Regulatory guides are issued to describe and make available to the public such information as methods acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts

of the NRC’s regulations, techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data needed by the NRC staff in its review of

applications for permits and licenses. Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with them is not required. Methods and solutions different

from those set out in the guides will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the

Commission.

This guide was issued after consideration of comments received from the public. Comments and suggestions for improvements in these guides are encouraged

at all times, and guides will be revised, as appropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect new information or experience. Written comments may be submitted

to the Rules and Directives Branch, ADM, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

Regulatory guides are issued in ten broad divisions: 1, Power Reactors; 2, Research and Test Reactors; 3, Fuels and Materials Facilities; 4, Environmental and Siting;

5, Materials and Plant Protection; 6, Products; 7, Transportation; 8, Occupational Health; 9, Antitrust and Financial Review; and 10, General.

Single copies of regulatory guides (which may be reproduced) may be obtained free of charge by writing the Distribution Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to (301)415-2289, or by email to DISTRIBUTION@NRC.GOV. Many regulatory guides are also available on

the internet at NRC’s home page at <WWW.NRC.GOV>. This guide is also in the NRC’s Electronic Reading Room at NRC’s same web site, Accession Number

ML003710495.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION September 2000

REGULATORY GUIDE

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH

SUPPLEMENT 1 TO

REGULATORY GUIDE 4.2

(Drafts were issued as DG-4002 and DG-4005)

PREPARATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS

FOR APPLICATIONS TO RENEW

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES
iii

CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION .................................................... 4.2-S-1

B. STANDARD FORMAT AND CONTENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-6

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-6

CHAPTER 2. SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-7

CHAPTER 3. THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-9

3.1 General Plant Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-10

3.2 Refurbishment Activities ..................................... 4.2-S-10

3.3 Programs and Activities for Managing the Effects of Aging .......... 4.2-S-10

3.4 Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-10

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED

ACTION AND MITIGATING ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-11

4.1 Water Use Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-12

4.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-15

4.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-18

4.4 Heat Shock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-20

4.5 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using >100 gpm of Ground Water) 4.2-S-22

4.6 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Cooling Towers

Withdrawing Make-up Water from a Small River) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-23

4.7 Ground-water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Ranney Wells) ............ 4.2-S-24

4.8 Degradation of Ground-Water Quality ............................ 4.2-S-25

4.9 Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-27

4.10 Threatened or Endangered Species ............................... 4.2-S-28

4.11 Air Quality During Refurbishment (Nonattainment Areas) ............ 4.2-S-31

4.12 Impact on Public Health of Microbiological Organisms .............. 4.2-S-34

4.13 Electromagnetic Fields--Acute Effects ............................ 4.2-S-35

4.14 Housing Impacts ............................................. 4.2-S-36

4.15 Public Utilities: Public Water Supply Availability ................... 4.2-S-39

4.16 Education Impacts from Refurbishment ........................... 4.2-S-40

4.17 Offsite Land Use ............................................. 4.2-S-41

4.18 Transportation............................................... 4.2-S-45

4.19 Historic and Archaeological Resources ........................... 4.2-S-47

4.20 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives .......................... 4.2-S-48

4.21 Transportation of Radiological Waste ............................ 4.2-S-50

4.22 Environmental Justice ........................................ 4.2-S-51

Chapter 5. ASSESSMENT OF NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION . . . . . 4.2-S-52
iv

Chapter 6. SUMMARY OF LICENSE RENEWAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING

ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-53

6.1 License Renewal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-53

6.2 Mitigation .................................................. 4.2-S-53

6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-53

6.4 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments ................. 4.2-S-53

6.5 Short-term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity of

the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-53

Chapter 7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-54

7.1 No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-55

7.2 Alternatives that Meet System Generating Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-55

Chapter 8. COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF LICENSE

RENEWAL WITH THE ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-56

Chapter 9. STATUS OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-S-56

REGULATORY ANALYSIS ............................................... 4.2-S-57
1 Single copies of regulatory guides, both active and draft, may be obtained free of charge by writing the Reproduction and

Distribution Services Section, Office of the Chief Information Officer, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to

(301)415-2289, or by email to <DISTRIBUTION@NRC.GOV>. Active guides may also be purchased from the National

Technical Information Service on a standing order basis. Details on this service may be obtained by writing NTIS, 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Many guides are available on NRC’s web site or through NRC’s Electronic Reading

Room.

2 Copies are available at current rates from the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-

9328 (telephone (202)512-2249); or from the National Technical Information Service by writing NTIS at 5285 Port Royal

Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room

at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC; the PDR’s mailing address is Mail Stop LL-6, Washington, DC 20555; telephone

(202)634-3273; fax (202)634-3343.

4.2-S-1

A. INTRODUCTION

This regulatory guide provides guidance on the format and content of an environmental

report (ER) to be submitted as part of an application for the renewal of a nuclear power plant

operating license submitted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating

Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” This guide supplements Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.2,

“Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations,” July 1976.1 Regulatory

Guide 4.2 provides guidance on the information that should be included in a site approval

application to address the environmental impacts of construction and operation of the proposed

plant and associated facilities. Use of this guide will help ensure the completeness of the

information provided, will assist the NRC staff and others in locating the information, and will

shorten the review process. Conformance with the suggested format, however, is not required and

is provided for guidance only.

This regulatory guide explains how the provisions for the environmental review for

renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses, found in NRC’s 10 CFR Part 51,

”Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory

Functions,” may be met. Part 51 implements section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended. The license renewal provisions of Part 51 were promulgated on

December 18, 1996, in 61 FR 66537, and became effective on January 17, 1997. The rule was

developed with the intent of improving the efficiency of the environmental review process for

renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. These provisions codify the analyses conducted

for and reported in NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal

of Nuclear Plants,” May 1996.2

The rule was amended on September 3, 1999 (64 FR 48495), to add more current

information to the generic findings on the environmental impacts that are due to transportation of

fuel and waste to and from a single nuclear power plant. The analysis supporting the amendment

is provided in NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report Section 6.3—‘Transportation,’ Table 9.1,

‘Summary of findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,’ Final Report,”

August 1999. Also, the amendment added the requirement to address local traffic impacts

attributable to continued operation of the nuclear power plant during the license renewal term.

This requirement was noted in NUREG-1437, but inadvertently omitted from the 1996 rule at the

time of its publication. Occasionally, additional amendments to the rule may be made in the
3 NUREG-1555 is available in hard copy and compact disk (CD) versions for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC

Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC; the PDR’s mailing address is Mail Stop LL-6, Washington,

DC 20555; telephone (202)634-3273; fax (202)634-3343. NUREG-1555 is on the NRC Web Site at

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/indexnum.html . Additionally, publicly available records will be accessible electronically

from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room).

4.2-S-2

future. The staff anticipates that the rule amendments will be supported by addenda to NUREG1437 and revisions to this regulatory guide. Applicants should become familiar with the content of

NUREG-1437 as the ER is developed.

NUREG-1437 assesses 92 environmental issues; the analyses reported in NUREG-1437,

including Addendum 1, found 69 of these issues to be adequately addressed for all plants for

which the issue is relevant. These issues are identified as Category 1 issues, and additional

analysis is not required in a plant-specific review. Of the remaining 23 issues, there are 21

Category 2 issues, which require additional plant-specific analyses. Two issues (effects of

electromagnetic fields and environmental justice) are not categorized and will be addressed by the

NRC. An applicant should provide adequate information to support an environmental justice

review by the NRC (see Section 4.22 of this guide).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

After receiving an applicant’s Environmental Report—Operating License Renewal Stage

(ER), the NRC staff will perform an acceptance review to determine whether the information is

sufficiently complete to begin the NEPA review. After reviewing and independently assessing the

analyses provided in the ER, the NRC will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement

(SEIS) that incorporates and supplements the analyses presented in NUREG-1437. The NRC staff

review and the NRC staff preparation of the SEIS will be guided by NUREG-1555, Supplement 1,

“Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Operating License

Renewal, March 2000.”3 The SEIS is the NRC’s independent analysis of the environmental

impacts of the proposed action (the renewal of the operating license of the specific nuclear power

plant) and the alternatives to the proposed action. Within the context of the NEPA review, the

SEIS will contain the recommendation of the NRC staff regarding the proposed action. These

recommendations, along with the findings from the 10 CFR Part 54 review, will be considered in

the NRC record of decision.

The NRC NEPA review process for an environmental impact statement involves the

following actions that are required of the NRC by 10 CFR Part 51.

ˇ Publish a notice of intent to prepare an SEIS in the Federal Register (see 10 CFR 51.27

and 51.95(c)) and send copies of the notice to appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies; affected Native American tribal agencies; State, regional, and metropolitan

clearinghouses; and any interested persons upon request. The notice is to explain the

scoping process, state the locations of copies of the ER that are available for public

inspection, and invite public participation in the scoping process.
4.2-S-3

ˇ Conduct scoping (see 10 CFR 51.28 and 51.29). The scoping process includes identifying

and inviting appropriate agencies, groups, and persons to participate in the process. With

respect to license renewal, the focus of scoping is to allow other parties to raise

environmental issues that they believe are significant and yet are not addressed or not

adequately addressed in the ER. Parties may raise issues at the public scoping meeting,

which the NRC staff routinely holds in the vicinity of the plant, and in written comments.

The scoping process also routinely includes a staff site visit to the plant and

communication with local, regional, and State officials and representatives of interested or

knowledgeable organizations. As a result of scoping, the staff may request additional

information from the applicant.

ˇ Prepare a draft SEIS (see 10 CFR 51.70 and 51.95(c)). In developing the draft SEIS, the

NRC staff will independently evaluate the information provided by the applicant and

others, as well as information independently identified by the staff.

ˇ Distribute the draft SEIS for comment (see 10 CFR 51.73). A notice of the SEIS’s

availability will be published in the Federal Register and copies of the draft SEIS will be

distributed to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); other appropriate Federal

agencies; affected Native American tribal agencies; appropriate State, regional, and local

agencies; organizations and individuals who have expressed interest in the review, and any

other parties requesting a copy.

ˇ Prepare a final SEIS (see 10 CFR 51.95(c)). In developing the final SEIS, the NRC staff

will consider comments received on the draft, prepare responses, and modify the SEIS as

warranted. The staff will determine whether such comments identify new and significant

information not considered in NUREG-1437 nor addressed in the applicant’s ER. After

considering the environmental impacts associated with license renewal and with the

alternatives to license renewal, the staff will reach a conclusion as to whether or not the

adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of

license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable. A notice of

the availability of the final SEIS will be published in the Federal Register.

ˇ Hold a hearing on the license renewal application if the Commission or the designated

licensing board determines that it is in the public interest. In accordance with 10 CFR

2.105(a)(10), a notice of opportunity for hearing will be issued as soon as practicable after

the application has been docketed. Any person whose interest may be affected by the

action may request a hearing. (See also 10 CFR 51.104.)

ˇ Provide a Record of Decision (see 10 CFR 51.103). The Record of Decision will discuss

the alternatives considered in the SEIS, the measures taken to minimize environmental

harm, and any license conditions adopted in connection with mitigation measures. In

making a final decision on license renewal, the NRC will determine whether or not the

adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of

license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable. The

Commission’s final decision on the application is published in the Federal Register.
4.2-S-4

GENERAL GUIDANCE TO APPLICANTS

Use of Regulatory Guides

Regulatory guides are issued to describe to the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff

for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, to explain techniques used by the staff in

evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and to provide guidance to applicants.

Regulatory guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance with regulatory guides is not

required.

Environmental Reports - General Guidance

An ER should contain sufficient information to support analyses and findings. While other

documents (e.g., the original ER or Safety Analysis Report (SAR)) may be referenced, information

used in analyses should be summarized in the ER. In preparing the ER, the applicant should be

guided by the general requirements set out in 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.55 in addition to the provisions

of 10 CFR 51.53(c) specific to operating license renewal.

Treatment of Category 1 Issues

According to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(i), “The environmental report for the operating license

renewal stage is not required to contain analyses of the environmental impacts of the license

renewal issues identified as Category 1 issues in Appendix B to Subpart A of this part.” The ER

should list those Category 1 issues that apply to the plant and identify the Category 1 issues that do

not apply to the plant. The findings in NUREG-1437 for the applicable Category 1 issue are

incorporated by reference in the ER.

New and Significant Information

According to 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv), “The environmental report must contain any new

and significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which the

applicant is aware.” New and significant information is (1) information that identifies a significant

environmental issue that was not considered in NUREG-1437 and, consequently, not codified in

Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, or (2) information that was not considered in the

analyses summarized in NUREG-1437 and that leads to an impact finding different from that

codified in 10 CFR Part 51. An applicant should state in the ER whether it is or is not aware of

any new and significant information and explain any actions that were taken to identify new

information and evaluate its significance. This information will assist the staff in fulfilling its

responsibilities under 10 CFR 51.70(b), which in part states, “The NRC staff will independently

evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental

impact statement.” New and significant information may also be identified by other parties and

the NRC in the scoping and public comment process. Guidance on actions that an applicant may

take to identify and evaluate the significance of new information is provided in Chapter 5 of this

regulatory guide.
4.2-S-5

Impact Findings

The impacts of the environmental issues that require analyses are to be discussed in

proportion to their significance. In assessing the significance of environmental impacts, the

applicant should conform to the following general definitions of significance level used in

NUREG-1437 and codified in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51.

 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.

 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.

Mitigation of Adverse Effects

When adverse environmental effects are identified, 10 CFR 51.45(c) requires consideration

of alternatives available for reducing or avoiding these adverse effects. Any ongoing mitigation

should be identified and the potential for additional mitigation should be discussed. Mitigation

alternatives are to be considered no matter how small the adverse impact; however, the extent of

the consideration should be proportional to the significance of the impact. The Council on

Environmental Quality in its regulations at 40 CFR 1508.20 identifies five types of mitigative

actions.

(1) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an

action.

(2) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and

its implementation.

(3) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected

environment.

(4) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and

maintenance operations during the life of the action.

(5) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources

or environments.

These categories of mitigative actions are used by the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR

51.14(b).
4.2-S-6

Cumulative, Direct, and Indirect Impacts

Environmental impacts, or effects, include direct effects, indirect effects, and cumulative

effects. Each type of effect is to be considered in the assessment of environmental issues and is to

be discussed in proportion to the significance of the impact attributed to license renewal. (See

Impact Findings above.) Definitions of the three types of effects are given in the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations, 40 CFR Part 1508. Cumulative impact is defined in 40 CFR

1508.7.

“Cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or

person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of

time.

Direct and indirect effects are defined in 40 CFR 1508.8.

“Effects” include:

(1) Direct effects, which 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

further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

These definitions are used by NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 51.14(b).

OMB Clearance

The information collections contained in this regulatory guide are covered by the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, which were approved by the Office of Management and Budget,

approval number 3150-0021. If a means used to impose an information collection does not display

a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to, the information collection.

B. STANDARD FORMAT AND CONTENT

OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

This chapter should briefly describe the purpose of and need for the proposed action. The

Commission identified the purpose of and need for the proposed action in 61 FR 28467 and in

NUREG-1437 on pages 1-2; this statement should be included in the applicant’s ER.
4 U.S. Geological Survey, “USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data,” USGS Earth Resources Observation Data Center, Sioux

Falls, South Dakota, 1997. This reference is on the web at http://edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/glis/hyper/guide/1_250_lulc#lulc16.

4.2-S-7

The purpose and need for the proposed action (renewal of an operating license) is to

provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a

current nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating

needs, as such needs may be determined by State, utility, and, where authorized,

Federal (other than NRC) decision makers.

CHAPTER 2. SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACES

The information in this chapter is intended to allow the reviewer to understand the overall

character of the site and local environment. This chapter should describe the plant’s setting and

the environment affected. The description should give particular attention to information required

to address the environmental issues designated Category 2 and environmental justice and to

environmental issues raised by new and significant information that has been identified. Guidance

on the treatment of these issues is provided in Chapter 4 of this regulatory guide.

The following information should be included in this chapter of the ER.

 Site location: State, county, latitude and longitude Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)

coordinates, township, range, and sections.

 A map of the site showing site boundaries; exclusion area; site structures and facilities;

major land uses (with land use classifications consistent with the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) categories)4; the construction zone for refurbishment, if any; sites for any other

planned buildings and structures (both temporary and permanent); and transportation routes

adjacent to the site.

 A map or maps of the site vicinity within about a 10-km (6-mi) radius of the plant showing

county and local municipality boundaries; place names; residential areas; airports;

industrial and commercial facilities; roads; railroads; major land uses (with land use

classifications consistent with the USGS categories); utility rights-of-way; rivers; other

bodies of water; wetlands; trust lands; historic sites; archaeological sites; Native American

lands; military reservations; and designated Federal, State, and local parks and natural

areas. Orient true north at the top of the map.

 A map of the region within about an 80-km (50-mi) radius of the plant showing major civil

divisions; highways; transmission corridors serving the plant (specifically identify those

transmission lines that were identified in the construction permit review as being

constructed to connect the plant to the transmission system); rivers; other bodies of water;

Native American lands; military reservations; designated Federal, State, and local parks

and natural areas; and nonattainment and maintenance areas defined under the Clean Air

Act, as amended (Title 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.). Orient true north at the top of the map.
5 Important habitats that may be adversely affected but have not been designated critical habitats are defined as follows.

 Wildlife sanctuaries, refuges, or preserves

 Habitats identified by the State Natural Heritage Program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine

Fisheries Service as unique, rare, or of priority for protection

 Wetlands (Executive Order 11990), floodplain (Executive Order 11988), or other resources specifically protected by

Federal regulations or Executive Orders, or by State regulations.

4.2-S-8

To the extent any information provided on a map relates to an issue addressed in Chapter 4,

“Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Mitigating Actions,” of this guide or to

any new and significant information, that information should be developed in sufficient depth in

textual, tabular, and graphic form to support the analysis. The topics listed below correspond to

the issues identified in Chapter 4. The level of information provided on each of these topics

should be commensurate with the extent of the analysis required. The information identified

below should be represented on the maps identified above; separate maps or tables may be used if

they better support the analysis specified in Chapter 4.

 Aquatic and riparian ecological communities that may be affected by a once-through or

cooling pond heat dissipation system.

 Ground-water resources that may be subject to use conflicts or quality degradation.

 Critical and important terrestrial (plant and animal) habitats that may be disturbed by

power plant refurbishment activities or changes in plant operation. Critical habitats are

listed and described in 50 CFR 17.95 (fish and wildlife) and 17.96 (plants).5

 Threatened or endangered and special concern species identified on the site or within the

site vicinity. These species include those:

- listed at 50 CFR 17.11 (fish and wildlife) or 50 CFR 17.12 (plants)

- listed as a threatened, endangered, or other species of concern by the host State

- proposed for listing, or are current candidates for the listing in the Federal Register.

 Regional demography, based on the most current (updated) U.S. Census data: population

by city, town, and county for those jurisdictions lying fully or partially within 80 km

(50 mi) of the plant. Provide by political jurisdiction the composition of minority persons

and households below the poverty line within 80 km (50 miles) of the plant. Migrant

workers as well as full-time residents should be included. Provide these data by census

tract/block for those geographic areas where the potential has been identified for adverse

environmental impacts from refurbishment or from continued operation during the renewal

term. The most recent Bureau of the Census demographic information should be

supplemented with demographic information from State and local planning agencies.

 Information related to the area’s economic base, including construction industry and

construction labor force, total regional labor force, unemployment levels, and future

economic outlook.

 Housing information, including the sales and rental markets in the region, number and

types of units, turnover and vacancy rates, and trends in additions.
4.2-S-9

 Information about the local educational system (regional primary and secondary schools

and higher institutions), including present and projected capacity and percentage of

utilization.

 Public and private recreational facilities and opportunities, including present and projected

capacity and percentage of utilization.

 Regional tax structure and distribution of the present revenues to each jurisdiction and

district.

 Local plans concerning land use and zoning that are relevant to population growth,

housing, and changes in land use patterns.

 Social services and public facilities, present and projected.

 Data on local and regional meteorology and air quality.

 Historic and archaeological resources.

 Known and reasonably foreseeable Federal and non-Federal projects and other actions in

the vicinity of the site that may contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts of

license renewal and extended plant operation should be identified and described.

CHAPTER 3. THE PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed action is described in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2):

The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the

applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as

described in accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in

detail the modifications directly affecting the environment or affecting plant

effluents that affect the environment.

The proposed action is renewal of an operating license and continued operation of the plant

during the renewal term, including all attendant activities. In addition to continuing operation and

maintenance activities, attendant activities may include refurbishment to allow for extended plant

operation and changes to surveillance, on-line monitoring, inspections, testing, trending, and

recordkeeping (SMITTR). Refurbishment and SMITTR activities may be undertaken as a result of

the 10 CFR Part 54 aging management review, or they may be undertaken for other reasons, such

as opportunities for improved economic operation and maintenance during the term of the renewed

license. This chapter of the ER should identify those activities attendant to license renewal that

can affect the environment external to the plant. The level of detail provided should be sufficient

to support the analyses called for in Chapter 4. Possible activities attendant to license renewal are

discussed in Chapter 2 of NUREG-1437.
4.2-S-10

3.1 General Plant Information

Briefly describe the major features of the plant and the operation and maintenance practices

directly related to operations under license renewal. Information presented in this section should

include descriptions of:

 Reactor and containment systems

 Cooling and auxiliary water systems

 Radioactive waste treatment processes (gaseous, liquid, and solid)

 Transportation of radioactive materials

 Nonradioactive waste systems

 Maintenance, inspection, and refueling activities

 Power transmission systems.

3.2 Refurbishment Activities

Facility refurbishments performed in support of license renewal should be described in this

section. These descriptions should identify the major structures and components that will be

replaced or modified. The section should identify where materials will be stored between their

arrival on the site and installation in the plant, and between their removal from the plant and

disposal. If refurbishment activities that directly or indirectly affect the environment will be

required, the locations and nature of those activities should be described. This section should

identify the schedule for the refurbishment work and describe how it would be integrated with

refueling and other maintenance activities. Applicants should ensure that the information in this

section meets the information requirements of Chapter 4.

3.3 Programs and Activities for Managing the Effects of Aging

This section should characterize any changes planned in the plant’s operating practices,

inspections, maintenance activities, systems, and administrative control procedures during the

renewal term that are designed to manage the effects of aging. Any specific changes that may lead

to environmental impacts should be identified and discussed in detail.

3.4 Employment

Provide current estimates of full-time and occasional onsite (refueling) employment.

Provide projections of the incremental onsite work force required for major refurbishment

activities or outages associated with license renewal. The employment figures for refurbishment

and outages should be presented by the month. Provide projections of any changes anticipated in

the full-time and occasional work force during the license renewal term and identify changes in the

work force arising from changes in SMITTR activities. For refurbishment and for the renewal

term, estimate the number of temporary and permanent in-migrating incremental workers and their

dependents, including school-age children, and their anticipated residential distribution.

Provide an estimate of the indirect employment resulting from changes in the full-time and

the temporary work forces. This section should address any employment multipliers that were
4.2-S-11

used and the source or sources of the multipliers, with any additional information needed to verify

the appropriateness of the multipliers. Using an estimate of average household size for the region,

estimate the change in total population associated with license renewal.

Estimate the residential distribution of the total (direct and indirect) incremental permanent

and temporary populations by government jurisdiction or community (e.g., county, city, or town).

Absent better assumptions, it may be assumed that the residential pattern will be the same as that

of the current and occasional work force.

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

AND MITIGATING ACTIONS

General Guidance

NUREG-1437 analyzed 92 environmental issues for license renewal and reached

conclusions about the impacts of refurbishment and operation during the license renewal period.

For most issues, the GEIS concluded that the impacts were such that the issue met the definition of

Category 1 (refer to Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51). Part 51 does not

require the ER to contain any analyses of Category 1 issues; however, the rule requires that

licensees report on any new and significant information that may bear on the applicability of

conclusions of NUREG-1437 on Category 1 issues at their plants or on issues not previously

identified. The definition of and the process for identifying new and significant information is

provided in the Introduction section of this regulatory guide. The applicant may adopt the findings

for the codified Category 1 issues, unless the need for additional analysis is triggered by

knowledge of new and significant information. Such analysis should be developed according to

Section 4.3, “Assessment of New and Significant Information,” of this guide.

The sequence of the Category 2 issues covered in this section follows that of Table B-1 in

Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. Reference is also made to the specific requirements

stated in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii). The steps for reviewing each Category 2 issue are (1) using the

criteria given in 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii), determine whether the issue is applicable to the plant, (2)

if not applicable, provide a short statement on the rationale, and (3) if the issue is applicable,

provide the information and analysis specified in the appropriate section below. The information

and analysis should be sufficient to determine the size and extent of the impacts associated with

the issue and the significance of the impacts as defined in the Impacts Findings section above.

Impacts may be adverse or beneficial and of small, moderate, or large significance. These

impact significance levels are defined in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 and in NUREG-1437 and

are explained in the Introduction to this guide.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects should be analyzed. The cumulative or indirect

effects of the action may be of moderate or large significance even when the direct effect is of

small significance. These effects are defined in the Introduction to this guide.
4.2-S-12

Mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce the level of adverse impacts should be

considered for each Category 2 issue. The applicant’s effort to identify possible mitigation

measures and assess the efficacy of those measures should be in proportion to the significance of

the impact. If no suitable mitigation measure is identified, the basis of that finding should be

provided. For suitable mitigation measures, the applicant should describe the benefits and costs of

each of the measures and indicate which measures, if any, would be implemented if the license is

renewed. If suitable mitigation measures will not be implemented, the applicant should explain

the rationale. Mitigation measures are defined in the Introduction to this guide.

4.1 Water Use Conflicts

This section applies to plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water

from a small river with low flow.

Table B-1 notes that the impacts of this issue are anticipated to be small or moderate and

that

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.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) requires, in part, that

If the applicant’s plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and withdraws

makeup water from a river whose annual flow rate is less than 3.15 × 1012 ft3

/year

(9 × 1010 m3/year), an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the flow

of the river and related impacts on instream and riparian ecological communities

must be provided.

This issue is discussed in Sections 4.3.2.1 and 4.4.2.1 of NUREG-1437.

If the plant does not use cooling towers or cooling ponds, the ER should note this fact; no

additional information is needed with reference to these issues.

If the plant takes its makeup water for the cooling towers or cooling ponds from a river

with an annual flow greater than 3.15 × 1012 ft3/year (9 × 1010 m3/year), the licensee should report

this fact. The method used to determine the annual flow should be provided and explained, and no

further information is needed with reference to these issues. If the plant does not meet the above

conditions, the information and analysis described below in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 must be

responsive to the requirements of 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) specified above.

INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS CONTENT

4.1.1 Instream Ecological Communities

Consumption of water by the plant may significantly reduce the amount of habitat available

to aquatic organisms, either year-round or seasonally. Increasing water demand (e.g., as a result of
6 The prospective applicant should be aware of the consultation requirements of the Endangered Species Act. If threatened or

endangered species, or proposed species, are identified, the prospective applicant should follow the procedures given in

Section 4.10 for consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

4.2-S-13

population growth) may result in additional impacts to aquatic habitats that were not anticipated

during the initial licensing. Information and analysis requirements for this issue may be restricted

to consideration of impacts on one or a few aquatic species, as appropriate. As needed, existing

and potential measures to mitigate losses of aquatic habitats from cooling water withdrawals

should be described, and the effects of these measures should be estimated. The following process

for developing and presenting information should be used.

1. Document any consultations with regulatory agencies (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), State water resources control boards) and resource agencies (e.g., National

Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and wildlife agencies)

related to the issue of consumptive water use and its effects on instream communities.6

Summarize the results of such consultations, identifying agreements that describe (a) the

nuclear power plant's standing in priority for makeup water withdrawals or (b) the criteria

for reducing the withdrawal of makeup water in order to protect instream habitats and

aquatic biota during low-flow periods. If the regulatory and resources agencies concur that

these agreements or criteria are sufficiently protective of instream communities, further

considerations of the issue of effects of water use conflicts on instream communities may

be omitted. If further analysis of water use conflicts is needed, and consultation with

regulatory and resource agencies indicates concerns about only one or a few aquatic

species, the information and analysis required in the following items may be restricted to

only that needed to address effects on those species. Identify and unambiguously define

the resource or resources of concern.

2. Describe the fish and shellfish community in the source water body in Chapter 2. Lists of

species and estimates of the numbers of fish and shellfish that are present in the portion of

the water body affected by consumptive water use should be included. The distribution

and value of commercial and sport fisheries should be discussed. The locations of

important habitats for fish and shellfish (e.g., spawning areas, nursery grounds, feeding

areas, wintering areas, and migration routes) within the area affected by consumptive water

use should be fully described.

