FINAL REPORT

U . S . N U C L E A R R E G U L A T O R Y C O M M I S S I O N

Frequently Asked Questions on 

License Renewal of Nuclear Power Reactors

March 2006

Division of License Renewal 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-001
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their

attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402–0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161–0002

 www.ntis.gov 

 1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

 Reproduction and Distribution

 Services Section

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was

accessed, the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org 

212–642–4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including

technical specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series

are not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR–XXXX), (2) proceedings of

conferences (NUREG/CP–XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from international agreements

(NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures

(NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal

decisions and orders of the Commission and

Atomic and Safety Licensing Boards and of

Directors’ decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC’s

regulations (NUREG–0750).
NUREG-1850

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON 

LICENSE RENEWAL OF 

NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS 

Final Report 

Manuscript Completed: February 2006 

Date Published: March 2006 

Division of License Renewal

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001

March 2006 iii Final FAQs for License Renewal 

Abstract 

With the increase in the number of power reactors submitting applications for renewed licenses, the 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff realized that members of the public near different 

power reactor sites had similar questions related to the license renewal process and the risks associated 

with renewing the licenses. This report, through a question-and-answer format, provides staff responses 

to frequently asked questions on the license renewal process for commercial, nuclear power reactors. The 

questions were taken from a variety of sources over the past several years, including written inquiries to 

the NRC and questions asked at public meetings and during informal discussions with the NRC staff. In 

responding to the questions, the NRC staff attempted to provide the answers in a clear and non-technical 

form. 

This document contains a definition of license renewal including information related to the timing and 

scheduling of the license renewal process. It also discusses the NRC’s role in reviewing, approving, or 

denying license renewal and the regulatory basis for the review. Because the public usually encounters 

the license renewal process in conjunction with the environmental review, this document is primarily 

focused on the environmental review process and on related issues such as alternatives to license renewal 

and human health issues. However, other aspects of license renewal are addressed, including questions 

related to the safety reviews, the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, and security issues. There are 

also responses to questions related to public involvement and to finding sources of additional information 

on the license renewal process. 

March 2006 v Final FAQs for License Renewal 

Contents 

1.0 General Questions about License Renewal......................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose of license renewal .....................................................................................................1-1

1.1.1 What is license renewal for power reactors?.............................................................1-1

1.1.2 Why do nuclear power reactor licenses need to be renewed? ...................................1-1

1.1.3 What are the benefits of license renewal to the facility licensee? .............................1-2

1.1.4 What are the alternatives to license renewal?............................................................1-2

1.1.5 Why are nuclear power reactors originally licensed for 40 years?............................1-2

1.1.6 How did the process of renewing licenses evolve? ...................................................1-3

1.2 NRC’s role in reviewing, approving or denying license renewal...........................................1-5

1.2.1 Who makes the decision to renew a license for a nuclear power reactor? ................1-5

1.2.2 Who makes the final decision to either approve or deny the request to renew 

the license? ................................................................................................................1-5

1.2.3 Can state, county, local, Tribal, or other Federal (not NRC) agencies reject or 

disapprove of the license? .........................................................................................1-5

1.2.4 Do other Federal agencies review the license application? If so, which 

agencies? ...................................................................................................................1-5

1.2.5 Are Tribal nations provided with copies of the license renewal application for 

their review?..............................................................................................................1-6

1.2.6 Are non-governmental agencies provided with copies of the license renewal 

application for their review?......................................................................................1-6

1.2.7 Can the NRC say “no” to renewing a license? ..........................................................1-6

1.2.8 Has the NRC ever denied an application to renew a license? ...................................1-6

1.2.9 Does NRC approval of the application guarantee that the licensee will 

continue to operate the nuclear power facility?.........................................................1-7

1.2.10 Who makes the decision to actually continue operating the nuclear power 

facility during the license renewal period once the license renewal is granted?.......1-7

1.2.11 What other types of licenses related to reactors does NRC review? .........................1-7

1.3 Timing and Scheduling of a License Renewal review ...........................................................1-8

1.3.1 How does a licensee begin the license renewal process? ..........................................1-8

1.3.2 How early can a licensee request license renewal? ...................................................1-8

1.3.3 Why does a licensee request license renewal so far in advance of the 

expiration date of the current license?.......................................................................1-8

1.3.4 How close to the end of a license can a licensee request that a license be 

renewed?....................................................................................................................1-8

1.3.5 What does the NRC’s review consist of?..................................................................1-9

1.3.6 What is the NRC staff’s schedule for the review of a license renewal 

application? .............................................................................................................1-10
Final FAQs for License Renewal vi March 2006 

1.3.7 After the current license expires, is the applicant given a new license or is it 

an extension of the existing license? .......................................................................1-10

1.3.8 What if the current operating license has not yet expired? Does the licensee 

get that time back also or does the renewed license just run for 20 years? .............1-10

1.3.9 What happens if the review of a license renewal application is not completed 

before the current license expires? ..........................................................................1-10

1.3.10 How many times can a license be renewed? ...........................................................1-12

1.3.11 What happens if the licensee sells the facility after the license is renewed?...........1-12

1.3.12 Who pays for the license renewal application and review?.....................................1-12

1.3.13 If a nuclear facility is relicensed, does that give the applicant a larger window 

of opportunity to build a new reactor? ....................................................................1-12

2.0 Regulatory Basis of the Review.......................................................................................................2-1

2.1 How were the regulations for license renewal developed? ....................................................2-1

2.2 How does the rulemaking process work?...............................................................................2-2

2.3 Where are the regulations for license renewal found? ...........................................................2-2

2.4 How does the NRC conduct its review of a license renewal application? .............................2-3

2.5 What defines NRC’s review of a license renewal application?..............................................2-3

2.6 Can the NRC change the way it conducts its review or conduct its review in an ad hoc

manner? ..................................................................................................................................2-4

2.7 What if you disagree with the regulations? How do you get the regulations changed?........2-5

2.8 What is the current licensing basis and how is it applied to license renewal? .......................2-6

3.0 NRC Safety Review .........................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 Why does the NRC perform a safety review? ........................................................................3-1

3.2 What is the basis for the NRC’s safety review? .....................................................................3-1

3.3 How is the safety review performed?.....................................................................................3-2

3.4 How is the scope of the safety review for license renewal determined?................................3-2

3.5 Why is NRC focusing its safety review on aging-management issues?.................................3-3

3.6 What is embrittlement? ..........................................................................................................3-3

3.7 Is reactor embrittlement being reviewed during license renewal? .........................................3-3

3.8 Is reactor vessel head degradation like the problem at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 

being considered during license renewal?..............................................................................3-4

3.9 What sort of inspections are conducted at the plant? .............................................................3-4

3.10 What documents are generated during the NRC staff’s review of the license renewal 

application? ............................................................................................................................3-5

3.11 Who uses the safety review documents (such as safety evaluation reports) that NRC 

publishes? ...............................................................................................................................3-5

3.12 Is the public provided the opportunity to comment on the results of the NRC staff’s safety 

review? ...................................................................................................................................3-6

3.13 When can members of the public bring up safety issues that should be considered during 

the license renewal review?....................................................................................................3-6
March 2006 vii Final FAQs for License Renewal 

3.14 What if, during the course of the safety review, some design flaw or safety problem with 

the plant is discovered? Does the problem get addressed now or only during the renewal 

period? ...................................................................................................................................3-7

3.15 Does the license renewal process result in any changes to the license conditions imposed 

on the applicant?.....................................................................................................................3-7

3.16 What is the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and how are they involved in 

license renewal? .....................................................................................................................3-7

4.0 Environmental Review.....................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) .........................................................................4-1

4.1.1 What is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)? .......................................4-1

4.1.2 What does the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require?.......................4-2

4.1.3 What is not required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)? ..............4-2

4.1.4 What is an environmental impact statement (EIS)? ..................................................4-2

4.1.5 What is the difference between generic, programmatic, site-specific, and 

supplemental environmental impact statements? ......................................................4-3

4.1.6 What is tiering? .........................................................................................................4-3

4.1.7 What is scoping? .......................................................................................................4-4

4.1.8 How does the NRC implement the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA)?....................................................................................................................4-4

4.1.9 Who oversees the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and ensures 

that the NRC does an adequate job of meeting the NEPA requirements?.................4-4

4.1.10 Do environmental impact statements (EISs) written by the NRC get reviewed 

for adequacy by any other governmental agency? ....................................................4-5

4.1.11 Apart from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), does the NRC 

have to comply with other environmental laws, regulations, or Executive 

Orders? ......................................................................................................................4-5

4.1.12 Does the NRC coordinate or consult with other Federal agencies as part of its 

environmental reviews?.............................................................................................4-6

4.2 NRC Environmental Review Process for License Renewal...................................................4-7

4.2.1 Basis for the NRC’s environmental review for license renewal ...............................4-7

4.2.1.1 Why does the NRC conduct an environmental review for license 

renewal? ....................................................................................................4-7

4.2.1.2 If license renewal is not a major Federal action, then why did the 

Commission decide to conduct an environmental review?.......................4-7

4.2.2 History of environmental reviews for license renewal..............................................4-8

4.2.2.1 What is the history of the environmental reviews for license 

renewal? ....................................................................................................4-8

4.2.2.2 What were the results of the comprehensive environmental review 

conducted in the 1990s?............................................................................4-9

4.2.2.3 Why did the NRC pursue the development of a generic 

environmental impact statement (GEIS)?.................................................4-9
Final FAQs for License Renewal viii March 2006 

4.2.2.4 Why not consider each facility separately and fully review all 

issues at that facility?..............................................................................4-10

4.2.2.5 Why does the NRC develop a site-specific supplement to the 

generic environmental impact statement for license renewal 

(SEIS)?....................................................................................................4-10

4.2.3 The process for developing a site-specific supplement to the generic 

environmental impact statement for license renewal (SEIS)...................................4-11

4.2.3.1 How does the NRC conduct the environmental evaluation for 

license renewal?......................................................................................4-11

4.2.3.2 What steps does the NRC have to take to complete the 

environmental review?............................................................................4-11

4.2.3.3 Why does the NRC have a scoping process and what information 

is it specifically looking for during this process? ...................................4-13

4.2.3.4 What are the technical areas included in the plant-specific review?.......4-13

4.2.3.5 What is the geographical area that is considered in the review?.............4-14

4.2.3.6 Are impacts considered only during the period of time 

encompassed by the renewed license?....................................................4-15

4.2.3.7 What is the usual schedule for the environmental review of an 

application and who actually performs the environmental review?........4-15

4.2.3.8 Which state, Tribal, county, or local agencies does the NRC 

contact during the review of the license applications?............................4-16

4.2.3.9 Where are the results of the environmental review published? ..............4-16

4.2.3.10 Who uses the site-specific supplement to the generic 

environmental impact statement on license renewal (SEIS), and 

how?........................................................................................................4-17

4.2.4 Categorization and Evaluation of Issues .................................................................4-17

4.2.4.1 What are Category 1 (generic) and Category 2 (site-specific) issues 

and why are they important in the analysis of environmental 

impacts? ..................................................................................................4-17

4.2.4.2 What are some examples of generic (Category 1) issues and how 

were they determined to be generic?.......................................................4-18

4.2.4.3 What are some examples of site-specific (Category 2) issues, and 

how were they determined to be site-specific? .......................................4-19

4.2.4.4 During the environmental review, how are generic issues and 

site-specific issues reviewed? .................................................................4-20

4.2.4.5 Does the NRC take the Category 1 (generic) issues “off the table” 

for public review? ...................................................................................4-20

4.2.4.6 Are human health issues a “generic issue”? Why aren’t they 

evaluated for each facility? .....................................................................4-21

4.2.4.7 What issues are precluded from consideration?......................................4-21

4.2.4.8 What if new information is revealed about an existing issue?................4-22

4.2.4.9 What if a new issue is identified that has not been considered 

before? ....................................................................................................4-22

4.2.4.10 What are some examples of new issues that have been discussed 

during license renewal?...........................................................................4-23
March 2006 ix Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.2.4.11 Who decides if a comment contains new and significant items that 

have been discussed during license renewal? .........................................4-23

4.2.4.12 What are some examples of new and significant items that have 

been discussed during license renewal?..................................................4-24

4.2.4.13 What is meant by significance and what do the three levels of 

significance (SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE) mean? ..................4-24

4.2.4.14 Who decides if an impact is of SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE 

significance? ...........................................................................................4-24

4.2.4.15 What are cumulative impacts, and how does NRC evaluate 

cumulative impacts?................................................................................4-25

4.2.4.16 How does the NRC consider environmental justice in its 

environmental review?............................................................................4-25

4.2.4.17 What is mitigation, and who decides if it is necessary?..........................4-26

4.2.4.18 Could the generic environmental impact statement for license 

renewal (GEIS) become outdated and is it ever updated? ......................4-26

4.2.4.19 What kind of changes might be made in the generic environmental 

impact statement for license renewal (GEIS)?........................................4-27

4.2.4.20 How can you process license renewal applications when you are 

updating the generic environmental impact statement for license 

renewal (GEIS)?......................................................................................4-28

4.3 Scope of the Environmental Review for License Renewal ..................................................4-28

4.3.1 Why are there limits on the scope of the environmental review? ...........................4-28

4.3.2 Why are safety issues outside the scope of the environmental review?..................4-28

4.3.3 Accidents can cause environmental impacts, so does the environmental 

review consider accidents?......................................................................................4-29

4.3.4 Why are security issues outside the scope of the environmental review?...............4-29

4.3.5 Why are acts of terrorism considered outside the scope of the environmental 

review? ....................................................................................................................4-29

4.3.6 Why are emergency preparedness questions outside the scope of the 

environmental review? ............................................................................................4-30

4.3.7 Why is need for power outside the scope of the environmental review? ................4-30

4.3.8 How do I get answers to my questions that fall outside the scope of the 

environmental review from the NRC? ....................................................................4-31

4.4 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) Review ...............................................4-31

4.4.1 What is a Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) review?..................4-31

4.4.2 Why are SAMAs considered part of the environmental review?............................4-32

4.4.3 What is the process for the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

(SAMAs) review? ...................................................................................................4-32

4.4.4 What is the outcome of the review? ........................................................................4-34

4.4.5 Does the applicant have to implement any identified changes?..............................4-34

4.4.6 Have any changes been implemented at a plant as a result of the Severe 

Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) review?..............................................4-34
Final FAQs for License Renewal x March 2006 

4.5 Storage and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel........................................................................4-35

4.5.1 What is the Nuclear Waste Policy Act? ..................................................................4-35

4.5.2 What is the status of Yucca Mountain?...................................................................4-35

4.5.3 If the repository is not yet completed, where is the spent nuclear fuel 

currently being stored? ............................................................................................4-36

