Collapse to view only § 51.1 - Scope.
- § 51.1 - Scope.
- § 51.2 - Subparts.
- § 51.3 - Resolution of conflict.
- § 51.4 - Definitions.
- § 51.5 - Interpretations.
- § 51.6 - Specific exemptions.
- SUBPART A - Subpart A—National Environmental Policy Act—Regulations Implementing Section 102(2)
- SUBPART 0 -
- SUBPART B - Subpart B [Reserved]
- APPENDIX Appendix A - Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental Impact Statements
- APPENDIX Appendix B - Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant
- APPENDIX Appendix C - Appendix C to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Issuing a Permit or License for a New Nuclear Reactor
§ 51.1 - Scope.
This part contains environmental protection regulations applicable to NRC's domestic licensing and related regulatory functions. These regulations do not apply to export licensing matters within the scope of part 110 of this chapter or to any environmental effects which NRC's domestic licensing and related regulatory functions may have upon the environment of foreign nations. Subject to these limitations, the regulations in this part implement:
(a) Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
§ 51.2 - Subparts.
(a) The regulations in subpart A of this part implement section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
§ 51.3 - Resolution of conflict.
In any conflict between a general rule in subpart A of this part and a special rule in another subpart of this part or another part of this chapter applicable to a particular type of proceeding, the special rule governs.
§ 51.4 - Definitions.
As used in this part:
Act means the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 83-703, 68 Stat. 919) including any amendments thereto.
Commission means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its authorized representatives.
Construction means:
(1)(i) For production and utilization facilities licensed under 10 CFR part 50 or 10 CFR part 52, the activities in 10 CFR 50.10(a)(1), and does not mean the activities in 10 CFR 50.10(a)(2).
(ii) For utilization facilities licensed under 10 CFR part 53, the activities in paragraph (1) of the definition of construction in 10 CFR 53.020, and does not mean the activities in paragraph (2) of the definition of construction in 10 CFR 53.020.
(2) For materials licenses, the activities in paragraph (2)(i) of this definition, and does not mean the activities in paragraph (2)(ii) of this definition.
(i) Taking any site-preparation activity at the site of a facility subject to the regulations in 10 CFR parts 30, 36, 40, and 70 that has a reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or the common defense and security.
(ii) Construction does not include:
(A) The activities listed in 10 CFR 50.10(a)(2)(i)-(viii); or
(B) Taking any other action that has no reasonable nexus to radiological health and safety or the common defense and security.
Previously disturbed areas means areas that have been changed by development of the facility and remain altered by human activity such that they do not support important habitat or habitat to important species and no longer have the potential to yield historic and cultural resources. This includes the lateral and vertical extent of alteration from natural cover to a managed state.
NRC means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency established by Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended.
NRC staff means any NRC officer or employee or his/her authorized representative, except a Commissioner, a member of a Commissioner's immediate staff, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, a presiding officer, an administrative judge, an administrative law judge, or any other officer or employee of the Commission who performs adjudicatory functions.
NRC staff director means the Executive Director for Operations; the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation; the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; the Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research; the Director, Office of Public Affairs; and the designee of any NRC staff director.
§ 51.5 - Interpretations.
Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no interpretation of the regulations in this part by any officer or employee of the Commission other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be recognized to be binding upon the Commission. This section shall cease to have effect on January 8, 2027, unless the NRC determines that the cessation deadline should be extended to a date not more than 5 years in the future after offering the public an opportunity to provide input on the costs and benefits of this section and considering that input. The NRC will publish a document in the
§ 51.6 - Specific exemptions.
The Commission may, upon application of any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines are authorized by law and are otherwise in the public interest.
A - Subpart A—National Environmental Policy Act—Regulations Implementing Section 102(2)
0 -
B - Subpart B [Reserved]
Appendix A - Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental Impact Statements
(a) The Commission will use a format for environmental impact statements which will encourage good analysis and clear presentation of the alternatives including the proposed action. The following standard format for environmental impact statements should be followed unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise:
(1) Cover sheet*
(2) Summary*
(3) Table of Contents
(4) Purpose of and Need for Action*
(5) Alternatives including the proposed action*
(6) Affected Environment*
(7) Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions*
(8) List of Preparers*
(9) List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement are Sent
(10) Substantive Comments Received and NRC Staff Responses
(11) Index
(12) Appendices (if any)*
If a different format is used, it shall include paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (8), (9), (10), and (11) of this section and shall include the substance of paragraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), and (12) of this section, in any appropriate format.