3. Include estimates of the quantities and timing of cooling water withdrawals and discharges

in Chapter 3. Estimate current consumptive water use and future consumptive water use

during the license renewal period.

4. Compare the consumptive water used by the heat-dissipation system to flows in the source

water body (i.e., the stream from which water is withdrawn for cooling tower or cooling

pond makeup water). This comparison should be based on records of the initial license

period. Project and compare consumptive use and stream flows during the license renewal

period.
4.2-S-14

5. Estimate the quantities of other ongoing water withdrawals and consumptive water uses in

the portion of the water body affected by the plant and indicate whether these withdrawals

or uses are expected to change during the license renewal period.

6. Estimate the effects of consumptive water use by the nuclear power plant on aquatic

habitats in the water body and discuss the significance of these effects in terms of changes

in populations of individual species. Describe the techniques used to estimate the habitat

changes that result from water withdrawals.

7. Estimate the total (cumulative) effects of all water withdrawals on aquatic habitats and

populations of individual species in the water body (i.e., the effects of power plant

withdrawals during the license renewal period in combination with other existing and

foreseeable future withdrawals).

8. Describe mitigation measures (e.g., limiting withdrawals during droughts) that have been

used to reduce the adverse impacts on aquatic habitats of consumptive water use and the

mitigation measures that are expected to be used during the license renewal period. Briefly

explain the rationale for not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

4.1.2 Riparian Ecological Communities

The primary impacts expected are reduction in the areal extent or species composition of

riparian communities. Consumption of water by the plant may significantly reduce the amount of

habitat available to riparian ecological communities, either year-round or seasonally. Increasing

water demand (e.g., as a result of population growth) may result in additional impacts to riparian

ecological communities that were not anticipated during the initial licensing. The methods used to

determine the characteristics and magnitude of impacts should be explained and documented. As

needed, existing and potential measures to mitigate adverse impacts on riparian ecological

communities should be described, and the effects of these measures should be estimated. The

following process for developing and presenting information should be used.

1. Document any consultations with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA, State water resources

control boards) and resource agencies (e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, State fish and wildlife agencies) related to the issue of consumptive

water use and its effects on stream-related habitat and riparian ecological communities.6

Summarize the results of such consultations, identifying agreements that describe (a) the

plant’s priority for makeup water withdrawals or (b) the criteria for reducing the

withdrawal of makeup water in order to protect stream-related habitat and riparian

ecological communities during low-flow periods. If the regulatory and resource agencies

concur that these agreements or criteria are sufficiently protective of riparian communities,

further consideration of the issue of water use conflicts on riparian ecological communities

may be omitted. If further analysis is needed, and consultation with regulatory and

resource agencies indicates concerns about only one or a few types of riparian ecological

communities or species in these communities, the information and analyses required in the

following items may be restricted to only that needed to address effects on those

community types or species. Identify and unambiguously define the resource or resources

of concern.
4.2-S-15

2. Describe the riparian ecological community in the source water body in Chapter 2. For the

portions of the water body affected by consumptive water use, describe the associated

riparian ecological community types, including (a) their extent and locations, (b) lists of

plant and animal species they contain, and (c) estimates of the abundance of those species.

3. Include estimates of the quantities and timing of cooling water withdrawals and discharges

in Chapter 3 and in 4.1.1 Instream Ecological Communities. Estimate consumptive water

use during the initial license period and during the license renewal period.

4. Compare consumptive water use by the heat-dissipation system to flows in the source

water body (i.e., the stream from which water is withdrawn for cooling tower or cooling

pond makeup water). This comparison should be based on records of the initial license

period and, if expected to be different, projected consumptive use and stream flows during

the license renewal period.

5. Estimate the quantities of other ongoing water withdrawals and consumptive water uses in

the portion of the water body affected by the plant and indicate whether these withdrawals

or uses are expected to change during the license renewal period.

6. Provide an explanation of the mechanisms by which the riparian ecological communities

that are present would be likely to be affected by the loss of flow attributed to makeup

water (e.g., depression of the water table or loss of nutrient replenishment because of

decreased floods).

7. Estimate the effects of consumptive water use by the plant on the riparian ecological

communities associated with the water body. Describe the techniques used to estimate the

changes in these communities that result from water withdrawals. The estimates should be

expressed in units appropriate to the particular resources under consideration (e.g., percent

loss of habitat, number of plants or animals affected, number of acres affected, percent

reduction in harvest).

8. Describe mitigation measures (e.g., limiting water withdrawals during droughts) used to

reduce the adverse impacts of consumptive water use on riparian ecological communities

and the mitigation measures that are expected to be used during the license renewal period.

Briefly explain the rationale for not implementing measures that were considered but

rejected.

4.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages

This section applies to plants with once-through cooling or cooling pond heat dissipation

systems. Table B-1 notes that

The impacts of entrainment are small at many plants but may be moderate or even

large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond 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
4.2-S-16

period, such that entrainment studies conducted in support of the original license

may no longer be valid.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) requires, in part, that

If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat

dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act

316(b) determinations . . . or equivalent State permits and supporting

documentation. If the applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess the

impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from . . .

entrainment.

This issue is discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1.2 and 4.4.3 of NUREG-1437.

If the plant does not use once-through cooling or closed-cycle cooling pond heat

dissipation systems, the ER should note this fact and no additional information is needed for this

issue.

If the plant uses a once-through or closed-cycle cooling pond heat dissipation system and

the applicant holds a current Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination, copies of the

determination, supporting documentation, and relevant correspondence with the water quality

permitting agency (EPA or permitted State agency) should be provided to the NRC. Information

about how mitigation measures were considered during the permit process, and any commitment

to mitigation measures, should be provided.

If (a) the plant utilizes a once-through or cooling pond heat dissipation system and (b) the

applicant does not possess a current Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination, the issue of

entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages must be considered in the ER; this information

is outlined below.

Information and Analysis Content

Sufficient information should be provided in the ER to put into perspective the loss to

entrainment of fish and shellfish in their early life stages, not only in terms of the overall numbers

of eggs, larvae, and juveniles in the water body, but also in terms of the numbers of adult fish and

shellfish that these losses represent. Existing and potential new measures to mitigate entrainment

losses should also be fully described, and the effects of these measures should be estimated. The

following process for developing and presenting information should be used.

1. Document any consultations with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA or other water quality

permitting agencies) and resource agencies (e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and wildlife agencies) regarding the issue of

entrainment.6 Provide a copy of any Clean Water Act Section 316(b) demonstration. If a

determination has not been made that the "location, design, construction, and capacity of

cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse

environmental impact," discuss the outstanding issues. If consultation with regulatory and
4.2-S-17

resource agencies indicates concerns about only one or a few aquatic species, the

information and analysis required in the following items may be restricted to only that

needed to address effects on those species. Identify and unambiguously define the resource

or resources of concern.

2. From Chapter 2 of the ER, describe the fish and shellfish resources in the vicinity of the

plant susceptible to entrainment. Include lists of species and estimates of the numbers of

entrainable fish and shellfish in the water body. The distribution and value of commercial

and sport fisheries should be discussed. Locations of important habitats for entrainable fish

and shellfish (e.g., spawning areas, nursery grounds, feeding areas, wintering areas, and

migration routes) should be described.

3. From Chapter 3 of the ER, describe the cooling system, including the rates of water

withdrawal, the flow rates or volume of the water body from which cooling water is

withdrawn, and the location of water withdrawal. The intake structure and any structural

or operational measures used to reduce entrainment of fish and shellfish should be

described in detail.

4. Provide estimates of the species and numbers of fish and shellfish entrained on a daily,

monthly, and annual basis.

5. Provide estimates of the mortality of entrained fish and shellfish in early life stages.

6. Provide estimates of the numbers of adult fish and shellfish that are lost to the water body

because of entrainment in early life stages. Provide full documentation of analytical or

modeling techniques that were used to extrapolate local entrainment losses to resulting

long-term, far-field effects. As appropriate, compare these "equivalent adult" losses to the

total estimated numbers of adults in the water body and commercial and recreational

harvests.

7. If aquatic resources have been monitored, provide an analysis of time trends in the data that

might indicate whether fish and shellfish populations have increased, decreased, or

remained stable during the initial period of operation. Possible causes for these time trends

should be discussed.

8. Identify and, to the extent possible, quantify losses of fish and shellfish from other sources

(e.g., other water withdrawals, temperature and water quality problems, impingement of

juveniles and adults) in order to assess possible cumulative effects of plant entrainment

losses when combined with other losses.

9. Describe mitigation measures that have been used to reduce the adverse impacts of

entrainment during the initial license period. Identify additional mitigation measures that

could be used to reduce entrainment impacts during the license renewal period. Explain

the rationale for accepting or rejecting additional mitigation measures. Describe in detail

the additional mitigation measures that are expected to be used during the license renewal

period and their expected effects on entrainment losses.
4.2-S-18

4.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish

This section applies to plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems.

Table B-1 notes that

The impacts of impingement are small at many plants but may be moderate or even

large at a few plants with once-through and cooling pond cooling systems.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) requires, in part, that

If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat

dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act

316(b) determinations . . . or equivalent State permits and supporting

documentation. If the applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess the

impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from . . .

impingement . . . .

This issue is discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1.3, 4.3.3, and 4.4.3 of NUREG-1437.

If the plant does not use a once-through cooling or closed-cycle cooling pond heat

dissipation system, the ER should note this fact and no additional information is needed for this

issue.

If the plant uses a once-through or closed-cycle cooling pond heat dissipation system and

the applicant holds a current Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination, copies of the

determination, supporting documentation, and relevant correspondence with the water quality

permitting agency (EPA or permitted State agency) should be provided to the NRC. Information

about how mitigation measures were considered during the permit process, and any commitment

to mitigation measures, should be provided.

If (a) the plant utilizes a once-through or cooling pond heat dissipation system and (b) the

applicant does not possess a current Clean Water Act Section 316(b) determination, the issue of

impingement of fish and shellfish must be considered in the ER. Information that should be

provided to the NRC for review and analysis of the impingement issue is outlined below.

Information and Analysis Content

Sufficient information should be provided in the ER to put the loss of fish and shellfish to

impingement mortality in perspective, not only in terms of the overall numbers of juveniles and

adults in the water body, but also in terms of the numbers of adult fish and shellfish that these

losses represent. Existing and potential new measures to mitigate impingement losses should also

be fully described, and the effects of these measures should be estimated.

1. Document any consultations with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA or other water quality

permitting agencies) and resource agencies (e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and wildlife agencies) regarding the issue of
4.2-S-19

impingement.6 Provide a copy of any Clean Water Act Section 316(b) demonstration. If a

determination has not been made that the "location, design, construction, and capacity of

cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse

environmental impact," discuss the outstanding issues. If consultation with regulatory and

resource agencies indicates concerns about only one or a few aquatic species, the

information and analysis required in the following items may be restricted to only that

needed to address effects on those species. Identify and unambiguously define the resource

or resources of concern.

2. From Chapter 2 of the ER, describe the fish and shellfish resources in the vicinity of the

plant that are susceptible to impingement. Include lists of species and estimates of the

numbers of impingeable fish and shellfish in the water body. The distribution and value of

commercial and sport fisheries should be discussed. Locations of important habitats for

impingeable fish and shellfish (e.g., spawning areas, nursery grounds, feeding areas,

wintering areas, and migration routes) should be described.

3. From Chapter 3 of the ER, describe the cooling system, including the rates of water

withdrawal, the flow rates or volume of the water body from which cooling water is

withdrawn, and the location of water withdrawal. The intake structure, intake screens, and

any structural or operational measures used to reduce impingement of fish and shellfish

should be described in detail.

4. Provide estimates of the species and numbers of fish and shellfish impinged on a daily,

monthly, and annual basis.

5. Provide estimates of the mortality of impinged fish and shellfish.

6. Provide estimates of the numbers of adult fish and shellfish that are lost to the water body

because of impingement. Provide full documentation of analytical or modeling techniques

that were used to extrapolate localized impingement losses to resulting long-term, far-field

effects. As appropriate, express these "equivalent adult" losses in terms of the total

estimated numbers of adults in the water body and commercial and recreational harvests.

7. If aquatic resources have been monitored, provide an analysis of time trends in the data that

might indicate whether fish and shellfish populations have increased, decreased, or

remained stable during the initial period of operation. Possible causes for these time trends

should be discussed.

8. Identify and, to the extent possible, quantify losses of fish and shellfish from other sources

(e.g., other water withdrawals, temperature and water quality problems, entrainment of

early life stages) in order to assess possible cumulative effects of power plant impingement

losses when combined with other losses.

9. Describe mitigation measures that have been used to reduce the adverse impacts of

impingement during the initial license period. Describe additional mitigation measures

that are expected to be used during the license renewal period and their expected effects on
4.2-S-20

impingement losses, and briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any measures

that were considered but rejected.

4.4 Heat Shock

This section applies to plants with once-through and cooling pond heat dissipation systems.

Table B-1 notes that

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.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) requires, in part, that

If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat

dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act

316(b) determinations and, if necessary, a 316(a) variance in accordance with 40

CFR Part 125, or equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the

applicant can not provide these documents, it shall assess the impact of the

proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat shock....

This issue is discussed in Sections 4.2.2.1.4 and 4.4.3 of NUREG-1437.

If the plant does not use a once-through cooling or closed-cycle cooling pond heat

dissipation system, the ER should note this fact and no additional information is needed for this

issue.

If the plant uses a once-through or closed-cycle cooling pond heat dissipation system and

the applicant holds a current NPDES permit that demonstrates that the plant meets State water

temperature standards, or a current Clean Water Act Section 316(a) determination, copies of the

determination, NPDES permit, supporting documentation, and relevant correspondence with the

water quality permitting agency (EPA or permitted State agency) should be provided to the NRC.

Information about how mitigation measures were considered during the permit process should be

provided, as well as any commitments to mitigation measures.

If (a) the plant uses a once-through or cooling pond heat dissipation system and (b) the

applicant does not possess a current NPDES permit that demonstrates that the plant meets State

water temperature standards or possess a current Clean Water Act Section 316(a) determination,

the issue of heat shock must be considered in the ER. Information that should be provided for

review and analysis of the heat shock issue is outlined below.

Information and Analysis Content

Sufficient information should be provided to the NRC to allow the reviewer to put in

perspective the loss of fish and shellfish to heat shock, not only in terms of the overall numbers of

eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults in the water body, but also in terms of the numbers of adult fish
4.2-S-21

and shellfish that these losses represent. Existing and potential new measures to mitigate heat

shock losses should also be fully described, and the effects of these measures should be estimated.