4.5.4 What will happen if Yucca Mountain is never finished or approved for 

storing nuclear waste? .............................................................................................4-37

4.5.5 Who is paying for the storage of spent fuel now and who will pay for the 

transportation to and storage of spent fuel at Yucca Mountain? .............................4-37

4.5.6 How is an onsite storage facility licensed?..............................................................4-38

4.5.7 Is the security of the nuclear waste stored onsite being reviewed?.........................4-38

4.5.8 Are onsite storage facilities secure from terrorist attacks?......................................4-39

4.5.9 What is the policy of the United States concerning reprocessing?..........................4-39

4.6 Human Health Issues............................................................................................................4-39

4.6.1 What is radiation and where does it come from? ....................................................4-39

4.6.2 Is radiation harmful? ...............................................................................................4-41

4.6.3 How much radiation is released from a nuclear power facility? .............................4-42

4.6.4 Does radiation from nuclear power facilities cause cancer? ...................................4-43

4.6.5 I have read reports stating that there are excess cases of a specific type of 

cancer in the vicinity of a specific nuclear facility. Doesn’t that mean that 

radiation from nuclear power facilities causes cancer?...........................................4-43

4.6.6 How are radiation and releases of radioactive material regulated and 

monitored at nuclear power facilities? ....................................................................4-45

4.6.7 Will radiation dose rates to the public increase during the license renewal 

period?.....................................................................................................................4-46

4.6.8 What are the radiological health implications of extending the license for a 

reactor for 20 years?................................................................................................4-46

4.6.9 Have there been studies showing an increase in strontium-90 radiation levels 

in baby teeth and corresponding cancer incidence as a result of releases of 

radioactive material from nuclear power plants? ....................................................4-47

4.7 Alternatives ..........................................................................................................................4-48

4.7.1 Why does the NRC consider alternatives to license renewal? ................................4-49

4.7.2 Doesn’t conducting a review and granting the license so far in advance of the 

termination of the current license almost guarantee that an alternative will not 

be seriously considered by the licensee?.................................................................4-49

4.7.3 Why doesn’t the NRC encourage green alternative energy sources such as 

solar or wind power? ...............................................................................................4-49

4.7.4 If an alternative is found that clearly has less environmental impact, why 

doesn’t the NRC require the licensee to pursue the alternative?.............................4-50

4.8 Security.................................................................................................................................4-50
March 2006 xi Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.8.1 What has the NRC done to improve security as a result of the terrorist attacks 

on 9/11?...................................................................................................................4-50

5.0 Public Involvement in the License Renewal Process.......................................................................5-1

5.1 Public Involvement.................................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 How does a member of the public know that a licensee is planning to renew 

its license? .................................................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Where do I find information related to license renewal for a specific nuclear 

power facility?...........................................................................................................5-1

5.1.3 What are the kinds of meetings that the public can be involved in and how 

does the public find out about them?.........................................................................5-2

5.1.4 What are the opportunities for public participation during the environmental 

review of the license renewal application?................................................................5-3

5.1.5 What happens during the environmental public meetings that are held during 

the license renewal review process?..........................................................................5-4

5.1.6 When can I submit written or electronic comments and concerns during the 

review? ......................................................................................................................5-4

5.1.7 Does NRC do anything to ensure that the public that opposes nuclear power 

knows about the review? ...........................................................................................5-5

5.1.8 Why doesn’t the NRC hold a full adjudicatory hearing for each plant that 

requests license renewal? ..........................................................................................5-5

5.1.9 As a member of the public how do I request intervention in the license 

renewal process? What is the timetable?..................................................................5-6

5.1.10 What must be included in the request for a hearing or the petition to 

intervene? ..................................................................................................................5-6

5.1.11 How do I bring safety, environmental, and security issues to the attention of 

the NRC?...................................................................................................................5-7

5.1.12 I might have a safety, security, or environmental issue related to a specific 

facility. Do I have to wait until the licensee requests license renewal to have 

it considered? What if the license renewal has already occurred? ...........................5-7

5.2 Obtaining Additional Information..........................................................................................5-7

5.2.1 Are documents locally available during the license renewal review?.......................5-7

5.2.2 May I add my name to a list to receive information during the environmental 

review? ......................................................................................................................5-8

5.2.3 Does the NRC have a website? .................................................................................5-8

5.2.4 What kind of information on license renewal can I get from the NRC’s 

website?.....................................................................................................................5-8

5.2.5 What is the Federal Register and how can I get a copy of it?...................................5-9

5.2.6 How can I get a copy of the Code of Federal Regulations dealing with 

license renewal? ........................................................................................................5-9

5.2.7 How does a member of the public obtain a copy of a license renewal 

application for a specific nuclear power plant?.......................................................5-10
Final FAQs for License Renewal xii March 2006 

5.2.8 How do I get a copy of a draft site-specific supplement to the generic 

environmental impact statement on license renewal (SEIS) related to a 

particular facility? ...................................................................................................5-10

5.2.9 How can I get a copy of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (GEIS), and a final 

specific supplement related to a particular facility? ................................................5-10

5.2.10 How can I get answers to additional questions that were not addressed in this 

document? ...............................................................................................................5-11

6.0 Bibliography of Published Material Relevant to License Renewal .................................................6-1

Tables 

1.1. Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities that Have Renewed Licenses or are Under Review .....................1-4

4.1. Annual Radiation Dose to an Average Individual (Annual Effective Dose Equivalent).................4-40

 Figures 

1.1. License Renewal Process...................................................................................................................1-9

1.2. Timeline of a License Renewal Review ..........................................................................................1-11

4.1. Generalized Process for Identifying and Evaluating Potential Severe Accident Mitigation 

Alternatives......................................................................................................................................4-33 
March 2006 xiii Final FAQs for License Renewal 

Abbreviations 

ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

ADAMS Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System 

ASLB Atomic Safety Licensing Board 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

 

CEQ President’s Council on Environmental Quality 

CLB current licensing basis 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

 

EA environmental assessment 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EDO Executive Director for Operations 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

 

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FAQ frequently asked questions 

FSAR final safety analysis report 

 

GALL Generic Aging Lessons Learned 

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

GPO Government Printing Office 

 

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

IPs Inspection Procedures 

IPE individual plant evaluation 

IPEEE individual plant evaluation of external events 

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

 

LLTF Lessons Learned Task Force 

 

MAB maximum attainable benefit 

MC Manual Chapter 

 

NCI National Cancer Institute 

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRR Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

 

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

 
Final FAQs for License Renewal xiv March 2006 

PARS publicly available records system 

PFS Private Fuel Storage, LLC 

PSA probabilistic safety analysis 

 

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

SER safety evaluation report 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SI International system of units 

SRP standard review plan 

SSCs systems, structures and components 

Sv sieverts 

 

TIs Temporary Instructions 

 

UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

U.S. United States 
March 2006 xv Final FAQs for License Renewal 

Introduction 

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended) allows the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 

issue licenses for commercial power reactors to operate for up to 40 years. The NRC regulations allow 

for the renewal of these licenses for up to an additional 20 years beyond the initial licensing period 

depending on the outcome of an assessment to determine whether the reactor can continue to operate 

safely and whether the protection of the environment can be ensured during the 20-year period of 

extended operation. The license renewal process includes reviewing a license renewal application, 

conducting the assessment, and then renewing the license. The NRC’s review of a license renewal 

application proceeds along two tracks: one for safety issues and another for environmental issues. The 

license renewal process is defined by a clear set of regulations that are designed to ensure safe operation 

and protection of the environment during the period of extended operation. 

The final rule containing the NRC regulations for the license renewal safety review was published in 1995 

in Part 54 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 54). The final rule revising the NRC’s 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 to define the environmental issues for license renewal was published in 

1996 and amended in 1999. In April 1998, Baltimore Gas and Electric became the first licensee to apply 

for license renewal for its Calvert Cliffs facility on Chesapeake Bay. Duke Energy Corporation followed 

suit in July 1998 when it sought renewed licenses for its Oconee nuclear units in South Carolina. As of 

the beginning of 2006, licenses for 22 facilities (for a total of 39 nuclear power reactor units) have been 

renewed. 

As part of the environmental review process, the NRC conducts public meetings and solicits public 

comments and questions regarding the environmental portion of the license renewal application. During 

this process (and specifically during the public meetings) members of the public can ask questions related 

to license renewal. This document is a compilation of many of the pertinent questions that have been 

voiced since the first license renewal application was received. In responding to the questions, the NRC 

staff has attempted to provide the answers in a clear, non-technical form. 

Section 1 of this document contains the responses to general questions related to the reason for renewing 

licenses, the timing and scheduling of the license renewal review, and the NRC’s role in reviewing and 

either granting or denying the licensee’s request to renew a license. Section 2 describes the regulatory 

basis for the license renewal review process. Section 3 discusses the NRC’s safety review including the 

basis for the safety review and the NRC’s safety inspection process. Section 4 contains questions and 

responses related to the environmental review, including the scope of the review, severe accident 

mitigation alternatives, storage and disposal of spent fuel, human health issues, and the identification of 

alternatives to license renewal. Section 5, the final section, discusses public involvement in the license 

renewal process. The final section also contains a bibliography of published materials related to license 

renewal. 

March 2006 1-1 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

Frequently Asked Questions for License Renewal 

1.0 General Questions about License Renewal 

This section contains general questions and responses related to license renewal. The questions are 

grouped into subgroups that include questions related to: 

• the purpose of license renewal, including the benefits of renewal, the alternatives to renewal and a 

brief history of how the process of renewing licenses evolved, 

• the NRC’s and other agencies’ role in reviewing and either granting or denying an applicant’s request 

to renew a license, and 

• the timing and scheduling of the license renewal application and review.

1.1 Purpose of license renewal 

1.1.1 What is license renewal for power reactors? 

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended) allows the NRC to issue 

licenses for commercial power reactors to operate for up to 40 years. 

This license is based on adherence of the licensee and facility to the 

appropriate regulations described in the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR), Title 10 (see response to Questions 2.3 and 5.2.6 for a further 

description of the CFR and how to obtain a copy). The NRC regulations allow the renewal of these 

licenses for up to an additional 20 years depending on the outcome of an assessment to determine whether 

the nuclear facility can continue to operate safely and whether the protection of the environment can be 

assured during the 20-year period of extended operation. There are no specific limitations in the Atomic 

Energy Act or the NRC’s regulations restricting the number of times a license may be renewed. The 

process of conducting the assessment and renewing the license is termed “license renewal.” The license 

renewal process includes a clear set of 

requirements, which are designed to assure 

safe facility operation and protection of the 

environment for up to an additional 20 years.

1.1.2 Why do nuclear power reactor 

licenses need to be renewed? 

The original licenses for commercial nuclear 

power facilities were granted for a 40-year 

period, which was set by the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954 and the NRC’s regulations. It 

was imposed for economic and antitrust 

reasons rather than technical limitations of 

the nuclear facility. 

License renewal is the 

process of conducting 

an assessment of the 

extended period of 

operation and 

renewing the license. 

Brunswick, Units 1 and 2 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 1-2 March 2006 

Studies and experience to date have shown that commercial nuclear 

power facilities can be safely operated for more than 40 years. As a 

result, the NRC has provided an option in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, which allows owners of nuclear power reactors to seek 

license renewal for up to an additional 20 years with no limitations on the 

number of times the license may be renewed. The decision whether to 

seek license renewal rests entirely with nuclear power reactor owners, 

and typically is based on the plant’s economic viability and whether it 

can continue to meet NRC safety and environmental requirements. The 

NRC bases its decision on whether or not to renew a license on whether 

the facility will continue to meet the requirements for safe operation and whether the protection of the 

environment can be assured. 

1.1.3 What are the benefits of license renewal to the facility licensee? 

Once the license has been renewed, the licensee is then allowed to continue operating the facility for up to 

an additional 20 years (with no limitations on the number of times the license may be renewed) provided 

that it operates the facility safely and without unacceptable environmental impact. This is a benefit to the 

licensee because it provides the opportunity for continued energy production at an already existing 

facility, rather than requiring the construction of a new energy source with concurrent decommissioning 

of the existing facility. 

1.1.4 What are the alternatives to license renewal? 

The only alternative to renewing the license would be not to renew it. Not renewing the license would 

mean that the nuclear power facility would cease operation and would begin decommissioning at the end 

of the original 40-year licensing period. The power lost by 

not renewing the operating license would need to be 

replaced by other sources of power, by demand-side 

management and energy conservation, by power purchased 

from other electricity providers or through some 

combination of these options. Further discussion of 

alternatives is given in Section 4.7 of this document. 

1.1.5 Why are nuclear power reactors originally 

licensed for 40 years? 

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 originally specified that 

licenses for commercial power reactors be granted for a 

period not exceeding 40 years: “Each such license shall be 

issued for a specified period, as determined by the 

Commission, depending on the type of activity to be 

licensed, but not exceeding forty years, and may be 

renewed upon the expiration of such period.” The 40-year 

licensing period was based on economic and antitrust 

considerations rather than on the technical limitations of the 

nuclear facility. 

Studies and experience 

to date have shown 

that commercial 

nuclear power 

facilities can be safely 

operated for more than 

40 years. 
March 2006 1-3 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

1.1.6 How did the process of renewing licenses evolve? 

The provision in the Atomic Energy Act that stipulated a limit of 40 years for a commercial power reactor 

operating license also permitted renewal of the licenses. 

In the early 1980’s, the NRC staff recognized that it needed to identify the information required and the 

process to be used to determine whether to grant an extension to the operating license. In 1982, based on 

a widely attended workshop on nuclear power facility aging, the NRC established a comprehensive 

program for Nuclear Plant Aging Research. Based on the results of that research, a technical review 

group concluded that many aging phenomena are readily manageable and do not pose technical issues 

that would prevent nuclear power facilities from operating safely and efficiently for more than 40 years. 

In 1985, the NRC approved regulations that cover the safety and technical requirements for license 

renewal. These regulations (10 CFR Part 54) were adopted by the NRC and published in December 1991. 

After considering ways to evaluate the environmental consequences of license renewal, the NRC chose to 

develop the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (GEIS), which covered impacts that 

were common to all or most nuclear power facilities. The GEIS that was 

published in 1996 allows the applicant and NRC to focus on those 

important environmental issues specific to each site being relicensed. 