Additional guidance on the presentation of material under the format headings identified by an asterisk is set out in sections 2.-9. of this appendix.
(b) The techniques of tiering and incorporation by reference described respectively in 40 CFR 1502.20 and 1508.28 and 40 CFR 1502.21
1
1 Tiering—40 CFR 1502.20, 40 CFR 1508.28; Incorporation by reference—40 CFR 1502.21.
2 Adoption—40 CFR 1506.3.
2. Cover sheet.The cover sheet will not exceed one page. It will include:
(a) The name of the NRC office responsible for preparing the statement and a list of any cooperating agencies.
(b) The title of the proposed action that is the subject of the statement with a list of the states, counties or municipalities where the facility or other subject of the action is located, as appropriate.
(c) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual in NRC who can supply further information.
(d) A designation of the statement as a draft or final statement, or a draft or final supplement.
(e) A one paragraph abstract of the statement.
(f) For draft environmental impact statements, the date by which comments must be received. This date may be specified in the form of the following or a substantially similar statement:
“Comments should be filed no later than
3
3 The number of days in the comment period should be inserted. The minimum comment period is 45 days (see § 51.73.)
3. Summary.Each environmental impact statement will contain a summary which adequately and accurately summarizes the statement. The summary will stress the major issues considered. The summary will discuss the areas of controversy, will identify any remaining issues to be resolved, and will present the major conclusions and recommendations. The summary will normally not exceed 15 pages.
4. Purpose of and need for action.The statement will briefly describe and specify the need for the proposed action. The alternative of no action will be discussed. In the case of nuclear power plant construction or siting, consideration will be given to the potential impact of conservation measures in determining the demand for power and consequent need for additional generating capacity.
5. Alternatives including the proposed action.This section is the heart of the environmental impact statement. It will present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form. Where important to the comparative evaluation of alternatives, appropriate mitigating measures of the alternatives will be discussed. All reasonable alternatives will be identified. The range of alternatives discussed will encompass those proposed to be considered by the ultimate decisionmaker. An otherwise reasonable alternative will not be excluded from discussion solely on the ground that it is not within the jurisdiction of the NRC.
4
4 With respect to limitations on NRC's NEPA authority and responsibility imposed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, see §§ 51.10(c) and 51.71(d).
In the draft environmental impact statement, this section will either include a preliminary recommendation on the action to be taken, or identify the alternatives under consideration.
In the final environmental impact statement, this section will include a final recommendation on the action to be taken.
6. Affected environment.The environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated.
7. Environmental consequences and mitigating actions.This section discusses the environmental consequences of alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for sound decisionmaking.
The discussion will include any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the alternative be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the alternative should it be implemented. This section will include discussions of:
(a) Direct effects and their significance.
(b) Indirect effects and their significance.
(c) Possible conflicts between the alternative and the objectives of Federal, regional, State, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Indian Tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for the area concerned.
(d) Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.
8. List of preparers.The environmental impact statement will list the names and qualifications (expertise, experience, professional disciplines), of the persons who were primarily responsible for preparing the environmental impact statement or significant background papers. Persons responsible for making an independent evaluation of information submitted by the applicant or petitioner for rulemaking or others will be included in the list. Where possible, the persons who are responsible for a particular analysis, including analyses in background papers, will be identified.
9. Appendices.An appendix to an environmental impact statement will:
(a) Consist of material prepared in connection with an environmental impact statement (as distinct from material which is not so prepared and which is incorporated by reference (40 CFR 1502.21)).
(b) Normally consist of material which substantiates any analysis fundamental to the impact statement. Discussion of methodology used may be placed in an appendix.
(c) Normally be analytic.
(d) Be relevant to the decision to be made.
(e) Be circulated with the environmental impact statement or be readily available on request.
Discussion of Footnotes 1. Tiering.40 CFR 1502.20 states:
“Agencies are encouraged to tier their environmental impact statements to eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and to focus on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review (§ 1508.28). Whenever a broad environmental impact statement has been prepared (such as a program or policy statement) and a subsequent statement or environmental assessment is then prepared on an action included within the entire program or policy (such as a site specific action) the subsequent statement or environmental assessment need only summarize the issues discussed in the broader statement and incorporate discussions from the broader statement by reference and shall concentrate on the issues specific to the subsequent action. The subsequent document shall state where the earlier document is available. Tiering may also be appropriate for different stages of actions. (Sec. 1508.28).”
