing residual
radioactivity to a level that permits the release of the property for unrestricted use or restricted
use (see 10 CFR 20.1003).
DECON: A method of decommissioning in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a
facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed and safety buried in a
low-level radioactive waste landfill or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be
released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-10
Appendix J
decontamination: Removal of unwanted radioactive or hazardous contamination by a chemical
or mechanical process.
deep-dose equivalent: The dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 1 cm; applies to external
whole-body exposure.
demand-side management: The planning, implementation, and monitoring of utility activities
designed to encourage consumers to modify patterns of electricity usage, including the timing
and level of electricity demand. It only refers to energy and load-shape modifying activities that
are undertaken in response to utility-administered programs. It does not refer to energy and
load-shaped changes arising from the normal operation of the marketplace or from governmentmandated energy-efficiency standards. Demand-side management covers the complete range
of load-shape objectives, including strategic conservation and load management, as well as
strategic load growth.
demographics: A term used to describe specific population characteristics such as age,
gender, education, and income level.
densitometer: An apparatus for measuring the optical density of a material, such as a
photographic negative.
depleted uranium: Uranium having a percentage of uranium-235 smaller than the 0.7 percent
found in natural uranium. It results from uranium isotope enrichment operations.
deposition: The laying down of matter by a natural process (e.g., the settling of particulate
matter out of air or water onto soil or sediment surfaces).
design-basis accident: A postulated accident that a nuclear facility must be designed and built
to withstand without loss to the systems, structures, and components necessary to ensure
public health and safety.
desquamation: To shed, peel, or come off in scales.
detritus: Dead, decaying plant material.
dewatering: To remove or drain water from an area.
dielectric: A nonconductor of electricity.
diesel generator: An electric generator that runs on diesel fuel.
diffusion: A process in which substances are transported from one area to another due to
differences in the concentration of that material or in temperature.
disposal: The act of placing unwanted materials in an area with the intent of not recovering in
the future.
dissolved gas: Gas dissolved in water or in other liquid without change in its chemical
structure.
J-11
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
dissolved oxygen: Oxygen dissolved in water. Dissolved oxygen is necessary for the life of fish
and most other aquatic organisms, and is one of the most important indicators of the condition
of a waterbody.
dose: The absorbed dose, given in rads (or in international system [SI] units, grays), that
represents the energy absorbed from the radiation in a gram of any material. The biological
dose or dose equivalent, given in rem or sieverts, is a measure of the biological damage to
living tissue from radiation exposure.
dose equivalent: The product of the absorbed dose in tissue, quality factor, and all other
modifying factors at the location of interest. The units of dose equivalent are the rem and
sievert.
dose rates: The ionizing radiation dose delivered per unit of time (e.g., rem or sieverts per
hour).
dosimeter: A small, portable instrument (such as a film badge or thermoluminescent or pocket
dosimeter) for measuring and recording the total accumulated personal dose of ionizing
radiation.
dredging: Removing accumulated sediments from a waterbody to increase depth or remove
contaminants.
dry cask: Large, rugged container made of steel or steel-reinforced concrete, 18 or more
inches thick. A cask uses materials like steel, concrete, and lead—instead of water—as a
radiation shield.
dry cask storage: A method for storing spent nuclear fuel (see dry cask).
dry steam: Geothermal plants that use the steam from the geothermal reservoir as it comes
from wells, and route it directly through turbine/generator units to produce electricity.
dual-fired unit: A generating unit that can produce electricity using two or more input fuels. In
some of these units, only the primary fuel can be used continuously; the alternate fuel(s) can be
used only as a start-up fuel or in emergencies.
earthquake: A sudden ground motion or vibration of the earth. It can be produced by a rapid
release of stored-up energy along an active fault in the earth’s crust.
ecoregion: A geographically distinct area of land that is characterized by a distinctive climate,
ecological features, and plant and animal communities.
ecosystem: A group of organisms and their physical environment interacting and functioning as
a unit.
effective dose equivalent: The sum of the products of the dose equivalent to the organ or
tissue and the weighting factors applicable to each of the body organs or tissues that are
irradiated.
effects (or impacts): Changes to the human environment from the proposed action or
alternatives that are reasonably foreseeable and include the following: (1) Direct effects, which
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-12
Appendix J
are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. (2) Indirect effects, which are
caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably
foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to
induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related
effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. (3) Cumulative
effects, which are 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. (4) Effects include ecological (such as the effects on
natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems),
aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, such as disproportionate and adverse
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns, whether direct, indirect, or
cumulative. Effects also include effects on Tribal resources and climate change related effects,
including the contribution of a proposed action and its alternatives to climate change, and the
reasonably foreseeable effects of climate change on the proposed action and its alternatives.
Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and
adverse effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effects will be beneficial
(40 CFR 1508.1(i)(1)–(4)).
effluent: Wastewater (treated or untreated) that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or
industrial outfall. This term generally refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
electric power: The rate at which electric energy is transferred. Electric power is measured by
capacity and is commonly expressed in megawatts (MW).
electric power grid: A system of synchronized power providers and consumers connected by
transmission and distribution lines and operated by one or more control centers. In the
continental United States, the electric power grid consists of three systems: the Eastern
Interconnect, the Western Interconnect, and the Texas Interconnect. In Alaska and Hawaii,
several systems encompass areas smaller than the state (e.g., the interconnect serving
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Kenai Peninsula).
electricity: A form of energy characterized by the presence and motion of elementary charged
particles generated by friction, induction, or chemical change.
electricity generation: The process of producing electric energy or the amount of electric
energy produced by transforming other forms of energy, commonly expressed in kilowatt
hours (kWh) or megawatt hours (MWh).
electromagnetic field (EMF): The field of energy resulting from the movement of alternating
electric current along the path of a conductor, composed of both electrical and magnetic
components and existing in the immediate vicinity of, and surrounding, the electric conductor.
Electromagnetic fields exist in both high-voltage electric transmission power lines and in
low-voltage electric conductors in homes and appliances.
electromagnetic radiation: A traveling wave motion resulting from changing electric or
magnetic fields. Familiar electromagnetic radiation ranges from x-rays (and gamma rays) of
short wavelength, through the ultraviolet, visible, and infrared regions, to radar and radio waves
of relatively long wavelength.
J-13
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
endangered species: Any species, plant or animal, that is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant part of its range. Requirements for declaring a species endangered are found in
the Endangered Species Act.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA): Requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine whether endangered or
threatened species or their habitats will be affected by a proposed activity and what, if any,
mitigation measures are needed to address the impacts.
energy: The capacity for doing work as measured by the capability of doing work (potential
energy) or the conversion of this capability to motion (kinetic energy). Energy has several forms,
some of which are easily convertible and can be changed to another form useful for work. Most
of the world’s convertible energy comes from fossil fuels that are burned to produce heat that is
then used as a transfer medium to mechanical or other means in order to accomplish tasks.
Electrical energy is usually measured in kilowatt hours, while heat energy is usually measured in
British thermal units (Btu).
energy demand: The energy needed by consumers at any point in time for household,
business, or industrial purposes.
Energy Information Administration: An independent agency within the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) that develops surveys, collects energy data, and analyzes and models energy
issues. The Energy Information Administration must (1) meet the requests of Congress, other
elements within the DOE, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Executive Branch;
(2) meet its own independent needs; and (3) assist the general public or other interest groups,
without taking a policy position.
energy supply: Energy made available for use. Supply can be considered and measured from
the point of view of the energy provider or the receiver.