After further analysis, the development of a draft regulatory guide, a draft 

standard review plan for license renewal, and input during public workshops, the NRC amended the 

regulations published in 1991 to ensure a predictable and stable regulatory process that clearly defined the 

Commission’s expectations for license renewal. In 1995, the amended rule was published. In 1996, the 

NRC published the final rule that revised 10 CFR Part 51, which contained the regulations for the 

environmental analysis related to relicensing.1

In April 1998, Baltimore Gas and Electric became the first 

licensee to apply for license renewal for its Calvert Cliffs facility 

on Chesapeake Bay. Duke Energy followed suit in July 1998 

when it sought renewed licenses for its Oconee nuclear units in 

South Carolina. As of the beginning of 2006, licenses for 22 

facilities (for a total of 39 nuclear power reactor units) have been 

renewed (see Table 1.1). 

 

1

 The regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 were amended three times after 1996. The first amendment sought to change three 

typographical errors (November 3, 1997 published in the Federal Register at 62 FR 59276). The second amendment 

(September 3, 1999, published in the Federal Register at 64 FR 48507) reflected a new analysis of transportation issues that 

expanded the generic findings about the environmental impacts due to transportation of fuel and waste to and from a single 

nuclear power plant. This change revised the categorization of transportation of high level waste from Category 2 (site-specific) 

to Category 1 (generic). The third amendment (July 30, 2001, published in the Federal Register at 66 FR 39278) corrected a 

word that was inadvertently omitted from Table B-1 that made it appear that high level waste and spent fuel disposal were 

included in the environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle. However, the NRC’s intent was for it 

to be excluded from the calculation since there was a separate finding for offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high level 

waste disposal) elsewhere in the table. 

By the start of 2006, 

22 facilities had their 

licenses renewed. 

Calvert Cliffs, Unit 1 and 2
Final FAQs for License Renewal 1-4 March 2006 

Table 1.1. Nuclear Power Reactor Facilities that Have Renewed Licenses or are Under Review

Facility Date renewed license was issued

Calvert Cliffs, Units 1 and 2 March 23, 2000 

Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 May 23, 2000 

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 June 20, 2001 

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 January 15, 2002 

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4 June 6, 2002 

North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 March 20, 2003 

Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2 March 20, 2003 

Peach Bottom Nuclear Reactor, Units 2 and 3 May 7, 2003 

St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2 October 2, 2003 

Fort Calhoun Station, Unit 1 November 4, 2003 

McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 December 5, 2003 

Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 December 5, 2003 

H.B. Robinson Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 April 19, 2004 

R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 May 19, 2004 

V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 April 23, 2004 

Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 October 28, 2004 

Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 October 28, 2004 

Farley, Units 1 and 2 May 12, 2005 

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 June 30, 2005 

D.C. Cook, Units 1 and 2 August 30, 2005 

Millstone, Units 2 and 3 November 28, 2005 

Point Beach, Units 1 and 2 December 22, 2005 

Facility Date application was received

Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3 January 6, 2004 

Nine Mile Point, Units 1 and 2 May 27, 2004 

Brunswick, Units 1 and 2 October 20, 2004 

Monticello March 24, 2005 

Palisades March 31, 2005 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station July 22, 2005

Pilgrim 1 January 27, 2006

Vermont Yankee January 27, 2006
March 2006 1-5 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

1.2 NRC’s role in reviewing, approving or denying license 

renewal 

1.2.1 Who makes the decision to renew a license for a nuclear 

power reactor? 

It is helpful to distinguish “seeking a license renewal” from “granting or 

denying a license renewal.” The decision to seek a license renewal rests 

entirely with nuclear power facility owners and typically is based on the facility’s economic viability and 

the investment necessary to continue to meet NRC safety and environmental requirements. The NRC 

makes the decision to grant or deny a license renewal, based on whether the applicant has demonstrated 

that the environmental and safety requirements in the NRC’s regulations 

can be met during the period of extended operation. If the applicant meets 

the requirements given in the regulations, then the NRC can be expected to 

approve renewal of the license. 

1.2.2 Who makes the final decision to either approve or deny the 

request to renew the license? 

The NRC Commission has delegated this authority to the Director of the 

NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). 

1.2.3 Can state, county, local, Tribal, or other Federal (not NRC) 

agencies reject or disapprove of the license? 

Because the licensing authority is the NRC’s, only the NRC can approve or 

deny the application. However, the NRC will consider any comments 

provided by the state, county, local, Tribal or other Federal agencies during 

the period of the NRC’s review and analysis. In addition, some of these 

agencies (such as state agencies) are in a position to specify conditions or reject permits that are required 

by the applicant, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, which is 

usually administered by a state. 

1.2.4 Do other Federal agencies review the license application? If so, which agencies? 

The environmental scoping process invites other governmental agencies to assess whether or not they 

should be considered cooperating agencies under the regulatory structure afforded by the President’s 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). It also invites them to identify whether or not they have a 

particular expertise on an issue that may be invaluable to the NRC, or have consultation roles under other 

statutes that may have a bearing on site-specific issues. 

A notice of the receipt of the license renewal application is posted in the Federal Register shortly after it 

is received by the NRC. The notice indicates where copies are available and how they can be obtained. 

Other Federal agencies that are interested in reviewing the application can obtain a copy and provide 

comments to the NRC during the scoping process or after publication of the draft site-specific supplement 

to the generic environmental impact statement (SEIS). However, the NRC is the lead agency, and as such 

The NRC makes the 

decision to grant or 

deny a license renewal, 

based on whether the 

applicant has 

demonstrated that the 

environmental and 

safety requirements in 

the NRC’s regulations 

can be met during the 

period of extended 

operation. 

The decision to seek a 

license renewal rests 

entirely with nuclear 

power facility owners. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 1-6 March 2006 

has responsibility to review the license renewal application and develop 

the draft and final environmental impact statement. 

1.2.5 Are Tribal nations provided with copies of the license 

renewal application for their review? 

The NRC staff sends a letter directly to the leaders of the Tribal nations 

that may have an interest in the land occupied by or in the area surrounding 

the nuclear power facility. The letter informs the Tribal nations of the 

receipt of the license renewal application and provides them with 

information on how to obtain a copy. Instructions for providing comments 

to the NRC are also given in the letter. 

1.2.6 Are non-governmental agencies provided with copies of the license renewal application 

for their review? 

Any person or organization can obtain access to the license renewal applications (see response to 

Question 5.2.7). A notice of the receipt of the license renewal application is posted in the Federal 

Register shortly after the application is received by the NRC. The notice indicates where copies are 

available and how they can be obtained. A hard copy of the application is also made available for review 

at a public library close to the site. Also, electronic copies are accessible and downloadable from the 

NRC website. 

1.2.7 Can the NRC say “no” to renewing a license? 

Yes. As described in the regulations, based on the findings of its review, the NRC can deny an 

application to renew a license. 

1.2.8 Has the NRC ever denied an application to renew a license? 

To date, the NRC has approved all of the applications for license 

renewal for which the review has been completed. The NRC has 

found an application insufficient to start the review and has rejected 

an application. The NRC has also halted the review process until 

sufficient information is provided to continue the review. Although 

the NRC can deny a request to renew a license if the applicant did 

not provide appropriate or adequate information in its initial application, the NRC would identify the 

deficiencies and the applicant would be allowed to resubmit the application or provide additional 

information. This process can continue until the NRC concludes that the application is sufficient to 

complete the review. 

The NRC has clearly defined the requirements for license renewal and the nuclear industry has the 

experience of many successful license renewal requests. Because of the cost and the commitment 

associated with an application, it is unlikely that an applicant would intentionally submit an application 

for license renewal that was so flawed that the NRC staff would issue a denial. Finally, if problems with 

systems, structures or components of the facility were identified during the review, the applicant would 

likely be able to make the required modifications or put in place a mitigation plan that would be 

During the period of 

the NRC’s review and 

analysis, the NRC 

considers comments 

provided by the state, 

county, local, Tribal or 

other Federal 

agencies. 

The NRC can deny an 

application to renew a 

license based on the 

findings of its review. 
March 2006 1-7 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

acceptable to the NRC. Identified problems with structures, systems, or components would be addressed 

immediately, and any necessary changes made under the current operating license rather than waiting for 

the period of extended operation. 

1.2.9 Does NRC approval of the application guarantee that the licensee will continue to operate 

the nuclear power facility? 

Although a licensee must renew its license to operate a reactor beyond the 

term of the existing license, the possession of a renewed license is just one 

of a number of conditions that must be met to continue operation. Once a 

license is renewed, other factors and entities such as state regulatory 

agencies and the owners of the nuclear power facility will ultimately 

decide whether the facility will continue to operate. Economic 

considerations have a significant influence on the decision to continue 

operation. 

1.2.10 Who makes the decision to actually continue operating the 

nuclear power facility during the license renewal period 

once the license renewal is granted? 

It is possible that a license renewal application could satisfy the NRC’s 

safety and environmental reviews and still not operate. This is because the 

NRC does not have a role in the energy-planning decisions of state 

regulators and licensee officials. From the perspective of the applicant and the state regulatory authority, 

the purpose of renewing a license is to maintain the availability of the nuclear facility to meet energy 

requirements beyond the current term of the facility’s license. Thus, whether the facility will continue to 

operate is based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the state’s jurisdiction or 

the financial interests of the owners. 

1.2.11 What other types of 

licenses related to 

reactors does NRC 

review? 

The NRC reviews and grants initial 

licenses and renewal of licenses for 

research reactors, and independent 

spent fuel storage installations 

(ISFSIs). The NRC also reviews 

applications for licenses at facilities 

related to the production of fuel for 

nuclear reactors or the storage or 

disposal of waste from reactor 

operations. These facilities include 

those that possess and use special 

From the perspective of 

the applicant and the 

state regulatory 

authority, the purpose 

of renewing a license is 

to maintain the 

availability of the 

nuclear facility to meet 

energy requirements 

beyond the current 

term of the facility’s 

license. 

NRC Offices in Rockville, Maryland 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 1-8 March 2006 

nuclear material for uranium milling or production of uranium hexafluoride, fuel fabrication, scrap 

recovery and waste storage and disposal facilities that are located away from power reactor facilities. 

1.3 Timing and Scheduling of a License Renewal review 

1.3.1 How does a licensee begin the license renewal process? 

The renewal application is the principal document that an applicant provides to both request and support 

license renewal. The license renewal application includes both general and technical information that 

demonstrates that an applicant is in compliance with the NRC’s 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 54. An applicant must analyze the 

aging-related issues for certain passive long-lived structures, systems 

and components at the facility during the period of the renewed 

license and describe how these issues will be managed or mitigated. 

This information must be sufficiently detailed in the application to 

permit the NRC staff to determine if the applicant’s management of 

these issues is adequate to allow operation during the extended 

period of operation without undue risk to the public and workers’ 

health and safety. The applicant must also prepare an evaluation of the potential impacts to the 

environment of facility operation for an additional 20 years. 

1.3.2 How early can a licensee request license renewal? 

According to the regulations a nuclear power plant licensee may apply to the NRC to renew a license as 

early as 20 years before expiration of the current license. The NRC staff has determined that 20 years of 

operating experience is sufficient to assess aging and environmental issues at the site. A licensee may 

submit an application for license renewal at a plant that has less than 20 years of operating experience; 

however, an exemption to the regulations is required. 

1.3.3 Why does a licensee request license renewal so far in 

advance of the expiration date of the current license? 

A major consideration for seeking license renewal so far in advance of the 

expiration date of the current license is that it takes about 10 years to 

design and construct major new generating facilities and long lead times 

are required by energy-planning decision-makers. 

1.3.4 How close to the end of a license can a licensee request 

that a license be renewed? 

License renewal applicants are expected to apply at least 5 years before their license expires. Typically it 

takes 22 to 30 months (depending on whether there is a hearing) for the NRC to determine whether or not 

to grant the renewed license. If an applicant submits its application less than 30 months prior to the 

expiration date of the current license, it is possible that the operating license could expire before the 

license is renewed. There is a provision in 10 CFR Part 2 that states, “if a licensee files a sufficient 

application for renewal of an operating license at least 5 years prior to the expiration of the existing 

license, the existing license will not be deemed to have expired until the application has been finally 

A nuclear power plant 

licensee may apply to the 

NRC to renew a license as 

early as 20 years before 

expiration of the current 

license. 

It typically takes 22 to 

30 months for the NRC 

to complete its review 

of a license renewal 

application and grant 

the renewed license. 
March 2006 1-9 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

determined.” This provides the applicant the assurance that the facility can continue to operate until the 

NRC makes a final decision on the license renewal 

application. The Commission may grant an exemption to the 

regulations to allow a licensee with less than 5 years 

remaining on its operating license to submit a license renewal 

application and still avail itself of the timely application to 

renew provisions of 10 CFR 2.209(b). 

1.3.5 What does the NRC’s review consist of? 

NRC’s review of an application for license renewal has four components: a safety review, an 

environmental review, inspections, and an independent review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS). A flowchart of the license renewal process is shown in Figure 1.1. 

Figure 1.1. License Renewal Process 

The NRC staff performs a safety review of the information provided in the application (as supplemented 

with additional information provided by the applicant at the NRC’s request). The results of the staff’s 

safety review are documented in a publicly available safety evaluation report. 

The NRC staff’s environmental review results in the publication of a publicly available site-specific draft 

SEIS on license renewal. The public is invited to comment on the draft SEIS. Then, after considering all 

public comments, the NRC staff issues the final SEIS. 

NRC’s review consists of a 

• safety review 

• environmental review 

• inspections 

• independent review by ACRS 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 1-10 March 2006 

Teams of inspectors with experience in nuclear plant safety visit the site and verify that the applicant has 

implemented its aging management plans as committed to in the application. The results of plant 

inspections conducted as part of the license renewal are documented in inspection reports and are made 

publicly available. The results are also included in the safety evaluation report. 

The ACRS is an independent panel of experts that advises the Commission on matters related to nuclear 

safety. The ACRS reviews the applicant’s safety analysis report, the staff’s safety evaluation report, and 

the results of the onsite inspections and makes its recommendation to the Commission regarding issuance 

of the renewed license. 

1.3.6 What is the NRC staff’s schedule for the review of a license renewal application? 

The NRC staff has developed a review schedule for license renewal. Figure 1.2 shows a generalized 

timeline of a license renewal review. If a hearing is required, the NRC staff would expect to complete its 

review of the application within 30 months after receiving the license renewal application; if no hearing is 

required, the review would be completed within 22 months after receiving the application. 

1.3.7 After the current license expires, is the applicant given a new license or is it an extension 

of the existing license? 

At the time of license renewal, the licensee is issued a new license that incorporates and supersedes the 

existing license. The new license has a new expiration date, which is up to twenty years past the 

expiration date of the original operating license. The renewed license may also include any license 

conditions that are specific to license renewal issues. 