40 CFR 1508.28 states:
“ ‘Tiering’ refers to the coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact statements (such as national program or policy statements) with subsequent narrower statements or environmental analyses (such as regional or basinwide program statements or ultimately site-specific statements) incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the statement subsequently prepared. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of statements or analyses is:
“(a) From a program, plan, or policy environmental impact statement to a program, plan, or policy statement or analysis of lesser scope or to a site-specific statement or analysis.
“(b) From an environmental impact statement on a specific action at an early stage (such as need and site selection) to a supplement (which is preferred) or a subsequent statement or analysis at a later stage (such as environmental mitigation). Tiering in such cases is appropriate when it helps the lead agency to focus on the issues which are ripe for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided or not yet ripe.”
Incorporation by reference. 40 CFR 1502.21 states:
“Agencies shall incorporate material into an environmental impact statement by reference when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action. The incorporated material shall be cited in the statement and its content briefly described. No material may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed for comment. Material based on proprietary data which is itself not available for review and comment shall not be incorporated by reference.”
2. Adoption.40 CFR 1506.3 states:
“(a) An agency may adopt a Federal draft or final environmental impact statement or portion thereof provided that the statement or portion thereof meets the standards for an adequate statement under these regulations.
“(b) If the actions covered by the original environmental impact statement and the proposed action are substantially the same, the agency adopting another agency's statement is not required to recirculate it except as a final statement. Otherwise the adopting agency shall treat the statement as a draft and recirculate it (except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section).
“(c) A cooperating agency may adopt without recirculating the environmental impact statement of a lead agency when, after an independent review of the statement, the cooperating agency concludes that its comments and suggestions have been satisfied.
“(d) When an agency adopts a statement which is not final within the agency that prepared it, or when the action it assesses is the subject of a referral under part 1504, or when the statement's adequacy is the subject of a judicial action which is not final, the agency shall so specify.”
Appendix B - Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant
The Commission has assessed the environmental impacts associated with granting a renewed operating license for a nuclear power plant for which an operating license, construction permit, or combined license was issued as of June 30, 1995. This assessment applies to applications for initial or a first (i.e., one term) subsequent license renewal. Table B-1 summarizes the Commission's findings on the scope and magnitude of environmental impacts of renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant as required by section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. Table B-1, subject to an evaluation of those issues identified in Category 2 as requiring further analysis and possible significant new information, represents the analysis of the environmental impacts associated with renewal of any operating license and is to be used in accordance with § 51.95(c). On a 10-year cycle, the Commission intends to review the material in this appendix and update it if necessary. A scoping notice must be published in the
Table B-1—Summary of Findings on Environmental Issues for Initial and One Term of Subsequent License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants
| Issue | Category 2 | Finding 3 | Onsite land use | 1 | SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would be a small fraction of the nuclear power plant site and would involve only land that is controlled by the licensee. | Offsite land use | 1 | SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected by continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. | Offsite land use in transmission line right-of-ways (ROWs) 4 | 1 | SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would continue with no change in land use restrictions. | Aesthetic impacts | 1 | SMALL. No important changes to the visual appearance of plant structures or transmission lines are expected from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. | Air quality impacts | 1 | SMALL. Air quality impacts from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small at all plants. Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire pumps and routine operations of boilers used for space heating are minor. Impacts from cooling tower particulate emissions have been small.