The following process for developing and presenting information should be used.

1. Document any consultations with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA or other water quality

permitting agencies) and resource agencies (e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and wildlife agencies) regarding the issue of heat

shock.6 Provide copies of any NPDES permits and Clean Water Act Section 316(a)

determination. If a current NPDES permit relative to thermal discharges and/or a current

Section 316(a) variance from State water temperature standards do not exist, discuss the

outstanding issues. If consultation with regulatory and resource agencies indicates

concerns about only one or a few aquatic species, the information and analysis required in

the following items may be restricted to only that needed to address effects on those

species. Identify and unambiguously define the resource or resources of concern.

2. From Chapter 2 of the ER, describe the fish and shellfish resources in the vicinity of the

plant that are susceptible to heat shock. Include lists of species and estimates of the

numbers of fish and shellfish in the water body that are susceptible to heated discharges.

The distribution and value of commercial and sport fisheries should be discussed.

Locations of important fish and shellfish habitats (e.g., spawning areas, nursery grounds,

feeding areas, wintering areas, and migration routes) should be fully described. The

important habitats that could be affected by thermal discharges should be identified.

3. From Chapter 3 of the ER, describe the cooling system, including heated water discharge

rates, the flow rates or volume of the water body into which heated water is discharged, and

the location of heated water discharge. The discharge structure and any structural or

operational measures used to reduce heat shock to fish and shellfish should be described in

detail. The location, temperatures, and areal extent of the heated discharge plume should

be described; all techniques used to estimate these parameters (e.g., temperature

monitoring, simulation monitoring) should be reported.

4. Provide estimates, on a daily, monthly, and annual basis, of the species and numbers of fish

and shellfish susceptible to heat shock.

5. Provide estimates of the mortality of heat-shocked fish and shellfish.

6. Provide estimates of the numbers of adult fish and shellfish that are lost to the water body

because of heat shock. Provide full documentation of analytical or modeling techniques

that were used to extrapolate localized heat shock losses to resulting long-term, far-field

effects. As appropriate, express these "equivalent adult" losses in terms of the total

estimated numbers of adults in the water body and commercial and recreational harvests.

7. If aquatic resources have been monitored, provide an analysis of time trends in the data that

might indicate whether fish and shellfish populations have increased, decreased, or

remained stable during the initial period of operation. Possible causes for these time trends

should be discussed.
4.2-S-22

8. Identify and, to the extent possible, quantify losses of fish and shellfish from other sources

(e.g., other water withdrawals and discharges, temperature and water quality problems,

entrainment and impingement) in order to assess possible cumulative effects of heat shock

losses when combined with other losses.

9. Describe mitigation measures that have been used to reduce the adverse impacts of heat

shock during the initial license period. Describe additional mitigation measures that could

be used during the license renewal period and their expected effects on heat shock losses.

Identify mitigation measures that will be implemented, and briefly explain the rationale for

not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

4.5 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using >100 gpm of Ground Water)

This section applies to plants that use more than an annual average of 100 gpm (6 L/s) of

ground water.

Table B-1 reports that

Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause ground-water use conflicts with

nearby ground-water users.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) requires in part that

If the applicant’s plant . . . pumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite) of ground

water per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on ground

water must be provided.

This issue is discussed in Section 4.8.1 of NUREG-1437. This section provides guidance

to the applicant for identification and assessment of the environmental impacts of ground-water

withdrawal and use during the license renewal period. If the applicant can provide withdrawal

records or other evidence that the plant does not pump more than an annual average of 100 gpm

(6 L/s) of ground water, the ER should note this fact, and no additional information is needed on

this issue.

Information and Analysis Content

If the plant pumps more than an annual average of 100 gpm, the following information and

analyses should be provided to assess the magnitude and significance of potential ground-water

use conflicts during operation.

1. A description of all groundwater aquifers potentially impacted by operation of on-site

wells, including approximate areal extent, thickness, porosities, and hydraulic

conductivities of aquifer strata. The descriptions should discuss significant uncertainties

and inhomogeneities.
4.2-S-23

2. A description of existing and known future off-site and on-site wells, including average

flowrate, peak flowrate, water use, and completion depth.

3. Maps of steady-state piezometric surfaces estimated with on-site and off-site wells at peak

pumpage, average pumpage, and no pumpage. These maps should indicate the location of

all wells and should annotate each offsite well with the drawdown of the piezometric

surface attributable to the onsite wells and with the drawdown of the piezometric surface

attributable to the offsite wells. Describe the methods of analysis, including assumptions

used.

4. A description of existing and known future water rights (including Native American tribal

water rights).

5. A description of any wetlands in the vicinity that might be impacted by a lowered

watertable.

6. An evaluation of the significance of present and future effects of onsite withdrawal on

offsite wells and an assessment of the need for mitigation measures to reduce the adverse

impacts, if any.

7. If a need for mitigation measures is found, discuss possible measures and whether they will

be implemented.

4.6 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Cooling Towers Withdrawing Make-Up

Water from a Small River)

This section applies to plants using cooling towers withdrawing makeup water from a

small river.

Table B-1 reports that

Water use conflicts may result from surface water withdrawals from small water

bodies during low flow conditions which may affect aquifer recharge, especially if

other ground-water or upstream surface water users come on line before the time of

license renewal.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A) requires in part that

If the applicant’s plant utilizes cooling towers . . . and withdraws make-up water

from a river whose annual flow rate is less than 3.15 × 1012 ft3

/year

(9 × 1010 m3/year) . . . . The applicant shall also provide an assessment of the

impacts of the withdrawal of water from the river on alluvial aquifiers during low

flow.

This issue is discussed in Section 4.8.1.3 of NUREG-1437.
4.2-S-24

If the applicant can provide evidence in the ER that its plant does not withdraw cooling

tower make-up water from a small river [annual flow rate less than 3.15 × 1012 ft3/year

(9 × 1010 m3/year)], no additional information is needed on this issue.

Information and Analysis Content

If the plant withdraws cooling tower make-up water from a small river, the following

information and analyses should be provided to assess the ground-water use conflicts during

operation.

1. A description of alluvial aquifers near the site that could be affected by surface-water

withdrawal, including approximate areal extent, thickness, porosities, and hydraulic

conductivities of aquifer strata.

2. A description of existing and known future off-site and on-site wells, including average

flow rate, peak flow rate, water use, and completion depth.

3. Maps of steady-state piezometric surface estimated with on-site and off-site wells at peak

pumpage, average pumpage, and no pumpage. These maps should indicate the location of

all wells, and each offsite well should be annotated with the drawdown of the piezometric

surface attributable to the onsite wells and with the drawdown of the pieziometric surface

attributable to the offsite wells.

4. A description of existing and known future water rights (including Native American tribal

water rights).

5. A description of any wetlands in the vicinity that might be impacted by a lowered water

table.

6. An evaluation of the significance of present and future effects of onsite withdrawal on

offsite wells and wetlands, and the need for mitigation measures to reduce the adverse

impacts.

7. Possible mitigation measures, if they are needed, and whether they will be implemented.

4.7 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Ranney Wells)

This section applies to plants using Ranney wells for cooling tower make-up water. This

section provides guidance to the applicant on identification and assessment of the environmental

impacts of ground-water withdrawal and use during the license renewal period. If the plant does

not use Ranney wells, the ER should note the fact without further discussion.

This issue is a combination of two related issues discussed in Section 4.8.1 of NUREG1437.

Table B-1 reports that
4.2-S-25

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.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C) requires in part that

If the applicant’s plant uses Ranney wells . . . an assessment of the impact of the

proposed action on ground-water use must be provided.

If the plant does not use Ranney wells, this fact should be noted in the ER and no further

information need be provided.

Information and Analysis Content

If the plant uses Ranney wells, the following information and analyses should be provided

to assess the magnitude and significance of potential ground-water use conflicts during operation.

1. A description of alluvial aquifers near the site that could be affected by surface-water

withdrawal, including their approximate areal extent, thickness, porosities, and hydraulic

conductivities of aquifer strata.

2. A description of existing and known future off-site and on-site wells, including average

flow rate, peak flow rate, water use, and completion depth.

3. Maps of steady-state piezometric surface estimated with on-site and off-site wells at peak

pumpage, average pumpage, and no pumpage. These maps should indicate the location of

all wells, and each offsite well should be annotated with the drawdown of the piezometric

surface attributable to the onsite wells and with the drawdown of the pieziometric surface

attributable to the offsite wells.

4. A description of existing and known future water rights (including Native American tribal

water rights).

5. A description of any wetlands in the vicinity that might be impacted by a lowered water

table.

6. An evaluation of the significance of present and future effects of onsite withdrawal on

offsite wells (including changes in groundwater quality) and wetlands, and the need for

mitigation measures to reduce the adverse impacts.

7. Possible mitigation measures, if they are needed, and whether they will be implemented.

4.8 Degradation of Ground-Water Quality

This section applies to plants at inland sites with cooling ponds.
4.2-S-26

Table B-1 notes that

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.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D) requires that

If the applicant’s plant is located at an inland site and utilizes cooling ponds, an

assessment of the impact of the proposed action on ground-water quality must be

provided.

This issue is discussed in Section 4.8.3 of NUREG-1437.

If the plant does not use cooling ponds or if the cooling ponds are adjacent to salt marshes,

the ER should note the fact and no further information need be provided.

Information and Analysis Content

If the plant uses cooling ponds and is not adjacent to salt marshes, the following

information and analyses should be provided to assess the presence and magnitude of groundwater quality degradation during operation.

1. Cooling pond characteristics (e.g., liners or impermeable materials used, impermeable

soils) that would retard or prevent infiltration into local aquifers.

2. Types and concentrations of impurities in the cooling pond water and chemistry of soils

along pathways to local aquifers to determine whether cooling pond water can contaminate

the ground water.

3. Water quality and other characteristics of local aquifers that could be affected by

infiltration of cooling pond water.

4. Federal, State, and local ground-water quality requirements with emphasis on any changes

to these requirements that have occurred during the plant’s initial license term and any

anticipated changes to those requirements during the license renewal term.

5. Identification and characterization of offsite ground-water users who could be affected by

the degradation of aquifers. Characterization should include locations and elevations of

off-site wells, their pumping rates, and the water needs of ground-water users.

6. A quantitative description of the cumulative effects of using closed cycle cooling ponds on

ground-water quality. This description should include maps of the contaminant plume.

Information should be provided on ground-water contamination existing at the time of

license renewal application and projected contamination during the license renewal period.
7 Important plant or animal habitats are often characterized by high biological productivity or diversity. Examples include

habitats used by Federal or State threatened or endangered species, wetlands, riparian zones, staging or resting areas for large

numbers of waterfowl, rookeries, restricted wintering areas for wildlife (e.g., winter deer yards), communal roost sites,

strutting or breeding grounds of gallinaceous birds, rare plant community types (e.g., Atlantic white cedar swamps), and other

such areas.

4.2-S-27

7. The mitigation measures proposed to avoid or minimize ground-water quality degradation

and the estimated impact of implementing those measures. Briefly explain the rationale for

not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

4.9 Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Resources

Table B-1 notes that

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.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(E) requires in part that

All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of refurbishment and other

license-renewal-related construction activities on important plant and animal

habitats.

This issue is discussed in Section 3.6 of NUREG-1437.

The applicant should describe in Chapter 3 of the ER any activities associated with license

renewal that will involve disturbance of any plant or wildlife habitat. If no area will be disturbed,

the fact should be noted in Section 4.2.9 of the ER, and no further discussion of the issue is

needed. Areas to be disturbed should be described in Chapter 2 of the ER with respect to (1) the

amount of land to be disturbed, (2) ecological characteristics of the habitat, (3) species of plants

and animals found in the area, and (4) the extent to which the habitat is unique. Note that the

information and analysis for this issue overlaps the information and analysis covered in Section

4.10 of this guide for assessing impacts on threatened and endangered species.

Information and Analysis Content

If any license renewal activity will disturb any plant or wildlife habitat, the following

information and analyses should be provided.

1. The applicant should determine whether any of the plant and animal species are important.

Important species are those that either (1) have high public interest or economic value or

both or (2) may be critical to the structure and function of the ecosystem or provide a

broader ecological perspective of an area. Important habitats are defined as those that

support important species.7 Specific guidance on identifying important species to be

evaluated is found in “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy; Notice of Final
8 The notice (46 FR 7644, January 23, 1981) establishes final policy guidance for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel

involved in making recommendations to protect or conserve fish and wildlife resources. Guidance is provided on the

definition and identification of “evaluation species,” evaluation of direct and indirect effects of a project on the evaluation

species, on the levels of mitigation and on the various methods for accomplishing mitigation when adverse effects are

identified. The types of species that should be considered are discussed in the notice at pages 7662 and 7663. In this

regulatory guide, the terms “important species” and “evaluation species” are used interchangeably.

4.2-S-28

Policy.”8 Federal, State, and regional government agencies with jurisdiction over biological

resources, and organizations concerned with such resources like the State office of The

Nature Conservancy, should be consulted to assist with the identification of important

species and habitats. If no important species is identified, the basis for this finding should

be summarized in Section 4.2.9 of the ER, and no further discussion of this issue is

needed.

2. If important plant or animal species are identified, the significance of the loss in population

of the species should be assessed with respect to local, regional, and national social,

economic, and ecological value.

3. Mitigation measures that are proposed, considered, or adopted to minimize the adverse

impacts should be described. Briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any

measures that were considered but rejected. Further guidance on determining the

appropriate level of mitigation and methods for accomplishing mitigation can be found in

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy (46 FR 7644, January 23, 1981).

4.10 Threatened or Endangered Species

Table B-1 notes that

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.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E) requires, in part, that

. . . . Additionally, the applicant shall assess the impact of the proposed action on

threatened or endangered species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.

This issue is discussed in Sections 2.3.6, 3.9, and 4.1 of NUREG-1437.

In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended

(16 USC 1531 et seq.), Federal agencies must review actions they undertake or support (such as

issuing permits and licenses) to determine whether they may jeopardize the continued existence of

an endangered species or their habitats. If such review reveals the potential for adversely affecting

listed or candidate species, the Federal agency must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate. The interagency

cooperation provisions of Section 7 are implemented by the FWS and the NMFS at 50 CFR Part
9 An explanation of the structure and implementation of the ESA is found in Ray Vaughan, Endangered Species Act Handbook,

Government Institutes, Inc., Rockville, MD, 1994.