1.3.8 What if the current operating license has not yet expired? Does the licensee get that time 

back also or does the renewed license just run for 20 years? 

The renewed license is issued for a fixed period of time. That fixed period is the sum of the additional 

amount of time the applicant requests for license renewal (not to exceed 20 years) plus the remaining 

number of years on the operating license currently in effect up to a maximum of 20 years. In other words, 

if a license renewal is granted, the plant will be licensed for the remainder of the time on its current 

license (20 years or less) plus the renewal time of up to 20 years. In no case, however, may the term of 

the license, which includes the remaining portion of the original license plus the extension, exceed 

40 years. 

1.3.9 What happens if the review of a license renewal application is not completed before the 

current license expires? 

If the applicant files a sufficiently complete application for renewal of its operating license at least 5 years 

before the existing license expires but the renewal of the license is delayed because of administrative or 

judicial appeal, then the existing license will still be considered valid until a final decision on the renewal 

application has been made. The Commission may grant an exemption to the regulations to allow a 

licensee to submit a license renewal application and still avail itself of the timely application to renew 

provisions of 10 CFR 2.209(b). 
March 2006 1-11 Final FAQs for License Renewal Figure 1.2. Timeline of a License Renewal Review 
1.3.10 How many times can a license be renewed? 

There are no specific limitations in the Atomic Energy Act or the NRC’s regulations restricting the 

number of times a license may be renewed. However, an applicant has to meet all of the applicable 

requirements for each subsequent renewal. Any subsequent renewal would require a review similar to 

that required for the first renewal. 

1.3.11 What happens if the licensee sells the facility after the license is renewed? 

An NRC regulation (10 CFR 50.80) requires that licenses granted by the NRC shall not be “transferred, 

assigned, or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through 

transfer of control of the license to any person” unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. 

Typical staff review of such applications, characterized as requests for restructuring and organizational 

change, largely consists of ensuring that the ultimately licensed entity has the capability to safely operate 

the facility, meet the financial qualifications for continued safe operation of the facility and fund the 

facility decommissioning as required by NRC regulations. 

1.3.12 Who pays for the license renewal 

application and review? 

The applicant pays for the preparation of the application. 

Once the application is submitted to the NRC, the NRC 

recovers a fee for resources expended in the review. 

Funding for the NRC is provided by Congress through 

annual appropriations. Applicants pay fees to the U.S. 

Treasury to reimburse the government for the cost of the 

review. Thus, the costs of the development of the 

license renewal application and the costs of the review are paid for by the 

applicant and ultimately by electricity consumers. 

The costs of the 

development of the 

license renewal 

application and the costs 

of the review are paid for 

by the applicant and 

ultimately by electricity 

consumers. 

1.3.13 If a nuclear facility is relicensed, does that give the applicant a 

larger window of opportunity to build a new reactor? 

Each reactor unit at a commercial nuclear power facility requires a separate 

operating license. The renewal of an operating license for a specific unit or for 

all the units at a current site does not permit the applicant to build another reactor unit at the site. If an 

applicant wants to build a new reactor unit, the applicant must submit an application for a new 

construction permit or combined operating license.

Final FAQs for License Renewal 1-12 March 2006
March 2006 2-1 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

2.0 Regulatory Basis of the Review 

This section discusses the regulatory basis for the review of a license renewal application. The 

regulations on which the license renewal process is based were established by a rulemaking process. The 

regulations have been codified and are accessible to members of the public. The NRC uses these 

regulations as the basis of its review. The regulations are the basis for several other documents, such as 

review plans or inspection procedures, which specify how the NRC review is conducted. 

2.1 How were the regulations for license renewal developed? 

The regulations for license renewal were developed through a rulemaking process. The rulemaking 

process for license renewal started in the early 1980s when the NRC staff recognized that it needed to 

identify the information required and the process to be used to determine whether to grant renewed 

licenses for nuclear power reactors. The staff recognized this need because the Atomic Energy Act of 

1954 specified that licenses for commercial nuclear reactor facilities would be for 40 years and could be 

renewed for an additional period of time. 

In 1982, the NRC established a comprehensive program for Nuclear Plant Aging Research as the result of 

a widely attended workshop on nuclear power plant aging. Based on the results of that research, a 

technical review group concluded that many aging phenomena were readily manageable and did not pose 

technical issues that would preclude life extension for nuclear power plants. 

The NRC also concluded that the existing regulatory requirements governing a nuclear reactor facility 

would offer reasonable assurance of adequate protection if the license were renewed, provided that the 

current licensing basis (see response to Question 2.8 for definition of current licensing basis) was 

modified to account for age-related safety issues. In 1991, the Commission approved a rule on the 

technical requirements for license renewal and published the rule in the Code of Federal Regulations, 

10 CFR Part 54. The NRC then undertook a demonstration program to apply the rule to pilot plants and 

to develop experience to establish implementation guidance. The rule defined the scope as age-related 

degradation unique to license renewal. However, during the demonstration program, the NRC found that 

many aging effects are managed adequately during the initial license period. In addition, the NRC found 

that the review did not allow sufficient credit for existing programs, particularly the maintenance rule, 

which also helps manage plant-aging phenomena. 

As a result, in 1995, following the rulemaking process, the NRC amended the license renewal rule. The 

amended rule in 10 CFR Part 54 established a regulatory process that is more effective, stable and 

predictable than the previous license renewal rule. In particular, Part 54 was clarified to focus on 

managing the adverse effects of aging. The rule changes were intended to ensure that important systems, 

structures, and components would continue to perform their intended function during the 20-year period 

of extended operation. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 2-2 March 2006 

The Commission determined that the NRC would prepare an environmental impact statement for every 

nuclear power plant license renewal decision to fulfill its responsibilities under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In parallel with rulemaking on nuclear plant aging, the NRC pursued 

a separate rulemaking, 10 CFR Part 51, that focused on environmental issues. The final rule, which 

revised 10 CFR Part 51 and addressed environmental impacts of license renewal, was published in 

June 1996. 

2.2 How does the rulemaking process work? 

The process of developing NRC’s regulations is called rulemaking. Usually, the NRC’s technical staff 

initiates a change to a regulation because of a safety or environmental concern, an improvement in 

technical understanding, or an improvement in the regulatory process. The Commission may also direct 

changes to the regulations. However, any member of the public may petition the NRC under 

10 CFR 2.802 of the NRC’s regulations to develop, change, or rescind a regulation. 

The rulemaking process has several steps. In a rulemaking initiated by the NRC, a rule is proposed after 

an NRC decision on the need for and general framework of a rule is made. The proposed rule is 

published in the Federal Register and usually contains background information, an address for submitting 

comments, a date by which comments should be received in order to guarantee consideration by the staff, 

an explanation of why the regulation change is thought to be needed, and the proposed changes to the text 

of the regulations. Usually, the public is given 75 to 90 days to provide written comments. Once the 

public comment period is closed, the staff analyzes the comments, makes any needed revisions to the 

proposed rule, and forwards the final rule for the Commission’s approval, signature, and publication in 

the Federal Register. Each final rule that involves significant matters of policy is sent to the NRC 

Commissioners for approval. Once approved, the final rule is published in the Federal Register and 

usually becomes effective 30 days after publication. 

Not all rules are issued for public comment. Generally, those not published for public comment pertain to 

NRC organization, procedures, or practices, are interpretations of rules, or are rules for which delaying 

their publication in order to receive comments would be contrary to the public interest or impracticable. 

2.3 Where are the regulations for license renewal found? 

The regulations for license renewal are initially published in the Federal 

Register and then included in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The 

CFR is a codification of the general and permanent rules published in the 

Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal 

Government. It is divided into 50 “titles”, which represent broad areas subject 

to Federal regulation. Each title is divided into chapters, which usually bear the 

name of the issuing agency. The NRC’s regulations are found in Title 10 (10 

CFR). Each chapter is further subdivided into “Parts” covering specific 

regulatory areas. 

The regulations related to the renewal of licenses are found in 10 CFR Part 51, 

“Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related 
March 2006 2-3 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

Regulatory Functions,” and in 10 CFR Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for 

Nuclear Power Plants.” The response to Question 5.2.6 provides information on obtaining a copy of the 

relevant sections of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

2.4 How does the NRC conduct its review of a license renewal application? 

For each application, the license renewal process includes two reviews: an environmental review and a 

safety review. The NRC regulations covering these reviews are found in 10 CFR Part 51 and 

10 CFR Part 54, respectively. The NRC has issued two sets of regulatory documents (10 CFR Part 51 for 

environmental issues and 10 CFR Part 54 for safety issues) that describe the NRC’s expectation for the 

format and content of license renewal applications as well as the methods used by NRC staff in evaluating 

these applications. When an applicant submits a license renewal application to the NRC, the application 

must contain technical information and evaluations of the environmental and safety issues discussed in 

the NRC’s guidance documents. The NRC reviews the information submitted in the application and 

requests additional information from the applicant as needed. The NRC teams (comprising NRC staff and 

contractor personnel) visit the site to conduct audits of environmental and safety records, to conduct 

interviews with offsite and licensee representatives, to observe operating practices, and to develop an 

independent assessment. The environmental review also includes an opportunity for input from the 

public. Given this information, the NRC staff determines whether there is reasonable assurance that the 

plant can be operated during the period of extended operation without undue risk to the health and safety 

of the public and to the environment. 

 Additional details related to the safety and environmental reviews are given in Sections 3.0 and 4.0, 

respectively, of this publication. 

2.5 What defines NRC’s review of a license 

renewal application? 

The NRC’s review is based on the regulations published in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Parts 51 and 54); 

however, the NRC provides guidance for the information 

needed in the applications and for the methods used to 

conduct the review in sets of NRC documents for safety and 

environmental issues: 

Safety Review 

• Code of Federal Regulations – The scope of the safety review is based on the regulations provided in 

10 CFR Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

• Standard Format and Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses

(Regulatory Guide 1.188) – This document outlines the format and content to be used by the applicant 

to discuss the safety-related aspects of its license renewal application. It defines the information the 

licensee must include in the application, which the NRC staff then reviews. 

• Standard Review Plan for Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants

(NUREG-1800) – This is the outline for the NRC’s review of the safety-related issues. The safety 

review results in a safety evaluation report that is made available for public review. 

NRC Guidance Documents 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 2-4 March 2006 

• Inspection manual chapters (MCs), inspection procedures (IPs) and temporary instructions (TIs) – 

MCs, IPs and TIs were written for the NRC staff; they guide the staff in conducting inspections to 

ensure that licensees meet the NRC’s regulatory requirements. For example, the IP, License Renewal 

Inspections, 71002, provides the procedures for inspecting and verifying the documentation, 

implementation, and effectiveness of the programs and activities associated with an applicant’s 

license renewal program. Policy and Guidance for License Renewal Inspection Programs, MC-2516, 

provides guidance to NRC staff for review and inspection activities. 

Environmental Review 

• Code of Federal Regulations – The scope of the environmental review is based on the regulations 

provided in 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and 

Related Regulatory Functions.” 

• Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant 

Operating Licenses (Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2) – This document outlines the format and 

content to be used by the applicant to discuss the environmental aspects of its license renewal 

application. It defines the information the applicant must put in the application, which the NRC staff 

then reviews. 

• Standard Review Plan for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants – Supplement 1: 

Operating License Renewal (NUREG-1555, Supplement 1) – This is the outline for the NRC’s 

review of the environmental issues. The review results in a site-specific supplement to the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (GEIS). 

2.6 Can the NRC change the way it conducts its review or 

conduct its review in an ad hoc manner? 

The NRC does not conduct its review in an ad hoc manner. The NRC has 

established a license renewal process with clear requirements, which are 

codified in 10 CFR Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 54. The process and 

requirements were developed to assure safe and environmentally sound 

operation of the facility for the extended license period. In addition, as a basis 

for the review, the NRC staff uses the regulatory documents discussed in the 

response to Question 2.5 (including two standard review plans), which 

describe the methods acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing the 

license renewal process and the techniques used by the staff in evaluating 

applications for license renewals. 

The NRC continually evaluates the process that is being used and any lessons 

learned from conducting reviews of applications to renew licenses. It also accepts comments and 

recommendations from industry and the public related to problems or improvements that could be made. 

If it appears that there is a need to change the regulations, they can be revised using a rulemaking process, 

which is described in the response to Question 2.2. Changes that are made in regulatory guidance (for 

example, regulatory guides and standard review plans) are published for public comment as well. 

The NRC has 

established a 

license renewal 

process with clear 

requirements, to 

assure safe and 

environmentally 

sound operation of 

the facility for the 

extended license 

period. 
March 2006 2-5 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

2.7 What if you disagree with the regulations? How do you get the regulations 

changed? 

The NRC welcomes public participation in the rulemaking process. There are several ways for the public 

to participate in rulemaking: 

• The public may provide comments in response to Federal Register notices. The NRC publishes 

notices of rulemaking activities in the Federal Register to solicit public 

comment, and may also publish a notice of a meeting or workshop to be held 

regarding a rule. The Federal Register notice contains information on how 

to provide specific comments on a proposed rule to the NRC. 

• The public may provide comments on the NRC’s RuleForum website. 

NRC’s RuleForum is a web-based computer forum that was developed to 

provide an easy means for a member of the public to access and comment on 

NRC rulemaking activities. RuleForum contains proposed rulemakings that 

have been published by the NRC in the Federal Register, petitions for rulemakings that have been 

received and docketed by the NRC, and other types of documents related to rulemaking. 

• Members of the public can provide comments on the NRC’s Technical Conference Forum website. 

The Technical Conference Forum is a web-based forum that facilitates public participation on NRC 

issues related to the development of draft rulemakings, draft guidance documents, and other 

initiatives. 

• Members of the public may petition the NRC to develop, change or rescind a rule by filing a petition 

for rulemaking in accordance with the regulations in 10 CFR 2.802. 

Before filing a petition for rulemaking, a member of the public may consult with the NRC concerning 

questions about NRC regulations by calling the Rules and Directives Branch at 301-415-7163 or toll-free 

at 800-368-5642 or by writing to the following address: 

Chief 

Rules and Directives Branch 

Division of Administrative Services 

Office of Administration 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

The information that members of the public can receive when consulting with the NRC about a petition 

for rulemaking includes a description of the procedures and process for filing and responding to a petition 

for rulemaking, clarification of an existing NRC regulation and the basis for the regulation, or assistance 

in clarifying their potential petition so that the Commission is able to understand the nature of the issues 

that are of concern. 