Emissions resulting from refurbishment activities at locations in or near air quality nonattainment or maintenance areas would be short-lived and would cease after these activities are completed. Operating experience has shown that the scale of refurbishment activities has not resulted in exceedance of the | Air quality effects of transmission lines 4 | 1 | SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen from transmission lines is insignificant and does not contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases. | Noise impacts | 1 | SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory guidelines for offsite receptors during continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. | Geology and soils | 1 | SMALL. The impact of continued operations and refurbishment activities on geology and soils would be small for all nuclear power plants and would not change appreciably during the license renewal term. | Surface water use and quality (non-cooling system impacts) | 1 | SMALL. Impacts are expected to be small if best management practices are employed to control soil erosion and spills. Surface water use associated with continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would not increase significantly or would be reduced if refurbishment occurs during a plant outage. | Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures | 1 | SMALL. Altered current patterns would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. | Altered salinity gradients | 1 | SMALL. Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. | Altered thermal stratification of lakes | 1 | SMALL. Effects on thermal stratification would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. | Scouring caused by discharged cooling water | 1 | SMALL. Scouring effects would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. | Discharge of metals in cooling system effluent | 1 | SMALL. Discharges of metals have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. | Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills | 1 | SMALL. The effects of these discharges are regulated by Federal and State environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of the NPDES permit process. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. | Surface water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) | 1 | SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-through heat dissipation systems. | Surface water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river) | 2 | SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts could be of small or moderate significance, depending on makeup water requirements, water availability, and competing water demands. | Effects of dredging on surface water quality | 1 | SMALL. Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge shipping has not been found to be a problem for surface water quality. Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other State or local agencies. | Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity | 1 | SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. | Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system impacts) | 1 | SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Industrial practices involving the use of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals, and/or the use of wastewater ponds or lagoons have the potential to contaminate site groundwater, soil, and subsoil. Contamination is subject to State or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulated cleanup and monitoring programs. The application of best management practices for handling any materials produced or used during these activities would reduce impacts. | Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw less than 100 gallons per minute [gpm]) | 1 | SMALL. Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts. | Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than 100 gallons per minute [gpm]) | 2 | SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Plants that withdraw more than 100 gpm could cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users. | Groundwater use conflicts (plants with closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw makeup water from a river) | 2 | SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Water use conflicts could result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-flow conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge. The significance of impacts would depend on makeup water requirements, water availability, and competing water demands. | Groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals | 1 | SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear power plants would not contribute significantly to groundwater quality degradation. | Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds) | 2 | SMALL or MODERATE. Sites with cooling ponds could degrade groundwater quality. The significance of the impact would depend on site-specific conditions including cooling pond water quality, site hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction of surface water and groundwater), and the location, depth, and pump rate of water wells. | Radionuclides released to groundwater | 2 | SMALL or MODERATE. Leaks of radioactive liquids from plant components and pipes have occurred at numerous plants. Groundwater protection programs have been established at all operating nuclear power plants to minimize the potential impact from any inadvertent releases. The magnitude of impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics. | Non-cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources | 2 | SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The magnitude of effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment, unrelated to operation of the cooling system, would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including ecological setting, planned activities during the license renewal term, and characteristics of the plants and animals present in the area. Application of best management practices and other conservation initiatives would reduce the potential for impacts. | Exposure of terrestrial organisms to radionuclides | 1 | SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms from continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment during the license renewal term would be expected to remain well below U.S. Department of Energy exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms. | Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds) | 1 | SMALL. Continued operation of nuclear power plant cooling systems during license renewal could cause thermal effluent additions to receiving waterbodies, chemical effluent additions to surface water or groundwater, impingement of waterfowl, disturbance of terrestrial plants and wetlands from maintenance dredging, and erosion of shoreline habitat. However, plants where these impacts have occurred successfully mitigated the impact, and it is no longer of concern. These impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the license renewal term. | Cooling tower impacts on terrestrial plants | 1 | SMALL. Continued operation of nuclear power plant cooling towers could deposit particulates and water droplets or ice on vegetation and lead to structural damage or changes in terrestrial plant communities. However, nuclear power plants where these impacts occurred have successfully mitigated the impact. These impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the license renewal term. | Bird collisions with plant structures and transmission lines 4 | 1 | SMALL. Bird