4.2-S-29

402. Further, Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain actions by a Federal agency, licensee, or

potential licensee that may hurt an endangered species or its habitat. The prohibited acts

provisions of Section 9 are implemented at 50 CFR 17.31(a) and 17.71(a).9

The applicant should determine whether the site and vicinity are within the range of listed

species, and if they are, an assessment is made of the extent to which refurbishment activities

associated with license renewal and continued plant operation are likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of those listed species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of

critical habitat. If in compiling information and assessing the effects of license renewal on

threatened and endangered species a need arises to consult with either FWS or NMFS, the

prospective applicant should notify NRC so that the NRC can coordinate the consultation. Three

levels of consultation are identified in 50 CFR Part 402, Subpart B—Consultation Procedures: (1)

Early consultation (Sec. 402.11), (2) Informal consultation (Sec. 402.13), and (3) Formal

consultation (Sec. 402.14). Most consultations are conducted informally with Federal agencies. If

a prospective applicant feels a need to discuss data availability and interpretation with either FWS

or NMFS, the NRC should be requested to initiate informal consultation. The prospective

applicant should request NRC to initiate early consultation when, in developing information on

threatened or endangered species, there is reason to believe that an endangered species or a

threatened species may be present in the area affected by its project and that implementation of

such action will likely affect such species. Consultation, as defined in 50 CFR Part 402, may not

always be needed to complete this section of the ER. If the consultation process has not been

initiated prior to submittal of the ER, NRC will fulfill its consultation requirements in preparing

the SEIS. Consultation procedures are discussed in “Endangered Species Consultation Handbook:

Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service,

March 1998.

Information and Analysis Content

The ER should include the following.

1. Reference should be made to threatened or endangered species, or candidate species, and

critical habitat that may be found on the site or in the vicinity of the site as identified in

Chapter 2; this should include the area within the applicant’s transmission line corridor

identified in Chapter 2 as being constructed to connect the plant to the transmission system.

Reference should be made to any license renewal activities that will disrupt any natural

areas and to modifications to plant operation that may change the effect on the

environment, as identified in Chapter 3. If there has been early consultation with the FWS

or the NMFS, reference should be made to any resulting FWS or NMFS memoranda.

2. Reference should be made specifically to any adverse impacts on listed and candidate

threatened or endangered species or critical habitat found in the review of the topics in the

following 10 sections of this guide.
10 “Assessment” refers to the information and analysis that is presented in the Environmental Report only. “Biological

assessment” refers to the document prepared in conformance with the provisions of 50 CFR Part 402.

4.2-S-30

4.1.1 Instream Ecological Communities

4.1.2 Riparian Ecological Communities

4.2 Entrainment of Fish and Shellfish in Early Life Stages

4.3 Impingement of Fish and Shellfish

4.4 Heat Shock

4.5 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using >100 gpm of Ground Water)

4.6 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Cooling Towers Withdrawing Make-Up

Water from a Small River)

4.7 Ground-Water Use Conflicts (Plants Using Ranney Wells)

4.8 Degradation of Ground-Water Quality

4.9 Impacts of Refurbishment on Terrestrial Resources

3. A determination should be made whether the information from items 1 and 2 can support a

conclusion either that there are no candidate, threatened, or endangered species or critical

habitat in the site vicinity or that there are no activities associated with license renewal or

changes in plant operating conditions that would adversely affect such species or critical

habitat, if present. If such a determination can be made, it should be documented in this

section, and no further analysis is required.

4. If the determination described in item 3 can not be made, an assessment of whether license

renewal is likely to affect endangered species should be made. The content of the

assessment should be guided by the content of a biological assessment suggested at 50

CFR 402.12(f).10 Early discussions with the State wildlife or fisheries agency, the State’s

Natural Heritage Program, local field offices of the FWS or NMFS, and the State office of

The Nature Conservancy can provide useful information for designing the biological

assessment. At this point in the development of the ER, discussion with the FWS or the

NMFS would constitute either informal or early consultation, therefore the potential

applicant should immediately request guidance on the early consultation process from the

NRC. As a result of consultation, FWS or NMFS may require a biological assessment,

especially if there are construction activities involved in license renewal.

5. If the assessment supports a determination that license renewal will not adversely affect

listed or candidate species, the determination should be documented in this section.

Documentation should include a description of the assessment and contacts with

government agencies and private organizations. If a biological assessment is prepared, it

should be provided to the NRC for submittal to the FWS or the NMFS for review and

issuance of a preliminary biological opinion. Concerns raised by these agencies should be

resolved, to the extent possible, to minimize the potential for endangered species being an

issue during the NRC review and the FWS and NMFS review of the draft SEIS. The

biological assessment should be included in the Environmental Report, and the biological

opinion should also be included if it is available when the application is submitted.

6. If the biological assessment results in a determination of “may affect” listed species or

designated critical habitat, or if the FWS or NMFS does not concur in writing with a
11 Conformity is defined in Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act as conformity to the SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the

severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards, and that such

activities will not (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area, (2) increase the frequency or

severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area, or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required

interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.

12 The regulatory requirements are in Subpart W, “Determining Conformity of General Federal Action to State and Federal

Implementation Plans,” in 40 CFR Part 51.

4.2-S-31

finding that there will be no effects, or that the reasonably expected effects will be

beneficial, insignificant, or discountable, the NRC will initiate formal consultation with the

FWS or the NMFS in accordance with Section 7(a)(3) of the ESA. The applicant must

participate fully in the consultation and furnish NRC with any additional information or

studies that may be required. Requirements for formal consultation are given in 50 CFR

402.14 and in Chapter 4 of the Consultation Handbook. The status of consultation

activities and findings, including a biological opinion issued by FWS or NMFS prior to

submittal of an application, should be reported in the ER.

7. If a “jeopardy” opinion is issued, the applicant will be responsible for considering and

responding, through the NRC, to any reasonable and prudent alternatives identified in the

biological opinion. The response must be in accordance with the “incidental take”

provisions at 10 CFR 402.14(i).

4.11 Air Quality During Refurbishment (Nonattainment Areas)

Table B-1 states that

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.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F) requires that

If the applicant's plant is located in or near a nonattainment or maintenance area, an

assessment of vehicle exhaust emissions anticipated at the time of peak

refurbishment work force must be provided in accordance with the Clean Air Act as

amended.

The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act include a provision that no Federal agency may

support any activity that does not conform to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) designed to

achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).11 On November 30, 1993, the

EPA issued a final rule implementing the new statutory requirements for this provision (58 FR

63214); the rule was effective January 31, 1994.12 The final rule requires that Federal agencies

prepare a written conformity analysis and determination for proposed actions in NAAQS

nonattainment or maintenance areas for which the total of the action’s direct and indirect

emissions that contribute to criteria pollutants (i.e., ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide,
13 An area is designated “nonattainment” for a criteria pollutant if it does not meet NAAQS for the pollutant. A maintenance

area has been redesignated by a State from nonattainment to attainment; the State must submit to EPA a plan for maintaining

NAAQS as a revision to its SIP.

Direct emissions are those emissions caused by or initiated by the Federal action that occur at the same time and place as the

action. Indirect emissions are those caused by the Federal action that occur later in time or are located away from the action

itself. Only those direct and indirect emissions that are reasonably foreseeable and that the Federal agency can practicably

control need be considered. It must also be possible to locate and quantify direct and indirect emissions at the time a

conformity determination is made. The Federal agency is not obligated to account for possible emissions that might result

from the Federal action but cannot be specifically identified, quantified, or located.

14 Note that the final rule issued by EPA implementing the new statutory requirements for this provision (58 FR 63214) only

requires that Federal agencies prepare a written conformity analysis and determination for proposed actions in NAAQS

nonattainment or maintenance areas. However, proposed actions near nonattainment or maintenance areas may also cause or

contribute to nonattainment. Therefore, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F) states that the ER should address this issue for facilities

located either in or near a nonattainment or maintenance area, and EPA staff have indicated that in the future they may revise

the EPA rule similarly. This approach reflects the reality that emissions continue beyond geographical boundaries and is

consistent with environmental impact assessments prepared for NEPA.

4.2-S-32

nitrogen dioxide, lead, and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter) would exceed

threshold emission levels of 40 CFR 51.853(b).13,14

The threshold emission levels serve as a screen to determine whether a conformity analysis

should be performed for a proposed action. The threshold emission levels range from 10 to 100

tons (9 to 91 metric tons) per year. The EPA considers it extremely unlikely that emissions below

the threshold emission levels would affect a nonattainment or maintenance area. If the threshold

emission levels are not exceeded, a conformity analysis is not required unless the total direct and

indirect emissions are 10% or more of a nonattainment or maintenance area's total emissions for

that pollutant. Under this latter scenario, the action is defined as a "regionally significant action"

and requires a conformity analysis.

Information and Analysis Content

The applicant should consult with the appropriate EPA regional office and the State air

quality regulatory agency. Discussions with staff at EPA regional offices indicate that there may

be some flexibility in the rigor of the analysis that would be acceptable, depending on the

particular site, the extent of refurbishment, the pollutants in nonattainment, the severity of the

nonattainment, and the State regulatory agency. Such consultations should be documented in the

ER.

In support of NRC's responsibility to consider the conformity of its actions with the SIPs,

the licensee should provide the following information.

1. Reference the estimates of the monthly incremental onsite work force associated with

refurbishment that were reported in Section 3.4. If there will be no refurbishment or if

refurbishment involves no additional workers, no further analysis is required.

2. Identify the positions of nonattainment and maintenance areas relative to the plant and

probable areas where workers involved with refurbishment activities associated with

license renewal will reside. Note the likely commuter routes for the workers. If there are

no nonattainment and maintenance areas within 80 km (50 mi) of the plant and residential
15 Current tables and associated information can be found at the Modeling Page within the EPA Office of Mobil Sources Web

site: http://www.epa.gov/omswww/models.htm.

4.2-S-33

locations of refurbishment workers, this should be explained in the ER, and no further

analysis is required.

3. Identify the pollutant or pollutants for which the area is in nonattainment or maintenance,

as well as the severity of nonattainment.

4. Determine the meteorological conditions typically associated with poor air quality in each

nonattainment and maintenance area.

5. Compare the meteorological conditions associated with poor air quality with regional

climatology.

6. Estimate onsite and offsite vehicle emissions resulting from refurbishment activities that

contribute to the pollutants identified in Step 3 (EPA's handbook AP-42, “Compilation of

Air Pollutant Emission Factors,” is a good reference), and identify the approximate

locations of the emissions during the peak employment period. This estimate may be based

on the applicant’s estimate of vehicle miles associated with refurbishment worker

commuting and other activities directly associated with refurbishment and on EPA

emission factors found in the handbook AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission

Factors, Vol. 2, Appendix H, “Highway Mobile Source Emission Factors Tables” (5th

Edition, April 3, 1998).15

7. Determine whether the emissions related to license renewal activities have a reasonable

likelihood of adversely affecting air quality in the nonattainment or maintenance area.

Climatological considerations, simple atmospheric dispersion models, and conservative

assumptions are appropriate for this screening analysis. For each nonattainment and

maintenance area determined to have a reasonable likelihood of being adversely affected,

continue the analysis in Step 8. No further analysis is required for those areas that were not

determined to be adversely affected.

8. 8.a Compare the total emissions calculated in Step 6 with the appropriate threshold

emission levels of 40 CFR 51.853(b). If the threshold emission levels are exceeded,

proceed to step 9. If not, continue the analysis at Step 8(b).

8.b Determine the nonattainment or maintenance area’s total emissions of pollutants

identified in Step 3. These determinations need only be sufficiently accurate to support

evaluation of the regional significance of emission levels below the threshold emission

levels of 40 CFR 51.853(b). Potential sources of this information include EPA regional

offices, State and local air quality agencies, and final EISs. If an existing estimate of the

area’s total emissions is not found, estimate the emissions from readily available

information, such as population, traffic counts, and published emission rates, using

reasonable assumptions. Identify the information and the assumptions. Information

developed for Section 4.18, Transportation, may be of value in this determination.
16 Conditions on air quality models used for conformity analysis are contained in 40 CFR 51.859(c).

4.2-S-34

8.c Compare the total emissions from refurbishment estimated in step 6 with the area’s

total emissions estimated in 8(b). In accordance with 40 CFR 51.853(i), if the total

emissions from refurbishment are 10% or more of the area’s total emissions, proceed to

Step 9. If not, the emissions are not regionally significant, and no further analysis is

required.

9. For those pollutants identified in Step 8, use air dispersion modeling to estimate pollutant

concentrations in the ambient air, which in turn are used to evaluate the extent to which

refurbishment-related emission would cause or increase the frequency of exceeding

threshold emission levels during the refurbishment.16 If analyses based on peak

employment period emission indicate a potential for exceeding of annual air quality limits,

the licensee may account for the fact that the refurbishment period is less than a year and

that peak employment levels would not occur during the entire refurbishment period.

10. If refurbishment-related emissions would cause or contribute to exceeding threshold

emission levels, the applicant should identify and analyze the extent to which potential

mitigation measures would minimize the adverse impact on air quality and should briefly

identify the rationale for not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

Explain the extent to which mitigation measures directed at air quality will be coordinated

with mitigation of transportation impacts discussed in Section 4.18.

4.12 Impact on Public Health of Microbiological Organisms

With regard to public health effects of thermophilic organisms, Table B-1 states

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.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G) requires that

If the applicant’s plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or discharges into a river

having an annual average flow rate of less than 3.15 × 1012 ft3

/yr (9 × 1010 m3/yr), an

assessment of the impact of the proposed action on public health from thermophilic

organisms in the affected water must be provided.

Plants that use cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or small rivers [i.e., plants that have an annual

average flow rate of less than 3.15 × 1012 ft3

/year (9 × 1010 m3/year)] to receive their thermal

discharge have a potential to enhance the concentration of thermophilic microorganisms. These

include the enteric pathogens Salmonella sp. and Shigella sp., as well as Pseudomonas aeriginosa,

thermophilic fungi, Legionella sp. in unusually high concentrations, and the free-living amoebae of

the genera Naegleria and Acanthomoeba. Of greatest concern is Naegleria (N.) sp., four species of

which have been isolated. To date, only one species N. fowleri, has been determined to be

pathogenic in humans.
4.2-S-35

Information and Analysis Content

If the applicant can show that its plant does not use cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or small

rivers to receive its thermal discharge, this fact should be noted in the ER and no further

information or analysis is needed. If the plant does use cooling ponds, lakes, canals, or small

rivers to receive its thermal discharge, the ER should include the following.