Petitions should be submitted to the following address: 

Secretary 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

The NRC 

welcomes public 

participation in 

the rulemaking 

process. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 2-6 March 2006 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff 

E-mail: secy@nrc.gov 

Fax: 301 415-1101 

The petition must, as a minimum, outline a general solution to a problem or present the substance or text 

of any proposed regulation or amendment or specify the regulation that the petitioner proposes to be 

rescinded or amended. In writing a petition, a member of the public should state clearly and concisely his 

or her grounds for and interest in the proposal and include a statement in support of the petition that 

outlines the specific issues involved; the views or arguments regarding those issues; the relevant 

technical, scientific, or other data that is reasonably available; and any other pertinent information to 

support the proposal. 

2.8 What is the current licensing basis and how is it applied to license renewal? 

The current licensing basis (CLB) is the particular set of NRC 

requirements applicable to a licensed operating nuclear power 

facility. An applicant for license renewal is also the licensee for 

the licensed operating nuclear power plant. The CLB includes the 

applicant’s written regulatory commitments for ensuring 

compliance with and operation within the applicable NRC 

requirements and the plant-specific design basis. Documents that 

are in the CLB include: 

• NRC regulations contained in applicable parts of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(specifically Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 26, 30, 40, 50, 51, 54, 55, 70, 72, 73, and 100) and associated 

appendices, 

• NRC Orders, 

• Safety and environmental license conditions, 

• Technical specifications and environmental protection plans, 

• Exemptions, 

• Plant-specific design information, as documented in the most recent final safety analysis report 

(FSAR), and 

• NRC environmental reviews (EISs, supplements, and environmental assessments), and 

• The licensee’s commitments remaining in effect that were made in docketed licensing 

correspondence, such as responses to NRC bulletins, generic letters and enforcement actions, NRC 

safety evaluations or licensee event reports. 

The CLB changes as documents such as the FSAR or the Technical Specifications are revised or as the 

licensee’s regulatory commitments change. As a result, the NRC requires that each year after submittal of 

the license renewal application and at least 3 months before scheduled completion of the NRC review, the 

applicant submit an amendment to the renewal application that identifies any change to the CLB of the 

facility that would materially affect the contents of the license renewal application.

The current licensing basis 

is the particular set of NRC 

requirements applicable to a 

licensed operating nuclear 

power facility. 
March 2006 3-1 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

3.0 NRC Safety Review 

The NRC performs a safety review of the applicant’s license renewal application to determine if the 

applicant has adequately demonstrated that the effects of aging will not have adverse impacts on the 

nuclear facility’s operation. This section answers the key questions that are asked related to why this 

safety review is performed, how it is conducted, and what type of public involvement occurs as a part of 

the safety review process. 

3.1 Why does the NRC perform a safety review? 

The NRC performs a safety review to determine whether there is reasonable assurance that activities 

authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing 

basis (see response to Question 2.8). 

The intent of the NRC’s safety review is to determine if the applicant 

has adequately demonstrated that the effects of aging will not adversely 

affect any systems, structures, or components, as identified in 10 CFR 

54.4. When the plant was designed, certain assumptions were made 

about the length of time the plant would be operated. During the 

renewal process, the applicant must also confirm whether these design 

assumptions will continue to be valid throughout the period of extended 

operation or whether aging effects will be adequately managed. The 

applicant must demonstrate that the effects of aging will be managed in 

such a way that the intended functions of “passive” or “long-lived” 

structures and components (such as the reactor vessel, reactor coolant 

system, piping, steam generators, pressurizer, pump casings, and 

valves) will be maintained during extended operation. For active 

components (such as motors, diesel generators, cooling fans, batteries, relays, and switches) surveillance 

and maintenance programs will continue throughout the period of extended operation. 

If additional aging management activities are needed, the applicant may be required to establish new 

monitoring programs or increase inspections. For instance, applicants should specify activities that need 

to be performed (such as water chemistry and inspections) to prevent and mitigate age-related 

degradation. These activities increase the likelihood that the program is effective in minimizing 

degradation and that a component is replaced if specified thresholds are exceeded. 

3.2 What is the basis for the NRC’s safety review? 

The regulations in 10 CFR Part 54 provide the basis for the NRC’s safety review. Detailed guidance on 

the NRC’s safety review for license renewal is provided in the Standard Review Plan for Review of 

License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1800). The purpose of the Standard 

Review Plan is to ensure quality and uniformity in staff reviews and to present a well-defined basis from 

which to evaluate the applicant’s programs and activities for the period of extended operation. The 

Standard Review Plan was based on information developed in the Generic Aging Lessons Learned 

(GALL) Report (NUREG-1801), which was developed by the NRC with input from interested 

The NRC performs a 

safety review to 

determine whether 

there is reasonable 

assurance that 

activities authorized by 

the renewed license 

will continue to be 

conducted in 

accordance with the 

current licensing basis.
Final FAQs for License Renewal 3-2 March 2006 

stakeholders. The report documents the basis that is used for determining when existing programs are 

adequate and when they should be augmented for license renewal. 

3.3 How is the safety review performed? 

The NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation reviews an 

applicant’s renewal application and supporting 

documentation based on the Standard Review Plan for 

Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power 

Plants (NUREG-1800). Audits are also performed to 

review onsite documentation supporting the application. In 

addition, the NRC follows the guidance in the NRC 

Inspection Manual Chapter (MC)-2516, Policy and 

Guidance for License Renewal Inspection Programs, and 

the NRC Inspection Manual – Inspection Procedure 71002, License Renewal Inspections, which contains 

policies and guidance for license renewal inspection programs. The license renewal application is 

reviewed to determine if the applicant meets the technical and regulatory requirements of the regulations. 

Specifically, the application must identify those systems, structures, and components that are within the 

scope of license renewal and subject to an aging management review and must also identify applicable 

aging mechanisms and describe programs in place to manage aging. This review commonly results in the 

NRC’s requesting additional information from the applicant. 

The safety review process also includes site inspections to assess whether the applicant has implemented 

and complied with the regulations for license renewal. The inspection teams are composed of technical, 

program, and operational experts from the NRC and its consultants. Teams of specialized inspectors 

travel to the reactor site, normally twice, to verify whether the effects of aging will be managed such that 

the plant can be operated during the period of extended operation without undue risk to the health and 

safety of the public. The review results in a publicly available safety evaluation report. 

3.4 How is the scope of the safety review for license renewal determined? 

The scope of the safety review is based on the regulations 

provided in 10 CFR Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of 

Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” The NRC has 

also developed other documents to provide greater information 

on the type of material reviewed and the depth of the review: 

• The format and content of the safety aspects of a license 

renewal application are given in Standard Format and 

Content for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant 

Operating Licenses (Regulatory Guide 1.188). This 

document defines the information the applicant must put in the application, which the NRC staff 

reviews. 

• The NRC’s review of the safety-related issues is outlined in a Standard Review Plan that was written 

specifically for the NRC’s safety review of license renewal applications, “Standard Review Plan for 

Spent Fuel Pool 

Turbine Deck 
March 2006 3-3 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

Review of License Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants” (NUREG-1800). The review 

results in a safety evaluation report that is made available to the public. 

• The staff is guided in conducting inspections by the NRC Inspection Manual – Manual Chapter 

(MC)-2516, Policy and Guidance for the License Renewal Inspection Programs and the NRC 

Inspection Manual – Inspection Procedure 71002, License Renewal Inspections. MC-2516 provides 

guidance to NRC staff and consultant personnel for review and inspection activities associated with 

an applicant’s license renewal program. Inspection Procedure 71002 provides the procedures for 

inspecting and verifying the documentation, implementation, and effectiveness of the programs and 

activities associated with an applicant’s license renewal program. 

3.5 Why is NRC focusing its safety review on aging-management issues? 

The focus of the license renewal safety review is on managing the detrimental effects of aging. The 

review provides reasonable assurance that the effects of aging will be managed for the period of extended 

operation such that systems, structures, and components (SSCs) will continue to perform their intended 

functions in accordance with the plant’s current licensing basis. Many of the existing programs and 

regulatory requirements that already provide adequate aging management will continue to be applicable 

after renewal. The license renewal review focuses on those SSCs for which current activities and 

requirements may not be sufficient to manage aging in the period of extended operation. 

3.6 What is embrittlement? 

Embrittlement is an aging process that makes material 

more brittle and more susceptible to fractures. There are 

two processes that occur in a nuclear reactor that cause 

embrittlement of metals. One is continual irradiation of 

materials by neutrons. This occurs in components like 

the reactor vessel or reactor coolant system where the 

neutron flux is the greatest. The second is thermal aging 

embrittlement from wide temperature fluctuations that 

occur in the structures and components associated with 

the production of steam. Thermal aging embrittlement is 

known to occur in cast austenitic stainless steel, which is 

a nonmagnetic stainless steel used in various parts of the 

facility, including the piping, pump casings, and reactor 

vessel internals. 

3.7 Is reactor embrittlement being reviewed 

during license renewal? 

Yes, reactor embrittlement is being reviewed during the 

license renewal process. The Commission requires that an applicant detect and mitigate the effects of 

aging, beginning with an examination and verification that the systems, structures, or components 

function as they were originally intended to and that their functions have not been compromised or 

degraded. 

Reactor Vessel 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 3-4 March 2006 

3.8 Is reactor vessel head degradation like the problem at Davis-Besse Nuclear 

Power Station being considered during license renewal? 

The reactor vessel head corrosion event at the Davis-Besse Nuclear 

Plant is an operational issue and outside the scope of license renewal. 

The event has had, and continues to have, a significant effect on both 

the NRC and reactor licensees. The corrosion event was unexpected 

and unknown to both the industry and staff. The corrosion was 

discovered by the licensee during an NRC-required inspection 

resulting from safety concerns related to reactor vessel head nozzle 

circumferential cracking. Since the discovery of the reactor vessel 

head corrosion event at Davis-Besse, the NRC has significantly 

increased the oversight of licensee reactor vessel head activities and 

other activities that may affect the condition of the reactor vessel 

head. Almost immediately after the discovery, the NRC strengthened 

reactor vessel head inspections by the imposition of inspection 

requirements by order. The immediate initiatives by the NRC staff 

provide assurance that any further corrosion events will be identified early and corrected. The NRC also 

formed a Lessons Learned Task Force (LLTF) to carefully review the Davis-Besse incident and make 

recommendations for improvement. The LLTF has made recommendations for improvements in reactor 

vessel inspection requirements, inspection program management and inspector qualification, handling of 

operating experience information, and research activities relating to leakage detection methodologies. 

Forty-nine recommendations arising from the LLTF review were adopted for implementation by the NRC 

staff, and over 40 have already been implemented. All but one, dealing with updating the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) code, have been completed. The progress of implementing the 

49 recommendations is reported semiannually to the NRC’s Executive Director of Operations and then 

forwarded to the NRC Commissioners. The NRC is confident that the implementation of the 49 LLTF 

recommendations will preclude any future recurrence of reactor vessel head corrosion similar to that at 

Davis-Besse. 

3.9 What sort of inspections are conducted at the plant? 

The NRC maintains an inspection program for operating 

nuclear power facilities. The NRC inspection program 

assesses whether activities are properly conducted and 

equipment is properly maintained to ensure safe operations. 

The NRC inspection program is continuous and relies 

primarily on resident inspectors, who are stationed at each 

nuclear reactor facility, and region-based inspectors, who 

supplement the activities of the resident inspectors. 

In addition to the inspection program for operations, the NRC 

has established an inspection program for license renewal that 

examines the information provided by the applicant in the 

renewal application. The NRC reviews the license renewal 

Replacement Reactor Vessel 

Head for R.E. Ginna Nuclear 

Power Plant post-Davis-Besse 

Facility Inspection 
March 2006 3-5 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

application to determine if the applicant has identified those systems, structures, and components that 

must be in the scope of license renewal, has identified applicable aging effects, and has programs in place 

to manage aging. The site inspections are assessments of the applicant’s implementation of and 

compliance with the regulations in 10 CFR Part 54. The inspection team includes technical, program, and 

operational experts from the NRC and its consultants. The intent of the inspections is to determine 

whether the effects of aging will be managed such that the facility can be operated during the period of 

extended operation without undue risk to the health and safety of the public and to ensure the consistency 

of the applicant’s programs to manage aging within the current licensing basis. 

3.10 What documents are generated during the NRC staff’s 

review of the license renewal application? 

There are several documents generated during the NRC’s review of a 

license renewal application: 

• The safety evaluation report (SER) documents the results of the NRC 

staff’s review of aging-management and the applicant’s programs to 

address these matters during the period of extended operation. 

• The environmental impact statement (EIS) in the form of a site-specific supplement to the generic 

environmental impact statement (SEIS) documents the results of the NRC staff’s review of the 

potential environmental impacts of continued operation of the plant during the period of extended 

operation. 

• Inspection reports document the results of the NRC staff’s inspections of the applicant’s 

implementation of its quality assurance program and aging-management programs. 

• The letter from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

(ACRS) to the Commission documents the results of the ACRS 

independent review of the safety aspects of the license renewal 

application and the staff’s SER. 

• If there is a hearing, the initial decision by the Atomic Safety and 

Licensing Board (ASLB) documents the findings of the ASLB on 

those items that were litigated in the hearing. 

• A Commission paper, issued by the Executive Director for 

Operations (EDO), summarizes the conclusions documented in all of 

the above documents, and provides the NRC staff’s recommendation 

concerning whether the operating license should be renewed. For 

uncontested applications, an EDO memorandum summarizes the 

staff’s decision on the renewal of the license. 

3.11 Who uses the safety review documents (such as safety evaluation reports) that 

NRC publishes? 

The NRC staff documents the results of its review of the license renewal application, first, in a draft and, 

then, in a final safety evaluation report (SER). When it is initially issued, the draft SER identifies any 

remaining open and confirmatory items that the staff is still resolving with the applicant. The final SER is 

NRC Review Reports 

The NRC staff 

documents the results 

of its review of the 

license renewal 

application in a 

safety evaluation 

report. The results 

of the staff’s safety 

review are available 

to the public. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 3-6 March 2006 

used as one input into the decision as to whether to renew the license. The SER is considered during the 

independent review of the application by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). If 

there is a hearing, the SER provides the basis for the NRC staff’s positions and is considered by the 

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) during the adjudicatory process. Finally, the SER is 

considered by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and, if the application is 

contested, by the Commission when the agency decides whether to renew the license. 

3.12 Is the public provided the opportunity to comment on the results of the NRC 

staff’s safety review? 

During the safety review process, the staff holds meetings with the applicant to discuss the review of the 

application. The public is invited to observe and has the opportunity to comment at the conclusion of the 

technical portion of the meeting. 