ENTOMB: A method of decommissioning nuclear facilities in which radioactive contaminants
are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete. The entombment structure is
appropriately maintained, and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactivity decays
to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property.
entrainment: The incorporation of all life stages of fish and shellfish with intake water flow
entering and passing through a cooling water intake structure and into a cooling water system.
environmental assessment (EA): A concise public document that a Federal agency prepares
under the National Environmental Policy Act to provide sufficient evidence and analysis to
determine whether a proposed action requires preparation of an environmental impact
statement or whether a Finding of No Significant Impact can be issued. An EA must include
brief discussions on the need for the proposed action and the environmental impacts of the
proposed action and the no action alternative.
environmental impact statement (EIS): A document required of Federal agencies by the
National Environmental Policy Act for major proposals or legislation that will or could
significantly affect the environment.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-14
Appendix J
environmental justice: The fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and
educational levels with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
erosion: The process where wind, water, ice, and other mechanical and chemical forces wear
away materials such as rocks and soil, breaking up particles and moving them from one place to
another.
erythema: Superficial reddening of the skin due to the dilatation of blood vessels. Erythema is
often a sign of infection or inflammation.
essential fish habitat (EFH): Those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. EFH is protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976.
estuary: A transitional zone along the coastline where ocean saltwater mixes with freshwater
from the land, subject to tidal influences. Estuaries are often semi-enclosed by land, but their
currents always have access to the open ocean.
eutrophication: A condition in an aquatic ecosystem where high nutrient concentrations
stimulate blooms of algae (e.g., phytoplankton). Algal decomposition may lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations. Although eutrophication is a natural process in the aging of lakes and
some estuaries, it can be accelerated by both point and nonpoint sources of nutrients.
exceedance probability: The average frequency with which an event (e.g., flood, earthquake)
of a particular magnitude will be exceeded during a certain length of time. Expressed as the
probability that a level will be exceeded in any year (the annual exceedance probability) or as
the average recurrence interval (e.g., a 100-year flood).
exposure: Being exposed to ionizing radiation, radioactive material, or other contaminants.
external dose: That portion of the dose equivalent received from radiation sources outside the
body.
Farmland Protection Policy Act: An Act whose purpose is to reduce the conversion of
farmland to nonagricultural uses as a result of Federal projects and programs. The Act requires
that Federal agencies comply to the fullest extent possible with state and local government
policies to preserve farmland. It includes a recommendation that evaluations and analyses of
prospective farmland conversion impacts be made early in the planning process—before a site
or design is selected—and that, where possible, agencies make such evaluations and analyses
part of the National Environmental Policy Act process.
fault (geology): A fracture or a zone of fractures within a rock formation along which vertical,
horizontal, or transverse slippage has occurred. A normal fault occurs when the hanging wall
has been depressed in relation to the footwall. A reverse fault occurs when the hanging wall has
been raised in relation to the footwall. A strike-slip fault occurs where two geologic plates are
sliding past each other and stress builds up between them.
fecundity: Number of eggs an animal produces during each reproductive cycle; the potential
reproductive capacity of an organism or population.
J-15
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Independent Federal agency with jurisdiction over
interstate electricity sales, wholesale electric rates, hydroelectric licensing, natural gas pricing,
and oil pipeline rates.
Federal Register: The official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal
agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.
fission: The splitting of a nucleus into at least two other nuclei and the release of a relatively
large amount of energy. Two or three neutrons are usually released during this type of
transformation.
fission products: The radioactive isotopes formed by the fission of heavy elements.
floodplain: Lowlands and relatively flat areas adjoining the channel of a river, stream, or other
watercourse; or ocean, lake, or other body of water, which have been or may be inundated by
flood water, and those other areas subject to flooding. Floodplains include, at a minimum, that
area with at least a 1.0 percent chance of being inundated by a flood in any given year.
flue gas: The air coming out of a chimney after combustion in the burner it is venting. It can
include nitrogen oxides, carbon oxides, water vapor, sulfur oxides, particles, and many chemical
pollutants.
flue gas desulfurization: Equipment (also referred to as scrubbers) used to remove sulfur
oxides from the combustion gases of a boiler plant before discharge to the atmosphere.
Chemicals such as lime are used as scrubbing media.
fluidized bed combustion: A method of burning particulate fuel, such as coal, in which the
amount of air required for combustion far exceeds that found in conventional burners. The fuel
particles are continually fed into a bed of mineral ash in the proportions of 1 part fuel to
200 parts ash, while a flow of air passes up through the bed, causing it to act like a turbulent
fluid.
fossil fuel: Fuel derived from ancient organic remains such as peat, coal, crude oil, and natural
gas.
fossil fuel plant: A plant using coal, petroleum, or gas as its source of energy.
fossil fuel electric (power) generation: Electric generation in which the prime mover is a
turbine rotated by high-pressure steam produced in a boiler by heat from burning fossil fuels.
fuel: Any material substance that can be consumed to supply heat or power. Includes
petroleum, coal, and natural gas (the fossil fuels), and other consumable materials, such as
uranium, biomass, and hydrogen.
fuel assembly: A cluster of fuel rods (or plates) that are also called fuel pins or fuel elements.
Many fuel assemblies make up a reactor core.
fuel cladding: See cladding.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-16
Appendix J
fuel cycle: The entire set of sequential processes or stages involved in the utilization of fuel,
including extraction, transformation, transportation, and combustion. Emissions generally occur
at each stage of the fuel cycle.
fuel oil: A liquid petroleum product less volatile than gasoline, used as an energy source. Fuel
oil includes distillate fuel oil (No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4) and residual fuel oil (No. 5 and No. 6).
fuel pellets: As used in pressurized water reactors and boiling water reactors, a pellet is a small
cylinder approximately 3/8 in. in diameter and 5/8 in. in length, consisting of uranium fuel in a
ceramic form—uranium dioxide (UO2). Typical fuel pellet enrichments in nuclear power reactors
range from 2.0 percent to 5 percent uranium-235.
fuel rod: A long, slender tube that holds fissionable material (fuel) for nuclear reactor use. Fuel
rods are assembled into bundles called fuel elements or fuel assemblies, which are loaded
individually into the reactor core.
fugitive dust: Particulate air pollution released to the ambient air from ground-disturbing
activities related to construction, manufacturing, or transportation (i.e., the discharges are not
released through a confined stream such as a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally
equivalent opening). Specific activities that generate fugitive dust include, but are not limited to,
land-clearing operations, travel of vehicles on disturbed land or unpaved access roads, or onsite
roads.
fugitive emissions: Unintended leaks of gas from vessels, pipes, valves, or fittings used in the
processing, transmission, and/or transportation of liquids or gases. These emissions can include
the release of volatile vapors from a diesel fuel, natural gas, or solvent leak.