mortalities from collisions with nuclear power plant structures and in-scope transmission lines would be negligible for any species and are unlikely to threaten the stability of local or migratory bird populations or result in noticeable impairment of the function of a species within the ecosystem. These impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the license renewal term. | Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river) | 2 | SMALL or MODERATE. Nuclear power plants could consume water at rates that cause occasional or intermittent water use conflicts with nearby and downstream terrestrial and riparian communities. Such impacts could noticeably affect riparian or wetland species or alter characteristics of the ecological environment during the license renewal term. The one plant where impacts have occurred successfully mitigated the impact. Impacts are expected to be small at most nuclear power plants but could be moderate at some. | Transmission line right-of-way (ROW) management impacts on terrestrial resources 4 | 1 | SMALL. In-scope transmission lines tend to occupy only industrial-use or other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites and, therefore, effects of ROW maintenance on terrestrial plants and animals during the license renewal term would be negligible. Application of best management practices would reduce the potential for impacts. | Electromagnetic field effects on terrestrial plants and animals 4 | 1 | SMALL. In-scope transmission lines tend to occupy only industrial-use or other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites and, therefore, effects of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial plants and animals during the license renewal term would be negligible. | Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds) | 2 | SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impacts of impingement mortality and entrainment would generally be small at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds that have implemented best technology requirements for existing facilities under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(b). For all other plants, impacts could be small, moderate, or large depending on characteristics of the cooling water intake system, results of impingement and entrainment studies performed at the plant, trends in local fish and shellfish populations, and implementation of mitigation measures. | Impingement mortality and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers) | 1 | SMALL. No significant impacts on aquatic populations associated with impingement mortality and entrainment at nuclear power plants with cooling towers have been reported, including effects on fish and shellfish from direct mortality, injury, or other sublethal effects. Impacts during the license renewal term would be similar and small. Further, effects of these cooling water intake systems would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES permit conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b). | Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton | 1 | SMALL. Entrainment has not resulted in noticeable impacts on phytoplankton or zooplankton populations near operating nuclear power plants. Impacts during the license renewal term would be similar and small. Further, effects would be mitigated through adherence to NPDES permit conditions established pursuant to CWA Section 316(b). | Effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds) | 2 | SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Acute, sublethal, and community-level effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms would generally be small at nuclear power plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds that adhere to State water quality criteria or that have and maintain a valid CWA Section 316(a) variance. For all other plants, impacts could be small, moderate, or large depending on 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. | Effects of thermal effluents on aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers) | 1 | SMALL. Acute, sublethal, and community-level effects of thermal effluents have not resulted in noticeable impacts on aquatic communities at nuclear power plants with cooling towers. Impacts during the license renewal term would be similar and small. Further, effects would be mitigated through adherence to State water quality criteria or CWA Section 316(a) variances. | Infrequently reported effects of thermal effluents | 1 | SMALL. Continued operation of nuclear power plant cooling systems could result in certain infrequently reported thermal impacts, including cold shock, thermal migration barriers, accelerated maturation of aquatic insects, proliferation of aquatic nuisance organisms, depletion of dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, eutrophication, and increased susceptibility of exposed fish and shellfish to predation, parasitism, and disease. Most of these effects have not been reported at operating nuclear power plants. Plants that have experienced these impacts successfully mitigated the impact, and it is no longer of concern. Infrequently reported thermal impacts are not expected to be significant issues during the license renewal term. | Effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms | 1 | SMALL. Heavy metal leaching from condenser tubes was an issue at several operating nuclear power plants. These plants successfully mitigated the issue, and it is no longer of concern. Cooling system effluents would be the primary source of nonradiological contaminants during the license renewal term. Implementation of best management practices and adherence to NPDES permit limitations would minimize the effects of these contaminants on the aquatic environment. | Exposure of aquatic organisms to radionuclides | 1 | SMALL. Doses to aquatic organisms from continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment during the license renewal term would be expected to remain well below U.S. Department of Energy exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms. | Effects of dredging on aquatic resources | 1 | SMALL. Dredging at nuclear power plants is expected to occur infrequently, would be of relatively short duration, and would affect relatively small areas. Continued operation of many plants may not require any dredging. Adherence to best management practices and CWA Section 404 permit conditions would mitigate potential impacts at plants where dredging is necessary to maintain function or reliability of cooling systems. Dredging is not expected to be a significant issue during the license renewal term. | Water use conflicts with aquatic resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river) | 2 | SMALL or MODERATE. Nuclear power plants could consume water at rates that cause occasional or intermittent water use conflicts with nearby and downstream aquatic communities. Such impacts could noticeably affect aquatic plants or animals or alter characteristics of the ecological environment during the license renewal term. The one plant where impacts have occurred successfully mitigated the impact. Impacts are expected to be small at most nuclear power plants but could be moderate at some. | Non-cooling system impacts on aquatic resources | 1 | SMALL. No significant impacts on aquatic resources associated with landscape and grounds maintenance, stormwater management, or ground-disturbing activities at operating nuclear power plants have been reported. Impacts from continued operation and refurbishment during the license renewal term would be similar and small. Application of best management practices and other conservation initiatives would reduce the potential for impacts. | Impacts of transmission line right-of-way (ROW) management on aquatic resources 4 | 1 | SMALL. In-scope transmission lines tend to occupy only industrial-use or other developed portions of nuclear power plant sites and, therefore, the effects of ROW maintenance on aquatic plants and animals during the license renewal term would be negligible. Application of best management practices would reduce the potential for impacts. | Endangered Species Act: Federally listed species and critical habitats under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction | 2 | The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment on federally listed species and critical habitats would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; listed species and critical habitats present in the action area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other ground-disturbing activities. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) would be required if license renewal may affect listed species or critical habitats under this agency's jurisdiction. | Endangered Species Act: federally listed species and critical habitats under National Marine Fisheries Service jurisdiction | 2 | The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment on federally listed species and critical habitats would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; listed species and critical habitats present in the action area; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other ground-disturbing activities. Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service under Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) would be required if license renewal may affect listed species or critical habitats under this agency's jurisdiction. | Magnuson-Stevens Act: essential fish habitat | 2 | The potential effects of continued nuclear power plant operation and refurbishment on essential fish habitat would depend on numerous site-specific factors, including the ecological setting; essential fish habitat present in the area, including habitats of particular concern; and plant-specific factors related to operations, including water withdrawal, effluent discharges, and other activities that may affect aquatic habitats. Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service under Magnuson-Stevens Act Section 305(b) would be required if license renewal could result in adverse effects to essential fish habitat. | National Marine Sanctuaries Act: sanctuary resources | 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. | Historic and cultural resources 4 | 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. | Employment and income, recreation and tourism | 1 | SMALL. Although most nuclear plants have large numbers of employees with higher than average wages and salaries, employment, income, recreation, and tourism impacts from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small. | Tax revenue | 1 | SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on energy production. The amount of tax revenue paid during the license renewal term as a result of continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal is not expected to change. | Community services and education | 1 | SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to local community and educational services would be small. With little or no change in employment at the licensee's plant, value of the power plant, payments on energy production, and PILOT payments expected during the license renewal term, community and educational services would not be affected by continued power plant operations. | Population and housing | 1 | SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to regional population and housing availability and value would be small. With little or no change in employment at the licensee's plant expected during the license renewal term, population and housing availability and values would not be affected by continued power plant operations. | Transportation | 1 | SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to traffic volumes would be small. | Radiation exposures to plant workers | 1 | SMALL. Occupational doses from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be within the range of doses experienced during the current license term and would continue to be well below regulatory limits. | Radiation exposures to the public | 1 | SMALL. Radiation doses to the public from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to continue at current levels and would be well below regulatory limits. | Chemical hazards | 1 | SMALL. Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be minimized by the licensee implementing good industrial hygiene practices as required by permits and Federal and State regulations. Chemical releases to the environment and the potential for impacts to the public are expected to be minimized by adherence to discharge limitations of NPDES and other permits. | Microbiological hazards to plant workers | 1 | SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures as required by permits and Federal and State regulations. | Microbiological hazards to the public | 2 | SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These microorganisms are not expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or that discharge to publicly accessible surface waters. Impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics. | Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) 4 6 | N/A 5 | Uncertain impact. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. | Physical occupational hazards | 1 | SMALL. Occupational safety and health hazards are generic to all types of electrical generating stations, including nuclear power plants, and are of small significance if the workers adhere to safety standards and use protective equipment as required by Federal and State regulations. | Electric shock hazards 4 | 2 | SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Electrical shock potential is of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in adherence with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Without a review of conformance with NESC criteria of each nuclear power plant's in-scope transmission lines, it is not possible to determine the significance of the electrical shock potential. | Design-basis accidents | 1 | SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance for all plants. | Severe accidents 7 | 1 | SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. Severe accident mitigation alternatives do not warrant further plant-specific analysis because the demonstrated reductions in population dose risk and continued severe accident regulatory improvements substantially reduce the likelihood of finding cost-effective significant plant improvements. | Impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, and Indian Tribes | 2 | Impacts on minority populations, low-income populations, Indian Tribes, and subsistence consumption resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal will be addressed in nuclear plant-specific reviews. | Low-level waste storage and disposal | 1 | SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts on the environment would remain small during the license renewal term. | Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel | 1 | During the license renewal term, SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated onsite during the license renewal term with small environmental impacts through dry or pool storage at all plants.