The results of the staff’s safety review are available to the public. However, the highly technical nature of 

the staff’s safety review does not lend itself to a public involvement process such as that used for the 

environmental review. As a result, there is no notification in Federal Register notices related to an 

opportunity to comment on the safety review prior to its issuance. However, a draft Safety Evaluation 

Report is available electronically from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of the 

NRC’s Agency-wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public 

Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/ 

index.html. Additionally, the public can provide comments to the Advisory Committee on Reactor 

Safeguards (ACRS) on the staff’s review of the license renewal application in advance of the ACRS 

meeting. 

In addition, any person who believes he or she would be adversely affected by a specific reactor license 

renewal may request a hearing. Members of the public may also petition the Commission, in accordance 

with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.206, for consideration of safety issues during current operation and the 

period of extended operation of the plant. 

3.13 When can members of the public bring up safety issues that should be 

considered during the license renewal review? 

Although there is not a formal public comment period for the safety review, 

members of the public can raise safety issues related to license renewal to 

the attention of the NRC staff during the license renewal review period. 

Members of the public may raise issues during the review process in public 

meetings or directly to the NRC project managers for the license renewal 

process. Members of the public can also bring safety issues to the NRC’s 

attention by emailing or phoning directly, as discussed in the response to 

Question 5.1.11. If the issue is one that affects the current operation of a 

facility, the NRC assesses the issue and, if needed, requires a licensee to 

take appropriate action apart from the license renewal evaluation process. 

Members of the public who believe they would be adversely affected by the renewal have an opportunity 

to request a formal adjudicatory hearing. The process for requesting a hearing is discussed in the 

response to Question 5.1.9. 

System Inspection 
March 2006 3-7 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

3.14 What if, during the course of the safety review, some design flaw or safety 

problem with the plant is discovered? Does the problem get addressed now or 

only during the renewal period? 

If a design flaw or safety problem affects the plant’s current operation, then the issue is addressed 

immediately rather than waiting for the conclusion of the staff’s license renewal review or the beginning 

of the license renewal period. 

3.15 Does the license renewal process result in any changes to the license 

conditions imposed on the applicant? 

The license renewal process will result in changes to the current licensing basis for the facility (see 

response to Question 2.8 for a definition of current licensing basis). The premise is that the applicant’s 

evaluation process results in a current licensing basis that is adequate to ensure safe operation of the 

facility during the period of extended operation. However, in cases where the NRC review determines 

that additional requirements are necessary for safe operation, the NRC will require that additional changes 

be made to the current licensing basis. These changes may be in the form of a license condition or 

technical specification requirement. A license condition is a condition that must be met for the license to 

be valid. A technical specification is a specific requirement that is contained in the license that a licensee 

must comply with. 

3.16 What is the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

and how are they involved in license renewal? 

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) is an advisory 

committee mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, under 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The Committee has three 

primary purposes: 

• to review and report on safety studies and reactor facility license and 

license renewal applications, 

• to advise the Commission on the hazards of proposed and existing reactor facilities and the adequacy 

of proposed reactor safety standards, and 

• to initiate reviews of specific generic matters or nuclear facility safety-related items. 

The ACRS is independent of the NRC staff and reports directly to the Commission, which appoints its 

members. The operational practices of the ACRS are governed by the provisions of the FACA. The 

ACRS is composed of recognized technical experts in their fields. It is structured so that experts 

representing many technical perspectives can provide independent advice, which can be factored into the 

Commission’s decision-making process. Most Committee meetings are open to the public and any 

member of the public may request an opportunity to make an oral statement during the committee 

meeting. 

During the license renewal process, the ACRS acts as an independent third-party oversight group that 

reviews and makes recommendations to the Commission on the safety aspects of renewal applications. 

The ACRS mandate does not include National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews. 

The ACRS is an 

independent panel 

of experts that 

advises the 

Commission on 

matters related to 

nuclear safety. 

March 2006 4-1 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.0 Environmental Review 

The NRC performs an environmental review of an applicant’s license 

renewal application to determine the environmental effects of operating 

the nuclear power facility for an additional 20 years. The Commission 

determined that the NRC would prepare an environmental impact 

statement for each license renewal action to fulfill its responsibilities 

under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NEPA 

requires that all Federal agencies consider environmental values in the 

conduct of their work. This section answers key questions related to 

NEPA and on the environmental review process for license renewal. 

4.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

NEPA defined a national policy for the environment and established 

the basis for considering environmental issues in the conduct of Federal 

activities. This section describes NEPA, the requirements that are 

included in the Act, as well as special features of NEPA, including tiering and scoping. This section also 

includes a discussion of the requirements for Federal agencies to comply with NEPA and the overview 

process that is built into the NEPA regulations. 

4.1.1 What is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)? 

NEPA establishes a national policy which: 

• encourages productive and enjoyable harmony between 

man and his environment, 

• promotes efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage 

to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health 

and welfare of man, and 

• enriches the understanding of the ecological systems and 

natural resources important to the Nation. 

The legal citation for NEPA is 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The text of the National Environmental Policy Act 

can be found in Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S. Code 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, and in its subsequent 

amendments. The amendments were PL 94-52, July 3, 1975; PL 94-83, August 9, 1975; and PL 97-258, 

paragraph 4(b), September 13, 1982. 

NEPA also established the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). On November 29, 

1978, the CEQ issued regulations (40 CFR Part 1500) implementing NEPA. These regulations became 

effective for and binding upon all Federal Executive Branch agencies within a year after the regulations 

were published. The regulations direct Federal agencies on matters related to environmental policy, 

including the public scoping process, use of lead agencies, and selection of alternatives. The NRC is an 

independent regulatory agency. In establishing its own regulations, the Commission has announced its 

policy to take account of the CEQ’s 1978 regulations voluntarily, subject to certain conditions (see 

10 CFR 51.10). 

The National 

Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) 

defined a national 

policy for the 

environment and 

established the basis 

for considering 

environmental issues 

in the conduct of 

Federal activities. 

U.S. Capitol 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-2 March 2006 

4.1.2 What does the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require? 

NEPA requires all Federal agencies considering a major Federal action to take the following actions: 

• utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach for decision-making on actions that may have an 

impact on the environment, 

• inform and involve the public in the decision-making process, 

• consider significant environmental impacts associated with the action, including cumulative impacts, 

• consider alternatives and their impacts to the proposed action, and 

• require a candid discussion and evaluation of impacts and mitigation alternatives. 

4.1.3 What is not required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)? 

NEPA does not require that the Federal agency choose the 

alternative with the least impact but rather that it disclose all 

potential impacts so that the decision that the agency makes can be 

fully informed. NEPA does not provide for adjudication of 

contested actions. Each agency’s administrative procedures specify 

the conditions under which administrative hearings are held. 

NEPA does not require the review or re-analysis of actions other 

than the action being considered. For example, the NEPA review for license renewal would not include 

an environmental review of the existing operating license, a review of an independent spent fuel storage 

installation, or an analysis of a waste repository, each of which has had its own separate NEPA review. 

4.1.4 What is an environmental impact statement (EIS)? 

An EIS is a written analysis of the reasonably foreseeable effects of 

an activity on the environment, including the air, water, animal life, 

vegetation, and natural resources, and on any property of historic, 

archaeological, or architectural significance. The review evaluates 

cumulative, economic, social (including environmental justice), 

cultural, and other impacts. The preparation of an EIS includes: 

• publication of a notice of intent to prepare the EIS, 

• “scoping,” that is, preliminary analysis and consultation with other agencies and stakeholders 

(including the public) to determine the scope of the EIS, defining the range of actions, alternatives, 

and impacts to be considered, 

• analysis leading to a draft EIS, 

• public review and comment, responses to the comments, and possibly further analyses, amendments, 

or revision of the draft EIS, and 

• publication of an EIS that includes discussion of the comments made during the public review period. 

NEPA does not require the 

review or re-analysis of 

actions other than the 

action being considered. 

An EIS is a written 

analysis of the reasonably 

foreseeable effects of an 

activity on the 

environment. 
March 2006 4-3 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.1.5 What is the difference between generic, programmatic, site-specific, and supplemental 

environmental impact statements? 

A generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) is an environmental impact statement (EIS) that 

assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that would be associated with an action at 

numerous sites. For license renewal, the NRC has issued a GEIS, Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437. The GEIS assesses the scope and 

impact of environmental effects at all of the currently existing U.S. nuclear power plant sites. The 

conclusions of the GEIS provide a list of issues that were analyzed and resolved in a generic fashion and a 

list of issues that require a site-specific analysis. 

A programmatic EIS is an EIS prepared for a broad plan or action that is evolving and includes a number 

of phases or individual actions. For example, a programmatic EIS was prepared to assess the proposed 

cleanup of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor after the March 1979 accident. 

A site-specific EIS concentrates on proposed activities for a specific geographic location. It may rely on 

the findings of a GEIS for some or all issues that were determined to be appropriately addressed in a 

generic fashion. However, for those items requiring a site-specific analysis, the site-specific EIS provides 

the necessary in-depth assessment required to complete the environmental review for the action. It may 

consider a single power reactor unit at a specific location, or it may include multiple power reactor units 

at a specific location. 

A supplemental EIS (SEIS) updates or supplements an existing EIS. It is required when the project 

changes, or if new impacts are discovered after the original EIS is completed. For license renewal, the 

Commission directed the staff to issue site-specific supplements to 

NUREG-1437 for each application. 

4.1.6 What is tiering? 

Tiering is the process of addressing a general program (such as a 

nuclear power plant license renewal) in a generic (or programmatic) 

environmental impact statement (EIS), and then analyzing a detailed 

element of the program (such as a site-specific action related to the 

general program) as a supplement to the generic EIS. The concept of 

tiering was promulgated by the President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) in its 1978 regulations implementing the requirements 

of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The CEQ has stated that its intent in formalizing the 

tiering concept was to encourage agencies “to eliminate repetitive discussions and to focus on the actual 

issues ripe for decisions at each level of environmental review.” 

For license renewal, a site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement (SEIS) 

contains summaries of issues resolved in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (GEIS). The detailed analyses from the GEIS are incorporated 

by reference into the SEIS. Issues that were not resolved in the GEIS receive a detailed site-specific 

analysis in the SEIS. Thus, the supplement does not duplicate material found in the GEIS. 

Tiering is the process 

of addressing a 

general program in a 

generic EIS, and then 

analyzing a detailed 

element of the program 

as a supplement to the 

generic EIS. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-4 March 2006 

The CEQ noted that tiering can be a useful method of reducing paperwork and duplication and should be 

viewed as a means of accomplishing NEPA requirements in an efficient manner. The tiering process 

makes each EIS of greater use and meaning to the public without duplication of the analysis prepared for 

the previous impact statement. 

4.1.7 What is scoping? 

Scoping is one of the steps in preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) (see response to 

Question 4.1.4). The President’s Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) regulations direct 

agencies to engage in a scoping process. The purpose of this process is to determine the range of actions, 

alternatives, and impacts to be considered in the EIS. Scoping is intended to ensure that problems are 

identified early and are properly studied, that issues of little significance do not consume time and effort, 

that the draft EIS is thorough and balanced, and that delays occasioned by an inadequate draft EIS are 

avoided. The scoping process should: 

• identify the public and agency concerns, 

• clearly define the environmental issues and alternatives to be examined in the EIS, including the 

elimination of issues that are not significant, 

• identify related issues that originate from separate legislation, regulation, or Executive Order, and 

• identify state, Tribal, and local agency requirements that must be addressed. 

An effective scoping process can help reduce unnecessary paperwork and time delays in preparing and 

processing the EIS by clearly identifying all relevant issues and procedural requirements. 

Public meetings during scoping are not required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Instead, the manner in which public input will be sought is left to the discretion of the agency. For license 

renewal, the NRC has elected to conduct public meetings as a part of the scoping process. These 

meetings are held in the vicinity of the power reactor facility early in the assessment process. The public 

is invited to attend the meetings to provide its insights on the scope of the environmental assessment. 

4.1.8 How does the NRC implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)? 

NEPA is implemented in the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” These regulations are used by 

the NRC as the basis for conducting environmental impact statements or environmental assessments in 

support of NEPA. 

4.1.9 Who oversees the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and ensures that the NRC 

does an adequate job of meeting the NEPA requirements? 

The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) oversees Federal agencies’ implementation of 

NEPA. This is accomplished through regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA and 

through interpretation of statutory requirements. The CEQ was established by Congress in 1969 when 

NEPA was enacted. The Chairman of the CEQ, who is appointed by the President with the advice and 

consent of the Senate, serves as the President’s principal environmental policy advisor. 
March 2006 4-5 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

The requirement to review environmental impact statements (EISs) is the responsibility of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, EISs prepared by Federal agencies (including the 

NRC) are reviewed by the EPA. The EPA also maintains a national EIS filing system and publishes 

weekly notices of EISs available for review and summaries of the EPA’s 

comments on EISs. 

4.1.10 Do environmental impact statements (EISs) written by the 

NRC get reviewed for adequacy by any other governmental 

agency? 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility 

to review EISs that are prepared by other Federal agencies (including the 

NRC). This review responsibility is a requirement placed on the EPA by the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). In addition to reviewing the EIS for adequacy, the EPA also provides the sponsoring 

agency (in this case, the NRC) with an assessment of each EIS. The assessment is used as a measure of 

the NRC’s adherence to NEPA. Comments are provided by the EPA to the NRC to use as information on 

future EISs. Additionally, the EPA comments on draft EISs under its statutory areas of responsibility 

such as clean water and clean air. Other Federal agencies are invited to participate in the scoping process 

(see response to Question 4.1.7) and are afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 

EISs. 

4.1.11 Apart from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), does the NRC have to comply 

with other environmental laws, regulations, or Executive Orders? 

The NRC has to comply with all applicable Federal environmental laws, regulations, and Executive 

Orders, including its own regulations (in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations) and those 

promulgated by other Federal agencies, so long as compliance would not be inconsistent with other 

statutory requirements. Some of the laws, regulations, and Executive Orders that pertain to the license 

renewal process include the following: 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973, with respect to protecting threatened and endangered species and 

critical habitats, and initiating formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and/or National Marine Fisheries Service, 

• Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (commonly called the Clean Water Act), requiring the 

restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources, 

• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, ensuring consideration of fish and wildlife resources in 

the planning of development projects that affect water resources, 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, controlling endangering or taking migratory birds, 

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, with respect to natural resources and land or water use of the 

coastal zone, 

• Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, requiring the protection of marine mammals, 

• Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, controlling the dumping of dredged 

material into the ocean, 

The requirement to 

review environmental 

impact statements is the 

responsibility of the 

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-6 March 2006 

• Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, 

controlling the deposition of debris in navigable waters, 

or tributaries to such waters, 

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, requiring 

protection and preservation of significant historic 

properties during construction, refurbishment and 

operation of the plant, 

• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

of 1990, related to disturbance of Native American burial 

grounds and cultural sites, 

• National Electrical Safety Code, regulating shock hazards from transmission lines, 

• Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629), requiring Federal executive branch agencies to consider 

environmental justice in minority and low-income populations, 

• 40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A, defining procedures on floodplain and wetlands protection, 

• 40 CFR Part 122 and Part 124, implementing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit conditions for discharges including storm-water discharges, 

• 40 CFR Part 125, addressing water-quality standards, 

• 40 CFR Part 165, controlling the disposal and storage of pesticides, 

• 40 CFR Part 403, regulating waste effluents, and 

• 40 CFR Part 700 – 716, defining practices and procedures for managing toxic chemicals. 