Fujita scale: Classifies tornadoes based on wind damage. The scale ranges from F0 for the
weakest to F5 for the strongest tornadoes.
gamma rays: High-energy, short wavelength, electromagnetic radiation emitted from the
nucleus of an atom. Gamma radiation frequently accompanies alpha and beta emissions and
always accompanies fission. Gamma rays are very penetrating and are best stopped or
shielded by dense materials, such as lead or depleted uranium. Gamma rays are similar to
x-rays. See also x-rays and gamma rays.
gas bubble disease: A condition that occurs when aquatic organisms are exposed to water
with high partial pressures of certain gases (usually nitrogen) and then subsequently are
exposed to water with lower partial pressures of the same gases. Dissolved gas (especially
nitrogen) within the tissues comes out of solution and forms embolisms (bubbles) within the
affected tissues, most noticeably the eyes and fins.
gas supersaturation: Concentrations of dissolved gases in water that are above the normal
saturation limit.
gas turbine: A gas turbine consists typically of an axial-flow air compressor and one or more
combustion chambers where liquid or gaseous fuel is burned and the hot gases are passed to
the turbine, and where the hot gases expand, drive the generator, and are then used to run the
compressor.
J-17
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
gasification: A method for converting coal, petroleum, biomass, wastes, or other
carbon-containing materials into a gas that can be (1) burned to generate power or
(2) processed into chemicals and fuels.
generator capacity: The maximum output, commonly expressed in megawatts (MW), that
generating equipment can supply to system load, adjusted for ambient conditions.
generic environmental impact statement (GEIS): A GEIS assesses the scope and impact of
environmental effects that would be associated with an action at numerous sites.
geologic repository: A deep underground engineered facility used to permanently isolate used
nuclear fuel or high-level nuclear waste while its radioactivity decays safely.
geology: The science that deals with the study of the Earth: its materials, processes,
environments, and its history, including rocks and their formations and structures.
geothermal energy: Hot water or steam extracted from geothermal reservoirs in the Earth’s
crust. Water or steam extracted from geothermal reservoirs can be used for geothermal heat
pumps, water heating, or electricity generation.
geothermal plant: A plant in which the prime mover is a steam turbine driven either by steam
produced from hot water or by natural steam that derives its energy from heat found in rock.
global climate change: Changes in the Earth’s surface temperature thought to be caused by
the greenhouse effect and responsible for changes in global climate patterns. The greenhouse
effect is the trapping and buildup of heat in the atmosphere (troposphere) near the Earth’s
surface. Some of the heat flowing back toward space from the Earth’s surface is absorbed by
water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, and certain other gases in the atmosphere and then
reradiated back toward the Earth’s surface.
global warming: An increase in the near-surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has
occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is today most often
used to refer to the warming many scientists predict will occur as a result of increased
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.
global warming potential: An index used to compare the relative radiative forcing of different
greenhouse gases without directly calculating the changes in atmospheric concentrations. The
global warming potential of a particular greenhouse gas is calculated as a time-integrated ratio
of the radiative or climate forcing that would result from the emission of one kilogram of that
greenhouse gas to that resulting from the emission of one kilogram of carbon dioxide over a
fixed period of time, such as 100 years. The larger the global warming potential, the more that a
given gas warms the Earth compared to carbon dioxide over that time period.
gonads: Male and female sex organs (testes and ovaries).
graphite: Pure carbon in mineral form. Technically, graphite at 100 percent carbon is the
highest rank of coal. However, its relatively limited availability and physical characteristics and
chemical characteristics have limited its use as an energy source. Instead, it is used primarily in
lubricants.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-18
Appendix J
gray: The international system (SI) unit of absorbed dose. One gray is equal to an absorbed
dose of 1 joule/kilogram (one gray equals 100 rads) (see 10 CFR 20.1004).
greater-than-Class C (GTCC) waste: Greater-than-Class C waste means low-level radioactive
waste that exceeds the concentration limits of radionuclides established for Class C waste
in 10 CFR 61.55.
greenfield site: Vacant land that has never been developed or was formerly occupied by farms
or low-density development that left the land free of environmental contamination. Greenfield
sites are typically located in suburban or ex-urban areas and can be less costly to develop than
the brownfield sites that are often located in urban areas.
greenhouse gases (GHGs): Gases, such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, that are transparent to solar
(short-wave) radiation but opaque to long-wave (infrared) radiation, thus preventing long-wave
radiant energy from leaving the earth’s atmosphere. The net effect is a trapping of absorbed
radiation and a tendency to warm the planet’s surface. While also a product of industrial
activities, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone, and water vapor are naturally
occurring greenhouse gases.
grid: See electric power grid.
gross generation: The total amount of electric energy produced by generating units and
measured at the generating terminal in kilowatt hours (kWh) or megawatt hours (MWh).
groundwater: The water found beneath the earth’s surface, usually in porous rock formations
(aquifers) or in a zone of saturation, which may supply wells and springs, as well as base flow to
major streams and rivers. Generally, it refers to all water contained in the ground.
habitat: The place, including physical and biotic conditions, where a population or community of
organisms, both plants and animals, lives.
half-life: The time in which one-half of the atoms of a particular radioactive substance
disintegrate into another nuclear form. Measured half-lives vary from millionths of a second to
billions of years. Also called physical or radiological half-life.
hazardous air pollutants: Air pollutants that are not covered by ambient air quality standards
but which, as defined in the Clean Air Act, may present a threat of adverse human health effects
or adverse environmental effects. Such pollutants include asbestos, beryllium, mercury,
benzene, coke oven emissions, radionuclides, and vinyl chloride.
hazardous waste: A solid waste or combination of solid wastes that, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may (1) cause or significantly
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating
reversible illness or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed
(as defined in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, Public Law 94-580).
heat sink: Anything that absorbs heat. It is usually part of the environment, such as the air, a
river, or a lake.
J-19
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
heavy metals: Metallic elements with higher atomic weights, many of which are toxic at higher
concentrations. Examples are mercury, chromium, cadmium, and lead.
high-level waste (HLW): The highly radioactive materials produced as a by-product of the
reactions that occur inside nuclear reactors. High-level wastes take one of two forms, (1) Spent
(used) reactor fuel when it is accepted for disposal, or (2) Waste materials remaining after spent
fuel is reprocessed.
historic property: Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included
in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the
Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to
and located within such properties. The term can also include properties of traditional religious
and cultural importance that meet the National Register criteria (see also 36 CFR 800.16(l)(1)).
horizontal axis wind turbine: The most common type of wind turbine, in which the axis of
rotation is oriented horizontally.
hydrocarbons: Any compound or mix of compounds, solids, liquids, or gases, composed of
carbon and hydrogen (e.g., coal, crude oil, and natural gas).
hydrochlorofluorocarbons: Chemicals composed of one or more carbon atoms and varying
numbers of hydrogen, chlorine, and fluorine atoms.
hydroelectric power: The use of flowing water to produce electrical energy.
hydrofluorocarbons: A group of human-made chemicals composed of one or two carbon
atoms and varying numbers of hydrogen and fluorine atoms. Most hydrofluorocarbons have
100-year global warming potentials in the thousands.
hydrology: The study of water that considers its occurrence, properties distribution, circulation,
and transport and includes groundwater, surface water, and rainfall.
impacting factors: The mechanisms by which an action affects a given resource or receptor.
impingement: The entrapment of all life stages of fish and shellfish on the outer part of an
intake structure or against a screening device during periods of intake water withdrawal.
impulse turbine: A turbine that is driven by high-velocity jets of water or steam from a nozzle
directed onto vanes or buckets attached to a wheel.
in situ: In its original place.
independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI): An ISFSI is designed and constructed
for the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials associated with
spent fuel storage. ISFSIs may be located at the site of a nuclear power plant or at another
location. The most common design for an ISFSI, at this time, is a concrete pad with dry casks
containing spent fuel bundles. ISFSIs are used by operating plants that require increased spent
fuel storage capability because their spent fuel pools have reached capacity.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-20
Appendix J
integrated gasification combined-cycle technology: An energy generation technology in
which coal, water, and oxygen are fed to a gasifier, which produces syngas. This medium-Btu
gas is cleaned (particulates and sulfur compounds removed) and fed to a gas turbine. The hot
exhaust of the gas turbine and heat recovered from the gasification process is routed through a
heat recovery generator to produce steam, which drives a steam turbine to produce electricity.
internal dose: That portion of the dose equivalent received from radioactive material taken into
the body.
ionizing radiation: Any radiation capable of displacing electrons from atoms or molecules,
thereby producing ions. Some examples are alpha, beta, gamma, x-rays, neutrons, and
ultraviolet light. High doses of ionizing radiation may produce severe skin or tissue damage.
isotopic enrichment: A process by which the relative abundance of the isotopes of a given
element is altered, thus producing a form of the element that has been enriched in one
particular isotope and depleted in its other isotopic forms.
landfill gas: Gas that is generated by decomposition of organic material at landfill disposal
sites. The average composition of landfill gas is approximately 50 percent methane and
50 percent carbon dioxide and water vapor by volume. The methane percentage, however, can
vary from 40 to 60 percent, depending on several factors including waste composition
(e.g., carbohydrate and cellulose content). The methane in landfill gas may be vented, flared, or
combusted to generate electricity or heat, or injected into a pipeline for combustion elsewhere.
leachate: The liquid that has percolated through the soil or other medium.
license renewal: Renewal of the operating license of a nuclear power plant.
license renewal term: That period of time, either an initial license renewal or the first
subsequent license renewal, past the current license term for which the renewed license is in
force. Although the length of license renewal terms can vary, they cannot exceed 20 years in
addition to the balance on the current license up to a maximum of 40 years.
licensee: The entity (usually an energy company) that holds the license to operate a nuclear
power plant.
light water reactors (LWRs): Reactors that use ordinary water as coolant, including boiling
water reactors (BWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs), the most common types used
in the United States.
lower limit of detection (LLD): The lowest limit that a detector can measure.
lowest observed effects level (LOEL): The lowest exposure level at which there are
statistically or biologically significant increases in frequency or severity of an effect between the
exposed population and its appropriate control group.
low-level radioactive waste (LLW): A general term for a wide range of wastes having low
levels of radioactivity. Nuclear fuel cycle facilities (e.g., nuclear power reactors and fuel
fabrication plants) that use radioactive materials generate low-level wastes as part of their
normal operations. These wastes are generated in many physical and chemical forms and
levels of contamination (see 10 CFR 61.2). Low-level radioactive wastes containing source,
J-21
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
special nuclear, or by-product material are acceptable for disposal in a land disposal facility. For
the purposes of this definition, low-level waste has the same meaning as in the Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Act, that is, radioactive waste not classified as high-level radioactive
waste, transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-product material as defined in
Section 11e.(2) of the AEA (uranium or thorium tailings and waste).
macroinvertebrates: Nonplanktonic, aquatic invertebrates, including insects, crustaceans,
mollusks, and worms, which typically inhabit the bottom sediments of rivers, ponds, lakes,
wetlands, or oceans. Their abundance and diversity are often used as an indicator of ecosystem
health.
maintenance areas: Regions that were initially designated as nonattainment or unclassifiable
and have since attained compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The Clean Air Act outlines several conditions that must be met before an area can be
reclassified from nonattainment to an attainment maintenance area, one of which is the
development and EPA approval of a maintenance plan.
man-rem: See person-rem.
marine: Of or pertaining to ocean environments.
maximally exposed individual (MEI): A hypothetical individual who, because of proximity,
activities, or living habits, could potentially receive the maximum possible dose of radiation or of
a hazardous chemical from a given event or process.
maximum achievable control technology: The emission standard for sources of air pollution
requiring the maximum reduction of hazardous emissions, taking cost and feasibility into
account. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the maximum achievable control
technology must not be less than the average emission level achieved by controls on the best
performing 12 percent of existing sources, by category of industrial and utility sources.
mechanical draft tower: Cooling tower system that sprays heated cooling water downward,
while large fans pull air across the dropping water to remove the heat. As the water drops
downward onto the slats in the cooling tower, the drops break up into a finer spray, and, thus,
facilitate cooling.
megawatt: A unit of power equal to 1 million watts. Megawatt-thermal is commonly used to
define heat produced, while megawatt-electric defines electricity produced.
methane: A colorless, flammable, odorless hydrocarbon gas, which is the major component of
natural gas. Methane is an important source of hydrogen in various industrial processes.
Methane is a greenhouse gas.
methyl tertiary butyl ether: A gasoline additive, an oxygenate produced by reacting methanol
with isobutylene.
microorganism: An organism that can be seen only through a microscope. Microorganisms
include bacteria, protozoa, algae, and fungi.
mitigation: A method or process by which impacts from actions can be made less injurious to
the environment through appropriate protective measures (see also 40 CFR 1508.1(y)).
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-22
Appendix J
mixed waste: Waste that contains both radioactive and hazardous constituents.
motile: Moving or having the power to move.
municipal solid waste: Residential solid waste and some nonhazardous commercial,
institutional, and industrial wastes.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Air quality standards established by the
Clean Air Act, as amended. The primary NAAQS specify maximum outdoor air concentrations of
criteria pollutants that would protect the public health within an adequate margin of safety. The
secondary NAAQS specify maximum concentrations that would protect the public welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): Act requiring Federal agencies to
prepare a detailed statement on the environmental impacts of their proposed major actions that
may significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966: Section 106 of the NHPA addresses the
impacts of Federal undertakings on historic properties. Undertakings are defined in the NHPA
as any project or activity that is funded or under the direct jurisdiction of a Federal agency, or
any project or activity that requires a Federal permit, license, or approval (see also
36 CFR 800.16(y)).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A Federal or, where delegated,
State or Tribal permitting system controlling the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United
States and regulated through the Clean Water Act, as amended.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: This Act provides a process for
museums and Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items—human
remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony—to lineal
descendants and culturally affiliated Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. The Act
includes provisions for unclaimed and culturally unidentifiable Native American cultural items,
intentional and inadvertent discovery of Native American cultural items on Federal and Tribal
lands, and penalties for noncompliance and illegal trafficking. The Act also allows the intentional
removal from or excavation of Native American cultural items from Federal or Tribal lands only
with a permit or upon consultation with the appropriate Tribe.
natural draft cooling towers: Natural draft cooling towers use the differential pressure
between the relatively cold outside air and the hot humid air on the inside of the tower as the
driving force to move and cool water without the use of fans.
natural gas: A gaseous mixture of hydrocarbon compounds, the primary one being methane.
natural gas combined-cycle technology: An advanced power generation technology that
improves the fuel efficiency of natural gas. Most new gas power plants in North America and
Europe use natural gas combined-cycle technology.