1. The State agency responsible for environmental health should be consulted as to whether

there is a concern about the potential existence and concentration of N. fowleri in the

receiving waters for plant cooling water discharge. The results of this consultation should

be documented in the ER.

2. If the State advises that tests should be conducted for concentration of N. fowleri in the

receiving waters, the tests should be performed when the facility has been operating at a

power level typical of the level anticipated during the license renewal period for at least a

month to ensure a steady state population during the sampling. Samples should be taken at

locations of potential public use.

3. An evaluation of the data should be performed and a determination made of the magnitude

of potential impacts of N. fowleri on public health during the license renewal term.

4. Proposed mitigation measures to minimize the exposure to members of the public should

be described, if deemed necessary, and the rationale for not implementing any measures

that were considered but rejected should be explained.

5. A letter report from the head of the State agency responsible for environmental health

stating concurrence with the applicant’s risk assessment and the proposed mitigation

strategy, if one is required, should be included in the ER.

4.13 Electromagnetic Fields–Acute Effects

Table B-1 reports that

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.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.23(c)(3)(ii)(H) requires that

If the applicant's transmission lines that were constructed for the specific purpose of

connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the recommendations

of the National Electrical Safety Code for preventing electric shock from induced

currents, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock

hazard from the transmission lines must be provided.
17 The National Electric Safety Code®, 1997 Edition, by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York

(1996). Section 23 deals with clearances. Section 232 deals specifically with clearances between above ground-conductors

and human activities, equipment, and structures.

4.2-S-36

This issue is discussed in Section 4.5.4.1 of NUREG-1437. It concerns transmission lines

built to connect the power plant with the existing transmission system, and reviewed as part of the

construction permit. Most transmission lines were designed to be in compliance with the National

Electric Safety Code (NESC) recommendations for electric shock hazard.17 However, unless that

utility has had an active program of transmission line management aimed at reviewing changes in

the uses of the land in the right-of-way and the operating characteristics of the transmission line,

and ensuring compliance with changes in the NESC, the line may not meet current NESC

recommendations.

Information and Analysis Content

If the transmission lines that were built to connect the plant to the transmission system

meet current NESC clearance standards, the applicant should demonstrate that fact in the ER. The

demonstration should take one of two forms: (1) a description of an ongoing program of power

line right of way supervision and management aimed at ensuring that current electrical shock

provisions of the NESC are met, or (2) a transmission line survey that develops the following

information.

1. Identification of any sites or areas that do not meet current NESC clearance standards, and

any that may not meet the standards after anticipated changes in transmission line

operations or reasonably foreseeable changes in land use in the right of way.

2. Maps, photographs, or drawings indicating the locations of all sites that do not meet the

NESC clearance standards.

3. For those sites where transmission line characteristics, clearances, and human uses of the

transmission corridor may not meet current NESC standards, provide a description of

measures that could be taken to meet the standards, the measures the applicant plans or

proposes to undertake, and whether those measures will meet the standards. Consider

basic electrical design parameters, including transmission design voltage or voltages, line

capacity, conductor type and configuration, spacing between phases, minimum conductor

clearances to ground, maximum predicted electrical field strength(s) at 1 m above ground,

the predicted electrical field strength(s) at the edge of the right-of-way in kilovolts per

meter (kV/m), and the design bases for these values.

4. For any sites that will not meet NESC clearance standards, provide a detailed explanation

of the rationale for concluding that the standards are not appropriate to the situation or the

rationale for not making modifications to meet the standards.

4.14 Housing Impacts

Table B-1 concludes that
4.2-S-37

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 work force associated with refurbishment may be associated with plants located

in sparsely populated areas or in areas with growth control measures that limit

housing development.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(I) requires in part that

An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on housing availability . . .

within the vicinity of the plant must be provided.

This issue is discussed in Section 3.7.2 (Refurbishment) and Section 4.7.1 (License

Renewal Term) of NUREG-1437.

Impacts to housing availability result when the demand for housing, caused by the projectrelated population increase, approaches or exceeds the number of available housing units in the

vicinity of the plant. The magnitude of the impact will be determined by the number of additional

workers associated with refurbishment activities or continued operation and maintenance, and by

the population and housing inventory within the region. Cumulative housing impacts result when

the project-associated demand for housing combined with other anticipated increases in demand

together approach or exceed the number of available housing units.

Information and Analysis Content

The ER should contain the following.

4.14.1 Refurbishment

1. Reference the estimates of the monthly incremental onsite work force associated with

refurbishment, reported in Section 3.4. If there will be no refurbishment or if

refurbishment involves no additional workers then there will be no impact on housing and

no further analysis is required.

2. Reference the number of in-migrating incremental refurbishment workers and their

dependents, and the anticipated residential distribution, reported in Section 3.4.

3. Using the regional demographic information from Chapter 2, determine whether the plant

is in a region of low, medium, or high population. This determination can be made using

Figure C.1, “Population categories, by sparseness and proximity,” and Table C.1,

“Sparseness and proximity measures used to classify potential case study sites,” from

Volume 2 of NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License

Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Appendices,” May 1996. If the region is one of medium or

high population where there are not growth control measures that limit housing

development, housing impacts are expected to be of small significance. If these conditions

are met, and if the number of additional on-site workers associated with refurbishment for
18 The following general thresholds for impact significance are provided as guidance. Site-specific factors may require some

flexibility in their application. Additional guidance is provided in Section 3.7.2 of NUREG-1437. Generally, small impacts

result when projected demand for housing would lower the vacancy rate for rental or for-sale dwellings by <1 percentage

point (e.g., a change from a 5% vacancy rate to a 4% vacancy rate), with rental and for-sale vacancy rates remaining above

2%. Moderate impacts result when projected demand for housing reduces rental and for-sale vacancy rates 1 but <5

percentage points, with overall vacancy remaining >1%. Large impacts result when projected demand would cause rental or

for-sale vacancy rates to drop by 5 percentage points or to drop to 1%.

4.2-S-38

both license renewal and current term operation and refueling does not exceed the peak

work force estimate of 2,273 persons used for the socioeconomic impact analysis reported

in Section 3.7 of NUREG-1437, the finding of “small significance” may be adopted

without further analysis.

4. If the conditions specified in number 3 above are not met, proceed with assessing the

following information from Chapter 2: Ongoing and anticipated population change and

economic development that could affect housing characteristics in the region or could

contribute to cumulative impacts during the period of refurbishment. This information

should be available from regional and local sources (e.g., government officials, planning

and economic development agencies, realtors).

5. From Chapter 2, reference the number, type, and location of housing units in the region.

Reference should be made to housing types (e.g., owner occupied, rental units, hotels or

motels, trailer parks), vacancy rates, and turnover. Information from local sources (e.g.,

government officials and realtors) about housing characteristics should supplement the

current decade U.S. Census data.

6. Based on the information above, make an assessment of the potential for impacts to

housing availability, comparing the projected incremental demand for housing associated

with the refurbishment and refueling related population increase to the stock of available

housing in the area. The assessment should consider the magnitude of potential impacts in

terms of housing availability,18 inflation, and changes in housing stock.

7. Describe mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts. The range

of mitigation measures considered and the type of mitigation proposed should be

commensurate with the potential magnitude and duration of the impacts. Mitigation might

include, at a minimum, hiring workers from the local area to the greatest extent possible.

Mitigation of large impacts could include developing trailer pads or supplying temporary

housing (e.g., mobile housing) on the site. The development and selection of appropriate

mitigation measures should involve discussion with local government officials. The

applicant should assess the effectiveness of the mitigation measures at reducing the

potential impacts and should briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any

measures that were considered but rejected.

4.14.2 License Renewal Term

1. Reference the estimates of the additional onsite work force during the license renewal term

that were reported in Section 3.4. If additional workers are not anticipated there will be no

impact on housing and no further analysis is required.
4.2-S-39

2. Reference the number that were reported in Section 3.4 of in-migrating incremental

workers estimated for the license renewal term and their dependents and their predicted

residential distribution.

3. If the conditions specified in Item 3 in 4.14.1 above are met, replacing the peak number of

additional onsite workers associated with refurbishment with the number of additional

onsite workers during the license renewal term, then the finding of “small significance”

may be adopted for the license renewal term without further analysis.

4. If the conditions specified in Item 3 immediately above are not met, assess the following

information from Chapter 2: Ongoing and anticipated population change and economic

development that could affect housing characteristics in the region or could contribute to

cumulative impacts during the period of refurbishment. This information should be

available from regional and local sources (e.g., government officials, planning and

economic development agencies, realtors).

5. From Chapter 2, reference the number, type, and location of housing units in the region.

Reference should be made to housing types (e.g., owner occupied, rental units, hotels or

motels, trailer parks), vacancy rates, and turnover. Emphasis should be on housing trends

and projections that extend into the license renewal term. Information from local sources

(e.g., government officials and realtors) about housing characteristics should supplement

the current decade U.S. Census data.

6. Based on the information above, assess the potential for impacts to housing availability,

comparing the projected incremental demand for housing associated with license renewal

term-related population increase to the projected stock of available housing in the area.

The assessment should consider the magnitude of potential impacts in terms of housing

availability,18 inflation, and changes in housing stock.

7. Describe mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts. The range

of mitigation measures considered and the type of mitigation proposed should be

commensurate with the potential magnitude and duration of the impacts. Mitigation might

include, at a minimum, hiring workers from the local area to the greatest extent possible.

Mitigation of large impacts could include developing trailer pads or supplying temporary

housing (e.g., mobile housing) on the site. The development and selection of appropriate

mitigation measures should involve discussion with local government officials. The

applicant should assess the effectiveness of the mitigation measures for reducing the

potential impacts and should briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any

measures that were considered but rejected.

4.15 Public Utilities: Public Water Supply Availability

Table B-1 concludes that

An increased problem with water shortages at some sites may lead to impacts of

moderate significance on public water supply availability.
4.2-S-40

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(I) requires in part that

. . . [T]he applicant shall provide an assessment of the impact of population

increases attributable to the proposed project on the public water supply.

This issue is discussed in Section 3.7.4.5 (for refurbishment) and in Section 4.7.3.5 (for

operation) of NUREG-1437.

Information and Analysis Content

The ER should include the following information.

1. The information developed for Section 3.4 on the work force, in-migrating population, and

residential location associated with refurbishment and with the renewal period.

2. If water used at the plant is provided by a water utility, identify anticipated increases in the

amount of water used during refurbishment and during the renewal term.

3. For each water utility service area that may be affected, provide information on the

capacity and utilization rate of the public water system projected to exist at the time of

peak refurbishment work force, as well as capacity and cumulative utilization rate caused

by general population increase during the renewal period. Document discussions with the

potentially affected water utilities as to whether the projected population increase will

stress the water supply or require an increase in capacity.

4. If the water supply will be stressed as a result of refurbishment or operation during the

renewal period, identify, in coordination with the water utility, what mitigating measures

would be appropriate. Describe these measures and state which, if any, will be taken.

Briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any measures that were considered but

rejected.

4.16 Education Impacts from Refurbishment

Table B-1 states that

Most sites would experience impacts of small significance but larger impacts are

possible depending on site- and project-specific factors.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(I) requires in part that

An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on... public schools (impacts

from refurbishment activities only) within the vicinity of the plant must be

provided.

This issue is discussed with regard to plant refurbishment in Section 3.7.4.1 of NUREG1437. Section 4.7.3.1 of NUREG-1437 placed this issue in Category 1 for the license renewal

period.
19 Section 3.7.4.1 states: “In general, small impacts are associated with project-related enrollment increases of 3 percent or less.

Impacts are considered small if there is no change in the school systems’ abilities to provide educational services and if no

additional teaching staff or classroom space is needed. Moderate impacts generally are associated with 4 to 8 percent

increases in enrollment. Impacts are considered moderate if a school system must increase its teaching staff or classroom

space even slightly to preserve its pre-project level of service. . . . Large impacts are associated with project-related

enrollment increases above 8 percent.”

4.2-S-41

Impacts to education are a product of (1) the additional demand on the public education

system resulting from the refurbishment-related population growth and (2) the capacity of the

education system to absorb additional students. The capacity of the system to absorb additional

students is related to the size of the school system (i.e., larger school systems typically can absorb

more students than smaller systems) and whether the system already is experiencing growth

pressures. Section 3.7.4.1 of NUREG-1437 includes definitions of small, moderate, and large

impacts to education.19 Cumulative impacts can result if the project-related demand for education,

coupled with demand associated with other ongoing economic development or with changes in the

level of service (e.g., resulting from changes in fiscal policy), affects the school system’s ability to

provide educational services.

Information and Analysis Content

The analysis of potential effects on education in the ER is to include the following

information.

1. The information developed for Section 3.4 on the incremental work force, in-migrating

population, the number of school-age children, and their residential locations during the

refurbishment period.

2. For each school system that may be affected, information on the classroom capacity and

student-teacher ratio projected to exist at the time of peak refurbishment work force.

Document discussions with the potentially affected school systems as to whether the

projected increase in students will stress the capacity of the school system.

3. If educational resources will be stressed by the additional students during the refurbishment

period, identify, in coordination with the school officials, what mitigation measures would

be appropriate. Describe these measures and state which, if any, will be taken. Briefly

explain the rationale for not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

4.17 Offsite Land Use

4.17.1 Refurbishment

Table B-1 concludes that

Impacts may be of moderate significance at plants in low population areas.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(I) requires in part that
20 In Section 3.7.5 of NUREG-1437 it is stated that:

Generally, if plant related population growth is less than 5 percent of the study area’s total population, off-site land-use

changes would be small, especially if the study area has established patterns of residential and commercial development, a

population density of at least 60 persons per square mile (2.6 km2

), and at least one urban area with a population of 100,000

or more within 80 km (50 miles).

If refurbishment-related growth is between 5 and 20 percent of the study area’s total population, moderate new land-use

changes can be expected. Such impacts would most likely occur when the study area has established patterns of residential

and commercial development, a population density of 30 to 60 persons per square mile (2.6 km2

), and one urban area within

80 km (50 miles).

... Large impacts were not induced at any site by population growth.

4.2-S-42

An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on . . . land-use . . . within the

vicinity of the plant must be provided.

This issue is discussed in Section 3.7.5 of NUREG-1437, in which general standards are

provided for determining the magnitude of land-use impacts.20 The phrase “vicinity of the plant”

used in the regulation and the phrase “study area” used in this footnote are synonymous. This area

is generally defined as the host county and municipality, as well as other counties or municipalities

in which a substantial segment of the in-migrating population would be expected to reside.