4.1.12 Does the NRC coordinate or consult with other Federal agencies as part of its 

environmental reviews? 

One of the first requirements for developing an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) is to publish, 

in the Federal Register, a notice of intent to prepare 

the EIS and conduct scoping. This Federal Register

notice is a method of alerting other agencies 

(including other Federal agencies) that may have an 

interest in participating in the review or wish to 

participate in the scoping process. 

During the analysis and preparation of the draft site-specific supplement to the generic environmental 

impact statement for license renewal (SEIS), the NRC staff consults with appropriate Federal agencies. 

The NRC usually contacts the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior) and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (Department of Commerce) for environmental issues related to the 

impact on any threatened or endangered species that may be in the vicinity of the nuclear power facility or 

to any critical habitat that could be affected by the licensing action (in this case, license renewal). If other 

agencies have actions or jurisdiction over areas directly related to the review, they would also be 

contacted directly by the NRC. 
March 2006 4-7 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

In addition to NRC-coordinated consultation, the draft EIS is 

reviewed by various Federal agencies at their discretion. For 

example, at the Federal level, the draft SEISs for license renewal are 

most commonly reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency and the U.S. Department of the Interior. The comments from 

these agencies are considered and included in the final SEIS, as 

appropriate. 

4.2 NRC Environmental Review Process for License 

Renewal 

The environmental review process for license renewal is described 

below, beginning with a brief overview of the basis for the NRC 

environmental reviews. It is followed by a history of the 

environmental reviews and a discussion of the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants, NUREG-1437 (GEIS), and its role in conducting the 

environmental reviews. The relationship between the GEIS and the 

site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact 

statement on license renewal (SEIS) is described. The process used 

to review the environmental portion of an application for license 

renewal is also described. Examples of generic and site-specific 

issues are given. A discussion of the measure of significance for the 

issues is also provided. The final set of questions and answers in this 

section relates to the periodic update of the GEIS. 

4.2.1 Basis for the NRC’s environmental review for license renewal 

4.2.1.1 Why does the NRC conduct an environmental review for license renewal? 

Every licensing action for a nuclear power plant is evaluated to determine whether and to what degree an 

environmental review is required. Some actions are categorically excluded and do not require an 

environmental review (see 10 CFR 51.22), some require an environmental impact statement (EIS) 

(see 10 CFR 51.20), and others require an environmental assessment (see 10 CFR 51.21). By law, the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an EIS for “major Federal actions.” The 

Commission determined that an EIS should be prepared for each license renewal application even though 

the Commission determined that license renewal was not a “major Federal action.” 

4.2.1.2 If license renewal is not a major Federal action, then why did the Commission decide to conduct 

an environmental review? 

A “major Federal action” is defined by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing 

regulations to be an “action with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal 

control and responsibility.” According to the Statements of Consideration that accompany the Final Rule 

on License Renewal (60 FR 22461), published in 1995, the Commission determined that the license 

renewal rule did not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 

environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement (EIS) was not required under NEPA 

The License Renewal rule 

does not constitute a 

major Federal action 

significantly affecting the 

quality of the human 

environment and, 

therefore, an 

environmental impact 

statement is not required. 

However, the Commission 

decided that the NRC 

would prepare a site 

specific supplement to the 

generic environmental 

impact statement on 

license renewal to ensure 

that the public had the 

highest level of 

participation in and 

confidence about the 

NRC’s action on a license 

renewal application. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-8 March 2006 

regulations. Nevertheless, in response to comments made by the President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a number of state agencies, and 

members of the public, the Commission decided that the NRC would prepare a site-specific supplement to 

the generic environmental impact statement on license renewal (SEIS), rather than an environmental 

assessment (EA) as initially proposed, for each license renewal application. This decision was made to 

ensure that the public had the highest level of participation in and confidence about the NRC’s action on a 

license renewal application. 

The SEIS would be written following a public scoping period for each renewal application, during which 

time the NRC would request public comments related to new and significant information that might not 

have been considered in the analysis in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (GEIS). The decision was also made to issue each supplement in draft 

form for public comment. These decisions were documented in the “Final Rule for Environmental 

Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses,” printed in the Federal Register on 

June 5, 1996 (61 FR 28467), and are now included in the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. 

4.2.2 History of environmental reviews for license renewal 

4.2.2.1 What is the history of the environmental reviews for license renewal? 

In 1986, the NRC initiated a program to develop the license renewal regulations and associated regulatory 

guidance in anticipation of applications for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. The 

Commission decided that, in addition to the development of license renewal regulations focused on the 

protection of health and safety, an amendment to its environmental protection regulations was also 

warranted. In November 1989, the NRC held a public workshop on license renewal. One of the sessions 

was devoted to environmental issues associated with license renewal and the possible value of amending 

the NRC’s environmental regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. On July 23, 1990, the NRC published in the 

Federal Register (55 FR 29967) an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice of intent to 

prepare a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS). The proposed rule was published in the 

Federal Register on September 17, 1991 (54 FR 29967). After the comment period on the proposed rule, 

the NRC communicated with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address their concerns about procedural aspects of the 

proposed rule. The NRC also had discussions with officials from state agencies about their concerns 

related to certain features of the proposed rule, including the states’ regulatory authority over the need for 

power and licensee economics. Three regional workshops and another public meeting (specifically to 

discuss the states’ issues) were held in 1994. After considering comments from the workshops and the 

written comments, the NRC issued a proposed supplement to the proposed rule, which was published on 

July 25, 1994. Comments were requested on that proposal and the final rule was published in 1996, 

containing changes to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 to define the environmental reviews for license 

renewal and require a site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement (SEIS) to 

support a decision on each license renewal application. The SEISs supplement the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), which was published in 

1996 as NUREG-1437. In 1999, the NRC issued Addendum 1 to the GEIS and modified the rule to 

correct errors and resolve another issue generically. All references to the GEIS include the GEIS and its 

Addendum 1. 

In 2000, the NRC issued the Standard Review Plan for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants 

– Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal, NUREG-1555, providing guidance to the staff on how to 
March 2006 4-9 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

review the environmental portions of renewal applications. The NRC also issued in 2000 a supplement to 

Regulatory Guide 4.2, Preparation of Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew 

Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses, which provides guidance on the format and content of an 

environmental report to be submitted as part of a license renewal application. As the NRC gains 

experience from environmental reviews of license renewal applications, it also expects to update this 

guidance to further improve the process. 

In April 1998, Baltimore Gas and Electric became the first licensee to apply for license renewal for its 

Calvert Cliffs nuclear power reactors on Chesapeake Bay. The SEIS was published in October 1999 and 

the plant received a renewed license on March 23, 2000. Duke Energy Corporation followed suit in 

July 1998, when it sought license renewals for its Oconee nuclear units in South Carolina. The Oconee 

SEIS was published in December 1999, and the plant received its 

renewed license on May 23, 2000. As of the beginning of 2006, 

licenses for 22 facilities (for a total of 39 nuclear power reactor units) 

have been renewed (see Table 1.1). 

4.2.2.2 What were the results of the comprehensive environmental 

review conducted in the 1990s? 

The result of the comprehensive environmental review was the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants (GEIS), which was issued in 1996 as NUREG-1437. Addendum 

1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999 to correct errors and to reflect a new 

analysis of transportation issues that expanded the generic findings about the environmental impacts due 

to transportation of fuel and waste to and from a single nuclear power plant. Specifically, this amendment 

revised the categorization of transportation of high level waste from Category 2 (site-specific) to Category 

1 (generic). (References in this document to the “GEIS” includes the GEIS and its Addendum 1.) 

Development of the GEIS was based on environmental and safety documentation from original licensing 

proceedings and on information from state and Federal regulatory agencies, the nuclear licensee industry, 

the open literature, operating experience, professional contacts, and public participation. The GEIS 

examined the reasonably foreseeable range of environmental impacts that could occur as a result of 

renewing licenses of individual nuclear power plants. The GEIS, to the extent possible, established the 

bounds and significance of these potential impacts. The analyses in the GEIS encompassed all operating 

light-water power reactors. For each type of environmental impact, the GEIS established generic findings 

where possible. For some of the environmental impacts, a generic determination could not be made and 

those issues require a detailed site-specific analysis. While plant and site-specific information was used 

in developing the generic findings, the NRC did not intend the GEIS to be a compilation of individual 

plant environmental impact statements. The findings of the GEIS are codified in the NRC’s 

environmental regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. 

4.2.2.3 Why did the NRC pursue the development of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS)? 

The NRC’s decision to develop the GEIS was based on three principal objectives: 

• to provide an understanding of the types and severities of environmental impacts that may occur as a 

result of license renewal of nuclear power plants, 

The GEIS examines the 

reasonably foreseeable 

range of 

environmental impacts 

that could occur as a 

result of renewing 

licenses of individual 

nuclear power plants.
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-10 March 2006 

• to identify and assess those impacts that are expected to be generic to license renewal, and 

• to support a rulemaking for 10 CFR Part 51 to define the number and scope of issues that need to be 

addressed by the applicants in plant-specific license renewal proceedings. 

4.2.2.4 Why not consider each facility separately and fully review all issues at that facility? 

The generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) was 

developed to establish an effective licensing process. It 

contains the results of a systematic evaluation of the 

environmental consequences of renewing an operating license 

and operating a nuclear power facility for an additional 20 

years. Those environmental issues that could be resolved 

generically were analyzed in detail and were resolved in the 

GEIS. Those issues that were unique because of a site-specific 

attribute, a particular site setting or unique facility interface 

with the environment, or variability from site to site, were 

deferred and would be resolved at the time that an applicant sought license renewal. In the license 

renewal process, these issues are addressed by a site-specific supplement to the generic environmental 

impact statement (SEIS). 

The GEIS is used to avoid duplication and allow the staff to focus specifically on those issues that are 

important for a particular plant (i.e., issues that are not generic). This is an appropriate and effective use 

of the concept of tiering that was promulgated by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) in its 1978 regulations that implemented the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). (Tiering is discussed in the response to Question 4.1.6.) 

A GEIS was developed for license renewal but not for initial construction and operation of the nuclear 

facilities because the licensing process for new reactors may involve consideration of land that would be 

disturbed, new demands placed on resources, and new discharges that require permits. However, for 

license renewal, there is a better understanding of the environmental equilibrium that has been established 

after a period of operation. In addition, in developing the GEIS, the 

NRC staff had the benefit of experience and information available 

for site-specific environmental impact statements that were 

performed for construction and operation of the plants. 

4.2.2.5 Why does the NRC develop a site-specific supplement to 

the generic environmental impact statement for license 

renewal (SEIS)? 

The NRC’s regulations require that a supplement to the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants, NUREG-1437 (GEIS) be prepared for individual license 

renewal applications to address those impacts that could not be 

generically evaluated in the GEIS. The GEIS addresses, in a generic 

fashion, the impacts associated with continued operation of a nuclear 

power facility for 20 years beyond its current license. The SEIS is a 

 Intake Trash Bars 

The NRC’s regulations 

require that a supplement 

to the Generic 

Environmental Impact 

Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

be prepared for individual 

license renewal 

applications to address 

those impacts that could 

not be generically 

evaluated in the GEIS. 
March 2006 4-11 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

site-specific analysis of a facility that has requested a license renewal. The SEIS supplements the 

information provided in the GEIS. 

4.2.3 The process for developing a site-specific supplement to the generic environmental 

impact statement for license renewal (SEIS) 

4.2.3.1 How does the NRC conduct the environmental evaluation for license renewal? 

The process for license renewal, as described in the NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, begins when 

an applicant submits the license renewal application containing an environmental report. After accepting 

the application, the NRC issues a Notice of Intent to prepare a site-specific supplement to the generic 

environmental impact statement for license renewal (SEIS) and conduct scoping. The Notice of Intent is 

posted on the NRC website and published in the Federal Register. The NRC also schedules a public 

scoping meeting in the vicinity of the facility (see response to Question 4.1.7 for a definition of scoping). 

Based on the scoping process and its independent review, the NRC staff issues a draft SEIS for public 

comment and holds a public meeting to discuss the findings in the draft SEIS and to obtain comments 

from the public and other interested stakeholders related to the draft report. The staff issues a final SEIS, 

which incorporates appropriate comments and changes. The final SEIS 

includes an appendix that presents the comments obtained at the public 

meeting and in writing and responds to those that are within the scope of 

the document. 

4.2.3.2 What steps does the NRC have to take to complete the 

environmental review? 

The environmental review for license renewal begins when an applicant 

sends its license renewal application to the NRC. One part of the 

application is the facility’s environmental report. This is the starting point for the NRC staff’s 

environmental review. The following activities occur after the license renewal application is received: 

• The NRC staff places a notice in the Federal Register that the application has been received. The 

notice provides information to the public on how to access copies of the application. This notice is 

usually placed in the Federal Register within a month of the receipt of the application. 

• The NRC staff places a second notice in the Federal Register approximately a month later. This 

notice indicates that the NRC staff has determined that the information in the application is sufficient 

and acceptable to begin the review. This determination is based on a comparison of the information 

provided in the application and the information required to be submitted by the regulations. Either 

this notice or a third notice placed in the Federal Register defines a minimum 60-day period for 

interested persons to file a request for a hearing or a petition to intervene. 

• The NRC staff places a third (or fourth) notice in the Federal Register approximately 3 months after 

receiving the application. The purpose of this notice is to inform the public of the NRC’s intent to 

prepare a site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement on license renewal 

(SEIS) and to inform the public about the scoping process. The scoping process is conducted to 

define the proposed action, to determine the scope of the SEIS, and to identify the significant issues to 

be analyzed in depth. Public scoping meetings are held near the nuclear power reactor that is seeking 

license renewal. The Federal Register notice provides the times and locations of the public scoping 

The GEIS is used to 

avoid duplication and 

allow the staff to focus 

specifically on those 

issues that are important 

for a particular facility. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-12 March 2006 

meetings. The notice also provides addresses for written comments to be submitted in person, by 

mail, or electronically. The deadline for scoping comments is usually 60 days following the 

publication of the notice in the Federal Register. 