J-23
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
natural gas liquids: Those hydrocarbons in natural gas that are separated from the gas as
liquids through the process of absorption, condensation, adsorption, or other methods in gas
processing or cycling plants. Generally, such liquids consist of propane and heavier
hydrocarbons and are commonly referred to as lease condensate, natural gasoline, and
liquefied petroleum gases. Natural gas liquids include natural gas plant liquids (primarily ethane,
propane, butane, and isobutene).
naturally occurring radioactive materials: Radioactive materials that are found in nature.
neutron: An uncharged elementary particle, with a mass slightly greater than that of the proton,
found in the nucleus of every atom heavier than hydrogen.
nitrogen oxides: Nitrogen oxides include various nitrogen compounds, primarily nitrogen
dioxide and nitric oxide. They form when fossil fuels are burned at high temperatures and react
with volatile organic compounds to form ozone, the main component of urban smog. They are
also a precursor pollutant that contributes to the formation of acid rain. Nitrogen oxides are
among the six criteria air pollutants specified under Title I of the Clean Air Act.
no action alternative: For this LR GEIS, the no action alternative represents a decision by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to not allow for continued operation of nuclear power plants
beyond the current operating license terms. All plants eventually would be required to shut down
and undergo decommissioning. Under the no action alternative, these eventualities would occur
sooner rather than later.
noble gases: A gaseous chemical element that does not readily enter into chemical
combination with other elements. Examples are helium, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon.
noise: Unwanted sound; a subjective term reflective of societal values regarding what
constitutes unwanted or undesirable intrusions of sound.
nonattainment: Any area that does not meet the national primary or secondary ambient air
quality standard established by the EPA for designated pollutants, such as carbon monoxide
and ozone.
nonradioactive nonhazardous waste: Waste that is neither radioactive nor hazardous.
nonrenewable fuels: Fuels that cannot be easily made or “renewed,” such as oil, natural gas,
and coal.
nonrenewable waste fuels: Municipal solid wastes from nonbiogenic sources and tire-derived
fuels.
nonstochastic effect: Health effects, the severity of which varies with the dose and for which a
threshold is believed to exist. Radiation-induced cataract formation is an example of a
nonstochastic effect (also called a deterministic effect).
North American Electric Reliability Council (NESC): A council formed in 1968 by the electric
utility industry to promote the reliability and adequacy of bulk power supply in the electric utility
systems of North America. NESC consists of regional reliability councils and encompasses
essentially all the power regions of the contiguous United States, Canada, and Mexico.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-24
Appendix J
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS): A coding system developed jointly
by the United States, Canada, and Mexico to classify businesses and industries according to
the type of economic activity in which they are engaged. NAICS replaces the Standard Industrial
Classification codes.
nuclear fuel: Fuel that produces energy in a nuclear reactor through the process of nuclear
fission.
nuclear fuel cycle: The series of steps involved in supplying fuel for nuclear power reactors,
including mining, milling, isotopic enrichment, fabrication of fuel elements, use in reactors,
chemical reprocessing to recover the fissionable material remaining in the spent fuel,
re-enrichment of the fuel material, refabrication into new fuel elements, and waste disposal.
nuclear power (nuclear electric power): Electricity generated by the use of the thermal
energy released from the fission of nuclear fuel in a reactor.
nuclear power plant: A facility that uses a nuclear reactor to generate electricity.
nuclear reactor: A device in which nuclear fission may be sustained and controlled in a
self-supporting nuclear reaction. There are many types of reactors, but all incorporate certain
features, including fissionable material or fuel, a moderating material (unless the reactor is
operated on fast neutrons), a reflector to conserve escaping neutrons, provisions of removal of
heat, measuring and controlling instruments, and protective devices. The reactor is the heart of
a nuclear power plant.
occupational dose: The dose received by an individual in the course of employment in which
the individual’s assigned duties involve exposure to radiation or to radioactive material.
Occupational dose does not include dose received from background radiation, from any medical
administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive
materials and released in accordance with 10 CFR 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical
research programs, or as a member of the general public.
occupational exposure: An exposure that occurs during work with sources of ionizing
radiation. For example, exposures received from working on a nuclear reactor, in nuclear
reprocessing, or by a dental nurse taking x-rays would be classed as occupational.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration: Independent Federal agency whose mission
is to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and deaths. Congress created Occupational Safety
and Health Administration under the Occupational Safety and Health Act on December 29,
1970.
once-through cooling system: In this cooling system, circulating water for condenser cooling
is obtained from an adjacent body of water, such as a lake or river, passed through the
condenser tubes, and returned directly at a higher temperature to the adjacent body of water.
organ dose: Dose received as a result of radiation energy absorbed in a specific organ.
organism: An individual of any form of animal or plant life.
J-25
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
Outer Continental Shelf: The Outer Continental Shelf consists of the submerged lands,
subsoil, and seabed, lying between the seaward extent of the States’ jurisdiction and the
seaward extent of Federal jurisdiction.
overburden: Any material, consolidated or unconsolidated, that overlies a coal or other rock or
mineral deposit.
ozone: A strong-smelling, reactive toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms
chemically attached to each other. It is formed in the atmosphere by chemical
reactions involving nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds. The reactions are energized
by sunlight. Ozone is a criteria air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and is a major constituent of
smog.
particulate matter: Fine solid or liquid particles, such as dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or smog,
found in air or emissions. The size of the particulates is measured in micrometers. One
micrometer is 1 millionth of a meter or 0.000039 inch. The EPA has set standards for PM2.5 and
PM10 particulates.
pathway (exposure): The way in which people are exposed to radiation or other contaminants.
The three basic pathways are inhalation (contaminants are taken into the lungs), ingestion
(contaminants are swallowed), and direct (external) exposure (contaminants cause damage
from outside the body).
peak load: The maximum load during a specified period of time.
perched aquifer/groundwater: A body of groundwater of small lateral dimensions separated
from an underlying body of groundwater by an unsaturated zone.
perfluorocarbons (PFCs): A group of man-made chemicals composed of one or two carbon
atoms and four to six fluorine atoms, containing no chlorine. PFCs have no commercial uses
and are emitted as a by-product of aluminum smelting and semiconductor manufacturing. PFCs
have very high 100-year global warming potentials and are very long-lived in the atmosphere.
personal protective equipment: Clothing and equipment that are worn to reduce exposure to
potentially hazardous chemicals and other pollutants.
person-rem: The sum of the individual radiation dose equivalents received by members of a
certain group or population. It may be calculated by multiplying the average dose per person by
the number of persons exposed. For example, a thousand people, each exposed to
one millirem, would have a collective dose of one person-rem.
petroleum: A broadly defined class of liquid hydrocarbon mixtures. Includes crude oil, lease
condensate, unfinished oils, refined products obtained from the processing of crude oil, and
natural gas plant liquids. Volumes of finished petroleum products include nonhydrocarbon
compounds, such as additives and detergents, after they have been blended into products.
photosynthesis: The process in green plants and certain other organisms by which
carbohydrates are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water using sunlight as an energy
source. Most forms of photosynthesis release oxygen as a by-product. Chlorophyll typically acts
as the catalyst in this process.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-26
Appendix J
photovoltaic and solar thermal energy: Energy radiated by the sun as electromagnetic waves
(electromagnetic radiation) that is converted at electric utilities into electricity by means of solar
(photovoltaic) cells or concentrating (focusing) collectors.
photovoltaic cell: An electronic device consisting of layers of semiconductor materials
fabricated to form a junction (adjacent layers of materials with different electronic
characteristics) and electrical contacts and capable of converting incident light directly into
electricity (direct current).
photovoltaic system: A system that converts light into electric current.
phytoplankton: Small, often single-celled plants that live suspended in bodies of water.
plume: A visible or measurable emission or discharge of a contaminant from a given point of
origin into any medium, such as that formed from a cooling water outfall into a receiving
waterbody or smokestack into the atmosphere.
plutonium: A heavy, man-made, radioactive metallic element. The most important isotope is
Pu-239, which has a half-life of more than 20,000 years; it can be used in reactor fuel and is the
primary isotope in weapons.