For the period after the licensed life for reactor operations, the impacts of onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel during the continued storage period are discussed in NUREG-2157 and as stated in § 51.23(b), shall be deemed incorporated into this issue. | Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal | 1 | For the high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, the EPA established a dose limit of 0.15 mSv (15 millirem) per year for the first 10,000 years and 1.0 mSv (100 millirem) per year between 10,000 years and 1 million years for offsite releases of radionuclides at the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal, this issue is considered Category 1. | Mixed-waste storage and disposal | 1 | SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. License renewal would not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. | Nonradioactive waste storage and disposal | 1 | SMALL. No changes to systems that generate nonradioactive waste are anticipated during the license renewal term. Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling, storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. | Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change | 1 | SMALL. Greenhouse gas impacts on climate change from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small at all plants. Greenhouse gas emissions from routine operations of nuclear power plants are typically very minor, because such plants, by their very nature, do not normally combust fossil fuels to generate electricity.
Greenhouse gas emissions from construction vehicles and other motorized equipment for refurbishment activities would be intermittent and temporary, restricted to the refurbishment period. Worker vehicle greenhouse gas emissions for refurbishment would be similar to worker vehicle emissions from normal nuclear power plant operations. | Climate change impacts on environmental resources | 2 | Climate change can have additive effects on environmental resource conditions that may also be directly impacted by continued operations and refurbishment during the license renewal term. The effects of climate change can vary regionally and climate change information at the regional and local scale is necessary to assess trends and the impacts on the human environment for a specific location. The impacts of climate change on environmental resources during the license renewal term are location-specific and cannot be evaluated generically. | Cumulative effects | 2 | Cumulative effects or impacts of continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal must be considered on a plant-specific basis. The effects depend on regional resource characteristics, the incremental resource-specific effects of license renewal, and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting the environmental resource. | Offsite radiological impacts—individual impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste | 1 | SMALL. The impacts to the public from radiological exposures have been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts to individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases, including radon-222 and technetium-99, would remain at or below the NRC's regulatory limits. | Offsite radiological impacts—collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste | 1 | There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. The Commission concludes that the collective impacts are acceptable.
The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1. | Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle | 1 | SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant would be small. | Transportation | 1 | SMALL. The impacts of transporting materials to and from uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the environment are expected to be small. | Termination of plant operations and decommissioning | 1 | SMALL. License renewal is expected to have a negligible effect on the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning on all resources. |
|---|
1 Data supporting this table are contained in NUREG-1437, Revision 2, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,” August 2024.
2 The numerical entries in this column are based on the following category definitions:
Category 1: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown:
(1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or site characteristic;
(2) A single significance level (
(3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation.
The generic analysis of the issue may be adopted in each plant-specific review.
Category 2: For the issue, the analysis reported in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement has shown that one or more of the criteria of Category 1 cannot be met, and therefore additional plant-specific review is required.
3 The impact findings in this column are based on the definitions of three significance levels. Unless the significance level is identified as beneficial, the impact is adverse, or in the case of “SMALL,” may be negligible. The definitions of significance follow:
SMALL—For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's regulations are considered SMALL as the term is used in this table.
MODERATE—For the issue, environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
LARGE—For the issue, environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
These levels are used for describing the environmental impacts of the proposed action (license renewal), as well as for the impacts of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Resource-specific effects or impact definitions from applicable environmental laws and executive orders, other than SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE, are used where appropriate.
For issues where probability is a key consideration (
4 This issue applies only to the in-scope portion of electric power transmission lines, which are defined as transmission lines that connect the nuclear power plant to the substation where electricity is fed into the regional power distribution system and transmission lines that supply power to the nuclear plant from the grid.
5 NA (not applicable). The categorization and impact finding definitions do not apply to these issues.
6 If, in the future, the Commission finds that, contrary to current indications, a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health agencies that there are adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields, the Commission will require applicants to submit plant-specific reviews of these health effects as part of their license renewal applications. Until such time, applicants for license renewal are not required to submit information on this issue.
7 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.