Impacts to off-site land use result when the development pressures resulting from the

project-related population increases result in changes to local land-use and development patterns.

Development pressures are closely tied to population increase impacts on housing covered in

Section 4.14. These changes can have either positive or negative impacts, depending upon the

value attributed to land-use changes by different individuals and groups. Cumulative land-use

impacts result when the project-associated population growth, combined with other population

growth and land-use pressures, induces changes to local land-use and development patterns.

Information and Analysis Content

The information and analyses developed in this section should build from the information

and analyses developed in Section 3.4 and Section 4.14 relevant to the period of refurbishment. If

there will be no additional workers due to refurbishment, there will be no impact on land-use and

no further analysis is required. If the population and growth control criteria given in Section 4.14

resulted in a determination that “. . . the impact on housing is expected to be minor and no further

analysis of project-specific impacts to housing is required,” it is likely that offsite land-use impacts

will also be minor. In any case, further screening for land-use impacts is appropriate. If the

applicant can demonstrate the validity of the following three conditions, it may be concluded that

the effects of refurbishment-related population growth on land-use and development patterns will

be small, and no further analysis is needed.

(1) Project-related population growth (including direct and indirect workers and their

families), when added to other anticipated or reasonably foreseeable population

growth, would not increase existing area population by more than 5 percent.

(2) The project area has established development patterns. Established development

patterns are indicated if the community has established land use controls or

infrastructure in place to support reasonably foreseeable development.
4.2-S-43

(3) The project area is not extremely isolated or sparsely populated. Extreme isolation

is indicated if the area is more than 50 miles (80 km) from the nearest urban area

with a population of 100,000 or more; sparsely populated is indicated if the

population density is less than 60/mile2 (21/km2) within a 20-mile (32-km) radius

from the plant.

If any of these cannot be demonstrated, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action

on off-site land use should be provided in the ER.

The assessment should consider the size of the peak incremental labor force (onsite and

indirect) associated with the project, the number of workers expected to commute daily, the number

expected to migrate to the area and require temporary or permanent housing, the potential demand

for new temporary or permanent housing as determined in the analysis of potential housing effects,

land-use controls in the area, and the physical infrastructure in place in the area. If refurbishment

and refueling workers are to be on-site simultaneously, the analysis should consider the combined

work forces. Similarly, the analysis of impacts from post-relicensing refueling and maintenance

activities should consider potential effects of the total number of temporary refueling/maintenance

workers. Section 3.7.5 of NUREG-1437 provides definitions of small, moderate, and large landuse impacts.

Information in the ER for the analysis of potential effects on land use should include the

following.

1. The information and analysis developed in Section 4.14.1 should be referenced.

2. A description of land-use controls, zoning, or restrictions in the area, including reasonably

foreseeable future changes.

3. A description of land-use patterns in the area, including the scale and type of commercial

development and the housing stock (see Section 4.14.1).

4. A description of existing and planned infrastructure (including gas, water, sewer, and power

lines and roads).

5. An analysis of the potential for population changes arising from refurbishment to cause

changes in patterns of land use. If potential changes in land use are identified, assess their

significance. Document discussions with local planning authorities as to their assessment

of the significance of any changes in patterns of land use.

6. If the local planning authorities believe the potential changes in land use are significant,

identify, in coordination with the authorities, mitigation measures that would be

appropriate. Describe these measures and state which, if any, will be taken and briefly

explain the rationale for not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

4.17.2 License Renewal Term

Table B-1 states
4.2-S-44

Significant changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue

changes resulting from license renewal.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I) requires, in part, that

An assessment of the impact of the proposed action on . . . land-use . . . within the

vicinity of the plant must be provided.

This issue is addressed in Section 4.7.4 of NUREG-1437. The specifics of the magnitude of

land-use change and impact predictor criteria, and the definition of the term “vicinity of the plant,”

are as given in Section 4.17.1 of this guide. Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 partially misstates the

conclusion reached in Section 4.7.4 of NUREG-1437. Section 4.7.4 concludes that “populationdriven land-use changes during the license renewal term at all nuclear plants will be small.” A

Category 2 finding for land-use changes during the license renewal term was made because of

potential tax-driven land-use changes and the inability to reach a generic conclusion as to whether

communities would see such changes as negative or positive. Until Table B-1 is changed,

applicants need only cite NUREG-1437 to address population-induced land-use change during the

license renewal term.

During the license renewal term, new land-use impacts could result from plant-related

population growth or from the use of tax payments from the plant by local government to provide

public services that encourage development. The resulting changes can have either positive or

negative impacts, depending upon the value attributed to land-use changes by different individuals

and groups. Cumulative land-use impacts result when tax revenues generated by the plant combine

with land-use pressures (e.g., rapid, unexpected population growth) to induce changes to local

land-use and development patterns.

Information and Analysis Content

The assessment should consider the size of the plant-generated revenues relative to the total

revenues of the taxing jurisdictions, land-use controls in the area, and the physical infrastructure in

place in the area.

Information for the analysis of potential effects on land use includes the following.

1. The information and analyses developed in Section 4.14.2 should be referenced.

2. A description of land-use controls, zoning, or restrictions in the area, including reasonably

foreseeable future changes.

3. A description of land-use patterns in the area, including the scale and type of commercial

development and the housing stock (see Section 4.14.1).

4. A description of existing and planned infrastructure (gas, water, sewer, and power lines,

roads).
21 Level of service is defined in Section 3.7.4.2 of NUREG-1437. See also Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity

Manual, Special Rpt 209, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1985.

4.2-S-45

5. An estimate of the tax or other revenue to be paid to local governmental jurisdictions during

the license renewal term (considering all tax payments by the plant—not just the increment

arising from refurbishment-related improvements—whether paid directly to local

jurisdictions or indirectly through State tax revenue-sharing programs). Relevant

jurisdictions include the State, city, county, school district, or other special purpose districts

in which the plant is located.

6. The total revenue for the current year of the taxing jurisdictions and an estimate of total

revenue during the plant’s license renewal term.

7. If potential changes in land use are identified, assess their significance. Discuss with local

planning authorities whether tax revenue changes during the license renewal term will cause

land-use changes in their jurisdiction. Document discussions with local planning authorities

as to their assessment of the significance of any anticipated changes in patterns of land use.

8. If the local planning authorities believe the potential changes in land use are significant,

identify, in coordination with the authorities, mitigation measures that would be

appropriate. Describe these measures and state which, if any, will be taken and briefly

explain the rationale for not implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

4.18 Transportation

Table B-1 states that

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 the

additional workers and the local road and traffic control conditions may lead to

impacts of moderate or large significance at some sites.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(J) requires that

All applicants shall assess the impact of highway traffic generated by the proposed

project on the level of service of local highways during periods of license renewal

refurbishment activities and during the term of the renewed license.

These impacts are addressed in Sections 3.7.4.2 and 4.7.3.2 of NUREG-1437.

Transportation impacts are related to the total size of the work force and to the prevailing

road and traffic conditions at the time of the project. Transportation effects result when projectrelated traffic induces a change in the level of service (LOS)21 such that LOS of C or higher occurs

on highway segments or intersections in the vicinity of the plant. Section 3.7.4.2 states that
22 The information required for assessment of the transportation issue is much the same as some of the information required for

the assessment of the air quality issue, in Section 4.11 of this guide.

4.2-S-46

LOS A and B are associated with small impacts because operation of individual users

is not substantially affected by the presence of other users. At this level, no delays

occur and no improvements are needed. LOS C and D are associated with moderate

impacts because the operation of individual users begins to be severely restricted by

other users, and at level D small increases in traffic cause operational problems.

Consequently, upgrading of roads or additional control systems may be required.

LOS E and F are associated with large impacts because the use of the roadway is at or

above capacity level, causing breakdowns in flow that result in long traffic delays and

potentially increased accident rates. Major renovations of existing roads or additional

roads may be needed to accommodate the traffic flow.

NUREG-1437 defines small, moderate, and large impacts to transportation in Section

3.7.4.2. Cumulative transportation impacts are the result of project-related traffic increases coupled

with traffic increases resulting from other activities (e.g., other large construction projects or new

economic development) in the area. Although plant-related traffic will use highway segments not

in the vicinity of the plant, such traffic likely will be dispersed over a number of roads. Highway

segments and intersections that are a considerable distance from the plant may need to be assessed

if the majority of project-related traffic will flow through them.

Information and Analysis Content

The information to analyze potential impacts to transportation includes the following.22

1. From the refurbishment and license renewal term employment information provided in

Section 3.4, “Employment,” estimate the daily traffic associated with refurbishment

activities and with the license renewal term. The estimate should include commuting

workers (including refueling workers if the refueling and refurbishment activities will occur

simultaneously) and shipments of materials. The effect of carpooling and the availability

and use of public transportation should be considered in the estimate. Peak traffic times

should be determined or estimated.

2. A forecast, for both periods, of the highway segments and interchanges likely to be affected

by the increased traffic, inferred from current traffic patterns associated with operations and

refueling workers.

3. Information on recent LOS, capacity, and usage for highway segments and intersections

forecast to be impact areas. State or county departments of transportation typically maintain

these data.

4. Information from local sources (e.g., government officials, planning and economic

development agencies) about ongoing and anticipated economic development (e.g., new

construction or industry in the area of the plant) and changes in road conditions that could

affect LOS and be a contributor to cumulative impacts.
4.2-S-47

5. Based on this information, the applicant, for both periods, should project the volume of

project-related traffic likely to occur at each segment, calculate the increase in traffic on

affected highway segments and intersections, and project the LOS that would result during

peak periods on each segment. Consultation with local and State departments of

transportation, who often have guidelines about how LOS is affected by an increase in

traffic volume given specific road conditions, should facilitate the LOS determination. The

analysis and the resulting LOS for each segment or intersection considered should be

documented in the ER.

6. A discussion of potential mitigation measures, commensurate with the projected level of

impact, should be included in the ER. Mitigation measures could include, for example,

adjusting shift change time to nonpeak traffic times, busing, or road and traffic control

improvements. The applicant should estimate the potential effect of the mitigation

measures, include this assessment in the ER, and briefly explain the rationale for not

implementing the measures that were considered but rejected.

4.19 Historic and Archaeological Resources

Table B-1 states that

Generally, plant 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.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(ii)(K) requires that

All applicants shall assess whether any historic or archaeological properties will be

affected by the proposed project.

This issue is discussed in Section 3.7.7 and Section 4.7.7 of NUREG-1437.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470-470w-6, in

Section 106, requires that Federal agencies take into account the effects of the agency’s undertaking

(including issuance of a license) on properties included in or eligible for the National Register of

Historic Places and, prior to approval of an undertaking, to afford the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The procedure for meeting

Section 106 reguirements is defined in regulations of the Advisory Council, “Protection of Historic

Properties” (36 CFR Part 800). The guidance that follows instructs the applicant as to the

information and analysis that is required for the NRC to comply with Section 106 requirements in a

manner that minimizes the potential for the consultation process with the Advisory Council to

delay review of the application. The applicant should also consider the effects on properties that

are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places but, nevertheless, are likely to be
23 This criterion is a NEPA consideration, not related to NHPA requirements.

24 Historic property is defined in 36 CFR 800.2(e): “Historic property means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building,

structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register. This term includes, for the purposes of these

regulations, artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term ‘eligible for

inclusion in the National Register’ includes both properties formally determined as such by the Secretary of the Interior and

all other properties that meet National Register listing criteria.” National Register criteria for listing are found in 36 CFR

Part 60.

4.2-S-48

considered by the State Historic Preservation Officer or local historians to have local historic value

and to contribute substantially to an area’s sense of historic character.23

Information and Analysis Content

The ER should include the following information.

1. From Chapter 3 of this guide, identify those refurbishment and license renewal term

activities that could affect onsite or offsite historic properties.24 Such activities would

include ground disturbing activity, increases in traffic, and audio and visual intrusions.

2. On a copy of the site map or, if appropriate, the site vicinity map included in Chapter 2,

identify the areas of potential effects if historic properties were to be found.

3. On the map, identify historic properties that may be affected. All on-site historic properties

and any off-site historic properties located in or near areas of potential effects should be

identified. These properties should be described in the text. Properties can be identified by

referring to the “National Register of Historic Places,” 36 CFR Part 60; consultation with

the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), local preservation officials, and nearby

Native American Tribal officials; and field surveys.

4. If historic properties are found in or near areas of potential effects, assess those effects.

Criteria of effect and adverse effect are given in 36 CFR 800.9. Applicants are encouraged

to involve the SHPO and local historic preservation officials in the assessment. The

assessment should lead to one of three conclusions.

1. No effect: the undertaking will not affect historic properties;

2. No adverse effect: the undertaking will affect one or more historic

properties, but the effect will not be harmful;

3. Adverse effect: the undertaking will harm one or more historic properties.

5. If an adverse effect will occur, the applicant, in consultation with the SHPO and other

interested parties should identify measures to make the refurbishment or license renewal

term activities less harmful.

4.20 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives

Table B-1 states that
4.2-S-49

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.

Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) requires that

If the staff has not previously considered severe accident mitigation alternatives for

the applicant’s plant in an environmental impact statement or related supplement or

in an environmental assessment, a consideration of alternatives to mitigate severe

accidents must be provided.

Severe accident mitigation alternatives are discussed in Section 5.4 of NUREG-1437.

The analyses performed for Chapter 5, “Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents,” of

NUREG-1437 represent adequate, plant-specific estimates of the environmental impacts of severe

accidents. However, the Commission determined that a site-specific consideration of severe

accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) will be required at the time of license renewal unless a

previous consideration of such alternatives regarding plant operation has been included in a final

environmental impact statement, or final environmental assessment, or a related supplement. The

applicant should provide the relevant citation. If no such citations exist, the applicant should

provide the following information.

Information and Analysis Content

The identification of possible SAMAs and evaluation of their merits should use the

information and analyses developed for the plant-specific individual plant examination (IPE) for

severe accident vulnerabilities (and modifications made subsequent thereto) and, when available,

the plant-specific individual plant examination of external events (IPEEE) for severe accident

vulnerabilities (e.g., earthquakes, fires, winds). If an IPEEE has not been completed, the applicant

may use the results of IPEEEs performed for other plants, adjusted for plant-specific variables. In

preparing the SAMA analyses, applicants may be guided by analyses performed for previous

applications for renewal of operating licenses and by the NRC for Watts Bar Unit 1 Nuclear Power

Plant, NUREG-0498, Supplement 1, “Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,” April 1995,2 and supplements to NUREG-1437.2 In

structuring the analysis, the applicant should consider the methodology presented in NUREG/BR0184, “Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook,” January 1997.2

The results of the following analytical steps should be presented in the ER, and the

methodology or analytical process should be described.