PM10: Particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (0.0004 in.) or
less. Particles less than this diameter are small enough to be deposited in the lungs.
PM2.5: Particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers (0.0001 in.) or
less.
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Aromatic hydrocarbons containing more than one fused
benzene ring. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are commonly formed during the incomplete
burning of coal, oil, and gas, garbage, or other organic substances.
population dose: Dose received collectively by a population.
potable water: Water that is fit for humans to drink.
power: The rate of producing, transferring, or using energy, most commonly associated with
electricity. Power is measured in watts and often expressed in kilowatts (kW) or
megawatts (MW).
pressurized water reactor (PWR): A power reactor in which thermal energy is transferred from
the core to a heat exchanger by high-temperature water kept under high pressure in the primary
system. Steam is generated in the heat exchanger in a secondary circuit.
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD): A Federal permit program for facilities defined
as major sources under the New Source Review program. The intent of the program is to
prevent the air quality in an attainment area from deteriorating.
primary system: A term that refers to the circulating water system in a pressurized water
reactor, which removes the energy from the reactor and delivers it to the heat exchanger.
J-27
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
proposed action: An action proposed by a Federal agency and evaluated in an environmental
impact statement or environmental assessment. In this LR GEIS, the proposed action is to
renew commercial nuclear power plant operating licenses.
proton: A small particle, typically found within an atom’s nucleus, that possesses a positive
electrical charge. The number of protons is unique for each chemical element.
proximity: Used sparingly to evaluate the remoteness of areas in which nuclear plants are
located. A measure of the distance to larger cities.
public dose: The dose received by members of the public from exposure to radiation or to
radioactive material released by a licensee, or to any other source of radiation under the control
of a licensee. Public dose does not include occupational dose or doses received from
background radiation, from any medical administration the individual has received, from
exposure to individuals administered radioactive materials and released in accordance with
10 CFR 35.75, or from voluntary participation in medical research programs.
pulverized coal: Coal that has been crushed to a fine dust in a grinding mill. It is blown into the
combustion zone of a furnace and burns very rapidly and efficiently.
pumped-storage hydroelectric plant: A hydropower plant that usually generates electric
energy during peak load periods by using water previously pumped into an elevated storage
reservoir during off-peak periods when excess generating capacity is available to do so. When
additional generating capacity is needed, the water can be released from the reservoir through a
conduit to turbine generators located in a power plant at a lower level.
quality factor: The modifying factor that is used to derive dose equivalent from absorbed dose.
rad: The special unit for radiation absorbed dose, which is the amount of energy from any type
of ionizing radiation (e.g., alpha, beta, gamma, neutrons) deposited in any medium (e.g., water,
tissue, air). A dose of one rad means the absorption of 100 ergs (a small but measurable
amount of energy) per gram of absorbing tissue (100 rad = 1 gray).
radiation (ionizing radiation): Alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, x-rays, neutrons,
high-speed electrons, high-speed protons, and other particles capable of producing ions.
Radiation, as used in https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/index.html,
10 CFR Part 20, does not include nonionizing radiation, such as radiowaves or microwaves, or
visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light (see also 10 CFR 20.1003).
radioactive decay: The decrease in the amount of any radioactive material with the passage of
time due to the spontaneous emission from the atomic nuclei of either alpha or beta particles,
often accompanied by gamma radiation.
radioactive waste: Radioactive materials at the end of a useful life cycle or in a product that is
no longer useful and should be properly disposed of.
radioactivity: The spontaneous emission of radiation, generally alpha or beta particles, often
accompanied by gamma rays, from the nucleus of an unstable isotope. Also, the rate at which
radioactive material emits radiation. Measured in units of becquerels or disintegrations per
second.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-28
Appendix J
radioisotope: An unstable isotope of an element that decays or disintegrates spontaneously,
emitting radiation. Approximately 5,000 natural and artificial radioisotopes have been identified.
radionuclide: A radioisotope of an element.
raptor: A bird of prey such as a falcon, hawk, or eagle.
rated power: The design power level of an electrical generating device, which is the maximum
power the device is allowed to generate.
reactor vessel: A device in which nuclear fission may be sustained and controlled in a
self-supporting nuclear reaction. It houses the core (made up of fuel rods, control rods, and
instruments contained within a reactor vessel) of most types of power reactors.
receptor: The individual or resource being affected by the impact.
reference reactor year: Refers to one year of operation of a 1,000-MW electric capacity
nuclear power plant operating at an 80 percent availability factor to produce about 80 MW-yr
(0.8 GW-yr) of electricity.
refurbishment: Repair or replacement of reactor systems, structures, and components, such
as turbines, steam generators, pressurizers, and recirculation piping systems.
region of influence: Area occupied by affected resources and the distances at which impacts
associated with license renewal may occur.
rem (roentgen equivalent man): The acronym for roentgen equivalent man is a standard unit
that measures the effects of ionizing radiation on humans. The dose equivalent in rem is equal
to the absorbed dose in rads multiplied by the quality factor of the type of radiation
(see 10 CFR 20.1004).
renewable energy resources: Energy resources that are naturally replenishing but
flow-limited. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration, but limited in the amount of energy that
is available per unit of time. Renewable energy resources include biomass, hydro, geothermal,
solar, wind, ocean thermal, wave action, and tidal action.
renewable portfolio standards: State policies that require electricity providers to generate a
certain percentage, or, in some cases a certain specified amount, of electrical power through
the use of renewable energy sources by a certain date.
residual fuel oil: A general classification for the heavier oils, known as No. 5 and No. 6 fuel
oils, that remain after the distillate fuel oils and lighter hydrocarbons are distilled away in refinery
operations.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): Act that regulates the storage, treatment,
and disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes.
right-of-way (ROW): The land and legal right to use and service the land along which a
transmission line is located. Transmission line ROWs are usually acquired in widths that vary
with the kilovolt (kV) size of the line.
J-29
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
riparian: Related to, living in, or located on the bank of a river, lake, or tidewater.
risk: The combined answers to the following questions: (1) What can go wrong? (2) How likely
is it? (3) What are the consequences?
risk coefficient: A coefficient used to convert dose to risk.
roentgen equivalent man (rem): See rem.
runoff: The portion of rainfall, melted snow, or irrigation water that flows across the ground and
that may eventually enter surface waters.
run-of-river hydroelectric plant: A hydropower plant that uses the flow of a stream as it occurs
and has little or no reservoir capacity for storage.
SAFSTOR: A method of decommissioning in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained
in such condition that the nuclear facility can be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated
to levels that permit release for restricted or unrestricted use.
savanna: Grassland with scattered individual trees.
scouring: The rapid erosion of sediment caused by the movement of water.
scrubbers: Air pollution control devices that are used to remove particulates and/or gases from
industrial or power exhaust streams.
sediment: Particles of geologic origin that sink to the bottom of a body of water, or materials
that are deposited by wind, water, or glaciers.
seismic: Of, subject to, or caused by an earthquake or earth vibration.
seismicity: The frequency and distribution of earthquakes.
service water: Water used to cool heat exchangers or coolers in the powerhouse other than the
condenser. Service water may or may not be treated for use.
sievert (Sv): The international system (SI) unit for dose equivalent equal to 1 joule/kilogram.
1 sievert = 100 rem. Named for physicist Rolf Sievert.
sludge: A dense, slushy, liquid-to-semifluid product that accumulates as an end result of an
industrial or technological process. Industrial sludges are produced from the processing of
energy-related raw materials, chemical products, water, mined ores, sewage, and other natural
and human-made products.
socioeconomics: Social and economic characteristics of a human population. Includes both
the social impacts of economic activity and the economic impacts of social activity.
soils: All unconsolidated materials above bedrock. Natural earthy materials on the earth’s
surface, in places modified or even made by human activity, containing living matter, and
supporting or capable of supporting plants.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-30
Appendix J
solar energy: The radiant energy of the sun, which can be converted into other forms of
energy, such as heat or electricity.
solar power tower: A solar energy conversion system that uses a large field of independently
adjustable mirrors (heliostats) to focus solar rays on a near single point atop a fixed tower
(receiver). The concentrated energy may be used to directly heat the working fluid of a Rankin
cycle engine or to heat an intermediary thermal storage medium (such as a molten salt).
solar radiation: A general term for the visible and near-visible (ultraviolet and near-infrared)
electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by the sun. It has a spectral, or wavelength, distribution
that corresponds to different energy levels; short wavelength radiation has a higher energy than
long wavelength radiation.
solar thermal systems or concentrating solar power: See solar power tower.
sound intensity: The measure of the amount of energy that is transported over a given area
per unit of time. Sound intensity is expressed in units of watts per square meter.
sparseness: Used (with proximity) to evaluate the remoteness of areas in which nuclear plants
are located. A measure of population density.
spawning: Release or deposition of spermatozoa or ova, of which some will fertilize or be
fertilized to produce offspring.
spent fuel burnup: A measure of how much energy is extracted from the nuclear fuel before it
is removed from the core. Its units are MW-day per metric tonne of uranium in fresh fuel.
spent fuel pool: An underwater storage and cooling facility for spent fuel elements that have
been removed from a reactor.
spent nuclear fuel: Nuclear reactor fuel that has been removed from a nuclear reactor because
it can no longer sustain power production for economic or other reasons.
State Historic Preservation Office(r) (SHPO): The State agency (or officer) charged with the
identification and protection of prehistoric and historic resources in accordance with the National
Historic Preservation Act in the State (see also 36 CFR 800.2(c)(1)).
state implementation plan: State-specific air quality plan for controlling air pollution emissions
at levels that would attain and maintain compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards or State-specific air quality standards. Each State must develop its own regulations
to monitor, permit, and control air emissions within its boundaries.
steam turbine: A device that converts high-pressure steam, produced in a boiler, into
mechanical energy that can then be used to produce electricity by forcing blades in a cylinder to
rotate and turn a generator shaft.
stochastic effect: Health effects that occur randomly and for which the probability of the effect
occurring, rather than its severity, is assumed to be a linear function of dose without threshold.
Hereditary effects and cancer incidence are examples of stochastic effect.
J-31
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
store and release dam: Hydropower facilities that store water in a reservoir behind a dam and
release the water through turbines as needed to generate electricity.
stormwater: Stormwater runoff, snowmelt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.
stratification: The formation, accumulation, or deposition of materials in layers, such as layers
of freshwater overlying higher salinity water (saltwater) in estuaries.
strip mine: An open cut in which the overburden is removed from a coal bed or other mineral
deposit prior to the removal of the desired underlying material.
sulfur: A yellowish nonmetallic element. It is present at various concentrations in many fossil
fuels whose combustion releases sulfur compounds that are considered harmful to the
environment. Some of the most commonly used fossil fuels are categorized according to their
sulfur content, with lower sulfur fuels usually selling at a higher price.
sulfur dioxide: A gas formed from burning fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide is one of the six criteria air
pollutants specified under Title I of the Clean Air Act and contributes to the formation of acid
rain.
sulfur oxides: Pungent, colorless gases that are formed primarily by fossil fuel combustion.
Sulfur oxides may damage the respiratory tract, as well as plants and trees.
supercritical and subcritical: Supercritical and subcritical define the thermodynamic state of
the water in the steam cycle. In supercritical steam generating units, the pressure at which the
steam cycle is maintained is above water’s critical point so there is no distinction between
water’s liquid and gaseous phases and the steam behaves as a homogeneous supercritical
fluid. The supercritical point for water is 22.1 megapascals (approximately 3,207 pounds per
square inch). Supercritical steam generators offer numerous advantages over their subcritical
counterparts, including higher thermal efficiencies, greater flexibility in changing loads, and
greater combustion efficiencies, resulting in lesser amounts of pollutants per units of power
generated. No ultra-supercritical units are operating in the United States.
supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS): A SEIS updates or supplements an
existing environmental impact statement (such as the LR GEIS). The NRC directs the staff to
issue plant-specific supplements to the LR GEIS for each license renewal application.
surface mine (surface mining): A coal-producing mine that is usually within a few hundred feet
of the surface. Earth above or around the coal (overburden) is removed to expose the coalbed,
which is then mined with surface excavation equipment, such as draglines, power shovels,
bulldozers, loaders, and augers. It may also be known as an area, contour, open-pit, strip, or
auger mine.
surface water: Water on the earth’s surface that is directly exposed to the atmosphere, as
distinguished from water in the ground (groundwater).
switchyard: A facility used at power plants to increase the electric voltage and feed into the
regional power distribution system. Electricity generated at the plant is carried off the site by
transmission lines.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-32
Appendix J
tallgrass: Any of various grasses that are tall and that flourish with abundant moisture, typically
associated with the prairies of the midwestern United States.
terrestrial: Belonging to or living on land.
thermal: Having to do with heat. Also, a term used to identify a type of electric generating
station, capacity, capability, or output in which the source of energy for the prime mover is heat.
thermal efficiency: A measure of the efficiency of converting the thermal energy generated by
the burning of the fossil fuels or the fission of nuclear fuel to electrical energy.
thermal effluents: Heated discharge from a cooling water system.
thermal plume: The hot water discharged from a power-generating facility or other industrial
plant. When the water at elevated temperature enters a receiving stream or body of water, it is
not immediately dispersed and mixed with the cooler waters. The warmer water moves as a
single mass (plume) from the discharge point until it cools and gradually mixes with that of the
receiving water.
thermal stratification: The formation of layers of different temperatures in a lake or reservoir.
thermophilic: Organisms such as bacteria that require a relatively high-temperature
environment for normal development.
threatened species: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Requirements for declaring
a species threatened are contained in the Endangered Species Act.
total body dose/whole-body dose: Sum of the dose received from external exposure to the
total body, gonads, active blood-forming organs, head and trunk, or lens of the eye and the
dose due to the intake of radionuclides by inhalation and ingestion where a radioisotope is
uniformly distributed throughout the body tissues rather than being concentrated in certain parts.
total effective dose equivalent: The sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for external exposure)
and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposure).
transformer: An electrical device for changing the voltage of alternating current.
transmission: The movement or transfer of electric energy over an interconnected group of
lines and associated equipment between points of supply and points at which it is transformed
for delivery to consumers or is delivered to other electric systems. Transmission is considered to
end when the energy is transformed for distribution to the consumer.
transmission line: A set of conductors, insulators, supporting structures, and associated
equipment used to move large quantities of power at high-voltage, usually over long distances
between a generating or receiving point and major substations or delivery points.
transuranic elements: The chemical elements with atomic numbers greater than 92, the
atomic number of uranium.