1. Based on the plant-specific risk study and supplementary analyses, identify and characterize

the leading contributors to core damage frequency and offsite risk (i.e., population dose).

The frequency and contributors to core damage frequency and large release frequency are

generally available from the plant-specific risk study, such as the IPE. Development of
4.2-S-50

offsite risk information may require additional site-specific analyses if the existing risk

study does not include an assessment of offsite consequences.

2. From the IPEEE and any other external event analyses, provide estimates of the incremental

contribution to dose consequence risk identified from the IPE.

3. Identify practical physical plant modifications and plant procedural and administrative

changes that can reduce severe accident dose consequence risk. For each modification or

change, estimate the approximate reduction in risk.

4. Estimate the value of the reduction in risk. Value is usually calculated for public health,

occupational health, offsite property, and onsite property. A detailed discussion of

calculating values is found in Chapter 5 of NUREG/BR-0184.

5. Estimate the approximate cost of each modification and procedural and administrative

change found to reduce the dose consequence risk of severe accidents. Potential SAMAs

that are not expected to be cost beneficial, even when uncertainties in the analysis (e.g., a

factor of 10) are taken into consideration, may be screened out based on a bounding

analysis.

6. Perform a more detailed value-impact analysis for remaining SAMAs to identify any plant

modifications and procedural changes that may be cost effective (see Chapter 5 of

NUREG/BR-0184).

7. List plant modifications and procedural changes (if any) that have or will be implemented to

reduce the severe accident dose consequence risk.

4.21 Transportation of Radiological Waste

This is a Category 1 issue and the impacts are small as long as the fuel used is not enriched

beyond 5 percent uranium-235 and average burnup for the peak rod does not exceed 62,000

Mwd/MTU.

Table B-1states that

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 waste to a

repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada are found to be consistent with the

impact values contained in Summary Table S-4—Environmental Impact of Fuel and

Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor. If fuel

enrichment or burnup conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an

assessment of the implications for the environmental values reported in Sec. 51.52.

This issue is discussed in Section 5.4 and Section 5.5.2.5 of NUREG-1437, which has been

updated by Volume 1, Addendum 1, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
25 Minority categories are defined as Black/African American; American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut; Asian or Pacific Islander;

other non-white; and Hispanic origin. Low-income is defined as being below the poverty level as defined by the Bureau of the

Census.

4.2-S-51

Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report Section 6.3—`Transportation,’ Table 9.1, `Summary of

findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of nuclear power plants,’ Final Report,”2 August

1999.

Addendum 1 provided the technical basis to the final rule, 64 FR 48496, September 3,

1999, that changed the transportation of fuel and waste from a Category 2 issue to Category 1. The

staff is closely monitoring industry and NRC programs that would lead to fuel burnup higher than

62,000 MWd/MTU to modify the September 3, 1999, rule in a timely manner. Meanwhile, any

potential applicant for license renewal seeking approval for burnup beyond 62,000 MWd/MTU

should request early guidance from the NRC staff on how to handle this issue in the ER.

4.22 Environmental Justice

Table B-1 states that

The need for and the content of an analysis of environmental justice will be

addressed in plant-specific reviews.

Environmental justice was not reviewed in NUREG-1437. Executive Order 12898,

“Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations,” issued on February 11, 1994, is designed to focus the attention of Federal agencies on

the human health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities.25 The

NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) is guided in its consideration of environmental

justice by Attachment 4, “NRR Procedures for Environmental Justice Reviews,” to NRR Office

Letter No. 906, Revision 2, “Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and

Considering Environmental Issues,” September 21, 1999. NRR Office Letter No. 906 is revised

periodically. The environmental justice review involves identifying off-site environmental impacts,

their geographic locations, minority and low-income populations that may be affected, the

significance of such effects and whether they are disproportionately high and adverse compared to

the population at large within the geographic area, and if so, what mitigative measures are

available, and which will be implemented. The NRC staff will perform the environmental justice

review to determine whether there will be disproportionately high human heath and environmental

effects on minority and low-income populations and report the review in its SEIS. The staff’s

review will be based on information provided in the ER and developed during the staff’s sitespecific scoping process.

Information and Analysis Content

The ER should include the following information to assist the staff in its environmental

justice review.

1. From Chapter 2, provide by political jurisdiction the composition of minority and lowincome persons within 80 km (50 miles) of the plant. Migrant workers as well as full time
4.2-S-52

residents should be included. Provide these data by census tract/block for those geographic

areas where the potential has been identified in Chapter 4 for adverse impacts from

refurbishment and from continued operation during the renewal term. The most recent

Bureau of the Census demographic information should be supplemented with demographic

information from State and local planning agencies.

2. Identify in Chapter 4, Chapter 5, and Chapter 6 the geographic location of each

environmental impact and proposed mitigating action addressed.

CHAPTER 5. ASSESSMENT OF NEW AND SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION

The regulatory requirement to report new and significant information of which the applicant

is aware and the definition of new and significant information is discussed in the “General

Guidance” section in the Introduction of this regulatory guide. While the identification of new and

significant information may result from the scoping process (including the staff’s site visit) and

from public comments on the draft SEIS, it is appropriate for the applicant to identify any new and

significant information early. To achieve early identification, the NRC encourages the applicant, as

it develops the ER, to employ methods that will reveal potential new and significant information.

To the extent the following information exists, it should be summarized in this chapter of the ER.

1. Describe the information gathering and review process used in developing this ER. Explain

how the process would result in the identification of new and significant information

concerning Category 1 issues and issues not listed in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR

Part 51. The explanation should address (1) the methods used by the applicant that will

make it cognizant of new information, if it exists, and (2) the process for evaluating the

significance of new information, if found. Examples of means for identifying new

information include review of environmental monitoring results, review of related scientific

literature, surveys of the applicant’s environmental and operations staff, exchange of

information among licensees through peer groups and industry organizations, consultations

with academicians knowledgeable of the local environment, and consultations with Federal,

State, Tribal, and local environmental, natural resource, permitting, and land use agencies.

The description of the review process for evaluating new information for significance

should include the organizational procedures for handling reports of new information and

the criteria used to determine the applicability of such information. An applicant who is not

cognizant of any new and significant information should so state in the ER.

2. Describe any new and significant information identified and the associated environmental

impacts.

3. For each impact, describe mitigation measures that were considered and the measures that

will be implemented.

Detailed supporting documentation need not be included in the ER, but should be available

for review by the NRC. Supporting documentation may include (1) a general description of the

participants involved, their organizational affiliations, how they interact among themselves, and the

role that they served in the process; (2) a description of consultations with academicians and
4.2-S-53

Federal, State, Tribal, and local environmental natural resource, permitting, and land use agencies;

and (3) a description of new information that was identified and the assessment of its significance.

CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY OF LICENSE RENEWAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING

ACTIONS

6.1 License Renewal Impacts

This section should provide a summary, preferably in tabular form, of the environmental

impacts related to license renewal for the plant. The summaries should be descriptive and

informative rather than evaluative or comparative. The presentation of material should be

organized by environmental resource area, such as the subject areas used in Table B-1.

6.2 Mitigation

This section should provide a summary, preferably in tabular form, of each mitigative action

committed to in this ER.

6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

This section should summarize “Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be

avoided should the proposal be implemented,” as required by 10 CFR 51.45(b)(2). Unavoidable

adverse effects should be identified in Chapters 4 and 5, in detail commensurate with the

significance of the effects.

6.4 Irreversible or Irretrievable Resource Commitments

This section should summarize “any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources

which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented,” as required by 10 CFR

51.45(b)(5). Irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources include energy and materials

consumed, resources and materials committed over the license renewal term, and additional waste

materials that will be generated by extended operations. In addition to summarizing irreversible

and irretrievable resource commitments discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, this section should briefly

describe the magnitude and significance of irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources

that are not addressed in those sections. Discussions should be proportionate to the significance of

the resource commitments.

6.5 Short-Term Use Versus Long-Term Productivity of the Environment

This section should summarize “the relationship between local short-term uses of man's

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” as required by 10

CFR 51.45(b)(4). For operational impacts, short-term may be taken to mean the operating life of

the plant and long-term should be taken to be the period beginning after the end of its licensed

operating life and continuing as long as the past operations of the plant could have discernible

impacts. For refurbishment impacts, short-term may be taken to include the refurbishment period
26 Additional guidance on alternatives is provided by CEQ’s “Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National

Environmental Policy Act Regulations” (46 FR 18026, March 23, 1981, and as amended 51 FR 15618, April 25, 1986).

4.2-S-54

and long-term may be taken to be the period beginning with the completion of refurbishment.

Long-term should be interpreted in the context of the nature of the affected resource. For some

resources, there may be no long-term impacts, such as those affected by refurbishment or

operations that return to normal conditions after operations cease). For other resources, there may

be only long-term impacts, such as global warming impacts of increasing or reducing combustion

of fossil fuels.

The discussion should recognize that license renewal may have both adverse and beneficial

impacts on the long-term productivity of the environment. The term “productivity” should be

interpreted broadly, to include both the productivity of resources useful for human activity and the

productivity and stability of ecological systems, even those that are not used directly by humankind.

Chapter 7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION

Regarding alternatives, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) states in part that

. . . [T]he applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of

alternatives and any other matters described in § 51.45. The report is not required to

include discussion of need for power or economic costs and economic benefits of

the proposed action or of alternatives to the proposed action except insofar as such

costs and benefits are either essential for a determination regarding the inclusion of

an alternative in the range of alternatives considered or relevant to mitigation. The

environmental report need not discuss other issues not related to the environmental

effects of the proposed action and the alternatives.

Requirements for the treatment of alternatives in an EIS are presented in Section 5 of

Appendix A to Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. These requirements are consistent with the Council

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14), which

require that an EIS26

(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and

for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss

the reasons for their having been eliminated.

(b) Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail

including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their

comparative merits.

(c) Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

(d) Include the alternative of no action.

(e) Identify the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in

the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another

law prohibits the expression of such a preference.

(f) Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed

action or alternatives.
4.2-S-55

In deciding whether or not to approve license renewal, the NRC will consider the

environmental impacts of alternatives as well as those of the proposed action. The NRC considers

environmental effects of license renewal according to 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5).

In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant to Part 54 of this

chapter, the Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse environmental

impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal

for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.

7.1 No-Action Alternative

For license renewal, the no-action alternative is defined as the alternative of not renewing

the license. At license expiration, plant operations would terminate and decommissioning activities

would commence. The environmental impacts of terminating nuclear power plant operations and

decommissioning are discussed in Section 8.4 of NUREG-1437. The ER should contain an

analysis of the no-action alternative, including impacts on land use, water quality, air quality,

ecological resources, human health, social and economic stucture, waste management, aesthetics,

and cultural resources. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts should be considered. The level of

effort expended on impact analyses of alternatives should be commensurate with the significance of

the impacts. Material from NUREG-1437 may be summarized and incorporated by reference to the

extent it is applicable.

7.2 Alternatives that Meet System Generating Needs

7.2.1 Alternatives Considered

The range of alternatives to be considered should be focused by the stated purpose and need

for the proposed action. The statement of purpose and need adopted by the NRC and stated in

NUREG-1437 and in Chapter 1 of this regulatory guide focuses on meeting future power system

generating needs. Alternatives that meet the stated purpose and need are (1) build new generating

capacity, (2) purchase the power from outside the system, and (3) reduce power requirements

through demand reduction. The ER should demonstrate that the applicant has considered these or

similar alternatives. The applicant should identify the criteria used in evaluating the reasonableness

of the alternatives and explain which alternatives will not be considered further and why. The ER

should identify the alternatives that will be carried forward for comparison with license renewal.

The ER should discuss the extent to which these alternatives have been considered by State

authorities (e.g., public service commissions and environmental, natural resource, or energy

agencies) and how such considerations relate to the applicant’s evaluation.

7.2.2 Environmental Impacts of Alternatives

This section should describe the impacts of the alternatives identified for further

consideration. The impacts should be described in sufficient detail so that reviewers may compare

the adverse and beneficial impacts of the alternatives with those of renewing the operating license.

Impact analyses should consider land use, water quality, air quality, ecological resources, human

health, social and economic systems, waste management, aesthetics, and cultural resources. The

impacts analyses should include direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. For each alternative, the

analysis should identify and, to the extent possible, quantify, unavoidable adverse impacts,
4.2-S-56

irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments, and tradeoffs between short-term use and

long-term productivity of the environment. To the extent possible, each alternative should be

analyzed on a site- or region-specific basis. Each impact should be analyzed in proportion to its

significance. Chapter 8 of NUREG-1437 includes the results of an analysis of the generic

environmental impacts of several electricity generating technologies. These results may be utilized

to the extent that they are applicable.

Chapter 8. COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF

LICENSE RENEWAL WITH THE ALTERNATIVES

This section should present the impacts of the proposed action, the no action alternative,

and other reasonable alternatives in comparative form in order to sharply define the issues and

provide a clear basis for the NRC to “determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts

of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning

decisionmakers would be unreasonable.” This comparison may be presented in any of several

formats. Often the comparison is presented in a tabular format such as Tables 8.1 and 8.2 of

NUREG-1437. The comparison should emphasize the more significant impacts of each alternative.

Chapter 9. STATUS OF COMPLIANCE

According to 10 CFR 51.45(d), an applicant must discuss the status of compliance in the

ER.

The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, licenses, approvals and other

entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed action and

shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental

report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to,

applicable zoning and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution

limitations or requirements which have been imposed by Federal, State, regional,

and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection.

Appendix H of Volume 2 of NUREG-14372 summarizes the major Federal statutes that may

relate to license renewal applications.
4.2-S-57

REGULATORY ANALYSIS

A separate regulatory analysis was not prepared for this regulatory guide. NUREG-1440,

“Regulatory Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for the Environmental Review for Renewal of

Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses” (May 1996), provides the regulatory basis for this guide.

NUREG-1440 was prepared for the amendment to 10 CFR Part 51 with respect to requirements for

the environmental review for renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses, which was

promulgated on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537). A copy of NUREG-1440 is available for

inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20555-0001; phone (202)634-3273; fax (202)634-3343. In addition, copies may

be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, PO Box

37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available for purchase from the National

Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

ADAMS Accession Number

ML003710495