J-33
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
transuranic waste: Material contaminated with transuranic elements that is produced primarily
from reprocessing spent fuel and from use of plutonium in fabrication of nuclear weapons.
tritium: A radioactive isotope of hydrogen with one proton and two neutrons. It decays by beta
emission. It has a radioactive half-life of about 12.5 years.
turbine: A device in which a stream of water or gas turns a bladed wheel, converting the kinetic
energy of the flow into mechanical energy available from the turbine shaft. Turbines are
considered the most economical means of turning large electrical generators. They are typically
driven by steam, fuel vapor, water, or wind.
universal waste: A special class of hazardous waste consisting of commonly used and yet
hazardous materials: batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and lamps.
uranium: A radioactive element with the atomic number 92 and, as found in natural ores, an
atomic weight of approximately 238. The two principal natural isotopes are uranium-235
(0.7 percent of natural uranium) and uranium-238 (99.3 percent of natural uranium). Natural
uranium also includes a minute amount of uranium-234.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): A Federal agency, created for the purpose of
promoting human health by protecting the nation’s air, water, and soil from harmful pollution by
enforcing environmental regulations based on laws passed by Congress. The agency conducts
environmental assessment, research, and education. It has the responsibility of maintaining and
enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws (e.g., Clean Air Act), in
consultation with State, Tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting, monitoring,
and enforcement responsibility to States and Native American Tribes. EPA enforcement powers
include fines, sanctions, and other measures. The agency also works with industries and all
levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy
conservation efforts.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): An independent regulatory agency that is
responsible for overseeing the civilian use of nuclear materials in the United States. The NRC
was established on October 11, 1974, by President Gerald Ford as one of two successor
organizations to the Atomic Energy Commission, which became defunct on that same day. The
NRC took over the Atomic Energy Commission’s responsibility for seeing that civilian nuclear
materials and facilities are used safely and affect neither the public health nor the quality of the
environment. The Commission’s activities include the regulation of nuclear reactors in the
United States that are used to generate electricity on a commercial basis. It licenses the
construction of new nuclear reactors and regulates their operation on a continuing basis. It
oversees the use, processing, handling, and disposal of nuclear materials and wastes; inspects
nuclear power plants and monitors both their safety procedures and their security measures;
enforces compliance with established safety standards; and investigates nuclear accidents. The
NRC’s Commissioners are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by
the Senate for staggered five-year terms.
vertebrate: Any species having a backbone or spinal column including fish, amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals.
visual impact: The creation of an intrusion or perceptible contrast that affects the scenic quality
of a landscape.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-34
Appendix J
visual resources: Refers to all objects (man-made and natural, moving and stationary) and
features such as landforms and waterbodies that are visible on a landscape.
volatile organic compounds (VOCs): A broad range of organic compounds that readily
evaporate at normal temperatures and pressures. Sources include certain solvents, degreasers
(e.g., benzene), and fuels. Volatile organic compounds react with other substances (primarily
nitrogen oxides) to form ozone. They contribute significantly to photochemical smog production
and certain health problems.
waste coal: Usable material that is a by-product of previous coal processing operations. Waste
coal may be relatively clean material composed primarily of coal fines, material in which
extraneous noncombustible constituents have been partially removed, or mixed coal, soil, and
rock (mine waste) burned as is in unconventional boilers, such as fluidized bed units. Examples
include fine coal, coal obtained from a refuse bank or slurry dam, anthracite culm, bituminous
gob, and lignite waste.
wastewater: The used water and solids that flow to a treatment plant and/or are discharged to a
receiving waterbody. Stormwater, surface water, and groundwater infiltration also may be
included in the wastewater that enters a wastewater treatment plant. Domestic or sanitary
wastewater is water originating from human sanitary water use and industrial wastewater is that
derived from a variety of industrial processes.
water quality: The condition of water with respect to the amount of impurities in it.
water table: The boundary between the unsaturated zone and the deeper, saturated zone. The
upper surface of an unconfined aquifer.
weir: A structure in a waterway or stormwater control device, over which water flows that serves
to raise the water level or to direct or regulate flow.
wetlands: Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater and that
typically support vegetation adapted for life in saturated soils. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas (e.g., sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river
overflow areas, mudflats, natural ponds).
wind energy: Kinetic energy present in wind motion that can be converted to mechanical
energy for driving pumps, mills, and electric power generators.
wind farm: One or more wind turbines operating within a contiguous area for the purpose of
generating electricity. See also wind power plant.
wind power plant: Wind turbines interconnected to a common utility system through a system
of transformers, distribution lines, and (usually) one substation. Operation, control, and
maintenance functions are often centralized through a network of computerized monitoring
systems, supplemented by visual inspection.
wind turbine: Wind energy conversion device that produces electricity; typically three blades
rotating about a horizontal axis and positioned upwind of the supporting tower.
x-rays and gamma rays: Waves of pure energy that travel with the speed of light that are very
penetrating and require thick concrete or lead shielding to stop them.
J-35
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
Appendix J
Yucca Mountain: The Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site of the DOE’s proposed location for a
repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The EPA established the
public health and environmental radiation protection standards for the facility. However, in
March 2010, DOE filed a request with the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to
withdraw its application for authorization to construct a high-level waste geological repository at
Yucca Mountain. The decisions and recommendations concerning the ultimate disposition of
spent nuclear fuel are ongoing.
zooplankton: Small animals that float passively in the water column. Includes eggs and larvae
of many fish and invertebrate species.
NUREG-1437, Revision 2
J-36
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
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
Appendices
NUREG-1437, Volume 3,
Revision 2
Final Report
3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED
MONTH
YEAR
August
2024
4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER
Final Report
5. AUTHOR(S)
6. TYPE OF REPORT
See Appendix H of this 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)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations allow for the renewal of commercial nuclear power plant
operating licenses. There are no specific limitations in the Atomic Energy Act or the NRC’s regulations restricting the
number of times a license may be renewed. To support license renewal environmental reviews, the NRC published the
first Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (LR GEIS) in 1996. Per NRC
regulations, a review and update of the LR GEIS is conducted every 10 years, if necessary. The proposed action is the
renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses.
Since publication of the 1996 LR GEIS, 59 nuclear power plants (96 reactor units) have undergone license renewal
environmental reviews and have received renewed licenses (either an initial license renewal [initial LR] or subsequent
license renewal [SLR]), the results of which were published as supplements to the LR GEIS. This revision evaluates
the issues and findings of the 2013 LR GEIS (Revision 1). Lessons learned and knowledge gained from initial LR and
SLR environmental reviews provide major sources of new information for this assessment. In addition, new research,
findings, public comments, changes in applicable laws and regulations, and other information were considered in
evaluating the environmental impacts associated with license renewal. Additionally, this revision fully considers and
evaluates the environmental impacts of initial LR and one term of SLR.
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-1437, Revision 2
National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA
License Renewal
Initial LR
Subsequent License Renewal
SLR
NRC FORM 335 (12-2010)
13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
unlimited
14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
(This Page)
unclassified
(This Report)
unclassified
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
16. PRICE
NUREG-1437, Volume 3
Revision 2
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants
August 2024
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Final, August 2024 |
| Subject | License Renewal GEIS, LR GEIS, environmental review, nuclear power plants, continued operations, license renewal, initial licens |
| Author | U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material S |
| File Modified | 2024-06-18 |
| File Created | 2024-06-14 |