• Approximately 120 days after the application is received, the NRC 

staff hosts two public scoping meetings on the same day within the 

vicinity of the nuclear power reactor being considered for 

relicensing. One meeting is in the afternoon and the other during 

the evening in an attempt to reach as many members of the public as 

possible. The meeting purpose, times, and locations are commonly 

advertised in local papers and on the radio to ensure that interested 

members of the public are aware of the public scoping meetings. 

Transcripts of the meetings are made available to the public 

approximately one month after the meeting is conducted. 

• The NRC staff typically conducts a site audit at the facility and in 

the surrounding area at the time that it holds the scoping meetings. 

The purpose of this visit is to familiarize the NRC and contractor 

team with the site and its environs and to determine whether 

additional issues should be investigated as part of the license 

renewal environmental evaluation. The NRC/contractor team is 

composed of experts in the fields that are pertinent to the environmental review (see response to 

Question 4.2.3.7). 

• The draft SEIS is published by the NRC after it completes its detailed reviews, approximately a year 

after the application is received. The NRC staff places a notice of availability in the Federal Register

with instructions for the public and other interested parties on how to obtain copies. Copies are sent 

to all individuals on facility distribution lists. Individual copies are also provided to all members of 

the public upon request. The notice requests public comments on the draft supplement and provides 

addresses for delivering and sending the comments to the NRC. Usually, a 75-day period is provided 

for the public’s review and the receipt of comments. The notice also alerts the public to a second set 

of public meetings to be held in the vicinity of the nuclear facility. The purpose of the meetings is to 

present an overview of the draft SEIS and to accept public comments on the document. Transcripts 

of the public meeting are made available approximately a month after the meeting is conducted. 

• Following receipt of the comments from the 

public, the applicant, and any interested local, 

state, Tribal, or Federal agencies, the NRC staff 

addresses the comments that are within scope of 

the draft SEIS and makes any appropriate changes. 

The final SEIS is published, including the list of 

the comments and the NRC staff’s resolution for 

each comment. The final document is usually 

issued approximately 20 months after the 

application was received. The NRC staff then 

provides a final recommendation regarding the 

environmental review to the Commission or its 

designee. 

The scoping process is 

a National 

Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) 

requirement 

conducted to define 

the proposed action, 

to determine the scope 

of the environmental 

review, and to identify 

the significant issues 

to be analyzed in 

depth. 

Oyster Creek Nuclear Station Endangered 

Species Act Consultation with National 

Marine Fisheries Service 
March 2006 4-13 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.2.3.3 Why does the NRC have a scoping process and what information is it specifically looking for 

during this process? 

The scoping process is a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirement conducted to define the 

proposed action, to determine the scope of the environmental review, and to identify the significant issues 

to be analyzed in depth. Specifically, the scoping process for a site-specific supplement to the generic 

environmental impact statement on license renewal (SEIS) accomplishes the following: 

• defines the proposed action, 

• determines the scope of the SEIS and identifies the significant issues to be analyzed in depth, 

• identifies and eliminates from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or that are not significant, 

• identifies any environmental assessments and other environmental impact statements that are being or 

will be prepared that are related to but are not part of the scope of the SEIS, 

• identifies other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action, 

• indicates the relationship between the timing of the preparation of environmental analyses and the 

Commission’s tentative planning and decision-making schedule, 

• identifies any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocates assignments for preparation and 

schedules for completing the SEIS, and 

• describes how the SEIS will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to be used. 

4.2.3.4 What are the technical areas included in the plant-specific review? 

The NRC performs plant-specific 

reviews of the environmental 

impacts of license renewal in 

accordance with National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

and the NRC’s requirements in 

10 CFR Part 51. The following 

technical areas are commonly 

included in the review: 

• land use, 

• ground and surface water use, 

• ground and surface water 

quality, 

• air quality, 

• aquatic resources, 

• terrestrial resources, 

• threatened and endangered species, 

Transmission Corridor 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-14 March 2006 

• radiological impacts, 

• socioeconomic factors, 

• environmental justice issues, 

• historical and archaeological resources, 

• related Federal project activities, 

• postulated accidents, 

• uranium fuel cycle and solid waste management, 

• decommissioning, 

• alternatives to license renewal, and 

• irreversible or irretrievable resource commitments. 

Other areas may be included as a result of information obtained during the NRC staff’s review or from 

public comments during or following meetings that are held in the vicinity of the nuclear power reactor. 

4.2.3.5 What is the geographical area that is considered in the review? 

Environmental impacts are considered at the site itself and in surrounding areas that could be affected by 

the operation of the facility. Impacts include those along transmission systems that were built specifically 

to connect the facility to the grid. The facility’s contribution to impacts from non-facility-related 

activities are also evaluated as cumulative impacts. 

Technical Issues Technical Issues

Included in the Review Included in the Review

Nuclear Safety/ Nuclear Safety/

Fuel Cycle/ Fuel Cycle/

Waste/

Accident Analysis Accident Analysis

Regulatory Regulatory

Compliance Compliance

Radiation Radiation

Protection Protection Terrestrial

Ecology Ecology

Atmospheric Science Atmospheric Science

Air Quality Air Quality

Socioeconomics/ Socioeconomics/

Environmental Justice Environmental Justice

Transportation/ Transportation/

Land Use Land Use

Archaeology/ Archaeology/

Cultural Resources Cultural Resources

Hydrologic Sciences Hydrologic Sciences

(Surface and Groundwater)/ (Surface and Groundwater)/

Water Use Water Use

Aquatic Aquatic

Ecology Ecology

Water

Quality Quality

Human Health Human Health

Operation/ Operation/

Refurbishment/ Refurbishment/

Decommissioning Decommissioning
March 2006 4-15 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.2.3.6 Are impacts considered only during the period of time encompassed by the renewed license? 

The impacts are considered for refurbishment 

activities necessary for license renewal and 

for operational activities that take place 

during the period of the renewed license. 

Refurbishment activities are physical 

activities or changes to the facility or site that 

are undertaken to prepare a nuclear power 

facility for operation following license 

renewal. These activities, which occur as 

needed, include enhanced inspection, 

surveillance, testing, maintenance and repair, 

and replacement, modification, and 

refurbishment of plant systems, structures, 

and components. For some facilities, 

replacement of large components of the 

nuclear steam supply system (e.g., steam 

generator or pressurizer) may be necessary, 

as is repair or replacement of pumps, pipes, 

control rod systems, electronic circuitry, 

electrical and plumbing systems, or motors. Not many facilities are expected to need refurbishment 

activities in connection with license renewal. Many applicants anticipate that they will replace 

components and conduct additional inspection activities within the bounds of normal facility component 

replacement and inspection. None of the applications received to date (through the beginning of 2006) 

have identified any major facility refurbishment activities or modifications necessary to support the 

continued operation of the facility beyond the end of the existing operating license. 

4.2.3.7 What is the usual schedule for the environmental review of an application and who actually 

performs the environmental review? 

The environmental review generally takes 20 months if no hearing has been granted. It is currently 

expected that the NRC staff will complete both the environmental and safety reviews and issue the 

renewed licenses within 30 months from receipt if a hearing is held or within 22 months from receipt if 

there is no hearing. 

The environmental review is performed by a team of experts, including NRC staff members supported by 

contractor staff from national laboratories and other contractors. The team is composed of experts in a 

variety of fields, including: 

• atmospheric science, 

• hydrology (surface and groundwater use and quality), 

• terrestrial ecology, 

• aquatic ecology, 

• land use, 

Steam Generator 

The environmental 

review generally takes 

20 months if no hearing 

has been granted. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-16 March 2006 

• archaeology/cultural resources, 

• socioeconomics/environmental justice, 

• radiation protection, 

• nuclear safety, and 

• regulatory compliance. 

4.2.3.8 Which state, Tribal, county, or local agencies does 

the NRC contact during the review of the license 

applications? 

State offices may be contacted for input during the NRC staff’s analysis of the license application. 

Offices include organizations dealing with health and human services, cultural resources, and 

environmental protection and natural resources. The NRC staff may also contact county or local 

agencies, specifically those that may provide the staff with cultural and historic or socioeconomic 

information related to the staff’s review of the license renewal application. The NRC staff also contacts 

Tribal nations that may have aboriginal ties to the land in the vicinity of the plant. 

Although the NRC does not provide copies of the applicant’s license renewal application to state, Tribal, 

county, or local agencies to review, the applicant may provide it directly to specific state offices. The 

NRC does post a notice indicating the receipt of the license renewal application in the Federal Register

shortly after it receives the application. The notice indicates where copies are available and how they can 

be obtained. The NRC makes arrangements for a hard copy of 

the application to be available at a public library close to the 

site. Also, electronic copies are accessible from the NRC web 

site (see response to Question 5.2.7 for more information 

related to obtaining a copy of the application). 

4.2.3.9 Where are the results of the environmental review 

published? 

The results of the environmental review are published as a 

site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact 

statement on license renewal (SEIS). The results are first 

published as a draft SEIS, which includes the NRC’s analysis 

of the environmental impacts of the proposed license renewal 

action and the environmental impacts of the alternatives to the 

proposed action. The draft SEIS includes a preliminary 

recommendation regarding license renewal based on 

consideration of the information on the environmental impacts 

of license renewal and of alternatives contained in the SEIS. 

The staff then issues a final SEIS after considering public comments on the draft SEIS. 

Instructions for obtaining an SEIS and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants NUREG-1437 (GEIS) are given in the responses to Questions 5.2.8 and 5.2.9. 

Indian River Lagoon 

St. Lucie Plant Site Audit 
March 2006 4-17 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.2.3.10 Who uses the site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement on license 

renewal (SEIS), and how? 

The SEIS is considered to be a disclosure document used to inform 

both decision-makers and the public of the environmental impacts of a 

specific action (in this case, license renewal). Once the NRC acts on 

the license renewal application, the NRC’s SEIS becomes part of the 

licensing basis. 

4.2.4 Categorization and Evaluation of Issues 

4.2.4.1 What are Category 1 (generic) and Category 2 (site-specific) 

issues and why are they important in the analysis of 

environmental impacts? 

The impact evaluation performed by the staff and presented in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants NUREG-1437 (GEIS) identified 92 environmental 

issues that were considered for the license renewal evaluation for 

power reactors in the U.S. The industry, Federal, state, and local 

governmental agencies, members of the public, and citizen groups 

commented on and helped identify these 92 issues during the 

preparation of the GEIS. The 92 issues are listed in Appendix A of this 

document. For each of the identified 92 issues, the staff evaluated 

existing data from all operating power plants throughout the U.S. From this evaluation, the staff 

determined which issues could be considered generically and which issues do not lend themselves to 

generic consideration. The GEIS divides the 92 issues that were assessed into two principle categories: 

one for generic issues (which are termed “Category 1 issues”) and the other for site-specific issues 

(termed “Category 2 issues”); two issues were not categorized. 

Category 1 (generic) issues are those that meet all of the following 

criteria: 

1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been 

determined to apply either to all plants or, for some issues, to plants 

having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant or 

site characteristic. 

2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or 

LARGE) has been assigned to the impacts (except for collective 

offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level 

waste and spent fuel disposal) for all plants. (See the response to 

Question 4.2.4.13 for a definition of the levels of significance.) 

3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analyses, and it has 

been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently 

beneficial to warrant implementation. 

Category 1 issues are 

termed “generic” issues 

because the conclusions 

related to their 

environmental impacts 

were found to be 

common to all plants (or, 

in some cases, to plants 

having specific 

characteristics). For 

Category 1 issues, a 

single level of 

significance was 

common to all plants, 

mitigation was 

considered, and the NRC 

determined that it was 

not likely to be 

beneficial. 

The Generic 

Environmental Impact 

Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants NUREG 1437 

(GEIS) identified 92 

environmental issues 

that were considered for 

the license renewal 

evaluation for power 

reactors in the U.S. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-18 March 2006 

Category 1 issues are termed “generic” issues because the conclusions related to their environmental 

impacts were found to be common to all plants (or, in some cases, to plants having specific characteristics 

such as a particular type of cooling system). For Category 1 issues, a single level of significance was 

common to all plants, mitigation was considered, and the NRC determined that it was not likely to be 

beneficial. Issues that were resolved generically are not reevaluated 

in the site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact 

statement on license renewal (SEIS) because the conclusions 

reached would be the same as in the GEIS, unless new and 

significant information is identified that would lead the NRC staff to 

reevaluate the GEIS’s conclusions. During the environmental 

reviews of license renewal applications, the NRC staff makes a concerted effort to determine whether any 

new and significant information exists that would change the generic conclusions for Category 1 issues. 

Category 2 issues are those that require a site-specific review. For each of the Category 2 issues 

applicable to the site under review, the staff evaluates site-specific data provided by the applicant, other 

Federal agencies, state agencies, Tribal and local governments, as well as information from the open 

literature and members of the public. From this data, the staff makes a site-specific evaluation of the 

particular issues and presents its analyses and conclusions in the SEIS for the facility. Additionally, two 

uncategorized issues require site-specific considerations as well. 

4.2.4.2 What are some examples of generic (Category 1) issues and 

how were they determined to be generic? 

The generic environmental impact statement for license renewal (GEIS) 

evaluated 92 environmental issues, and, of these, 69 were found to be 

generic (Category 1). Following are three examples of generic 

(Category 1) issues: 

Example 1: The discharge of chlorine and other biocides is regulated 

by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit of each nuclear power facility. Regulatory concern about toxic 

effects of chlorine and its combination products, and the operating 

experience with control of biofouling organisms, such as mussels or 

clams, have led many facilities to eliminate the use of chlorine or 

reduce the amount used to below the levels that were originally 

anticipated in the environmental statements issued for construction or 

operation. Because of these refinements, water quality impacts from 

biocides was not a concern for regulatory and resource agencies 

provided that an applicant remained in compliance with the limits in the 

NPDES permit. Based on the literature, operational monitoring reports, 

consultations with licensees and regulatory agencies, and comments on 

the draft GEIS, water quality effects from the discharge of chlorine and 

other biocides are thus considered to be of small significance for all 

facilities. This issue was determined to be a generic (Category 1) issue. 

Category 2 issues are 

those that require a site 

specific review. 

Natural Draft Cooling Tower 

Three examples of 

Category 1 issues 

• Water quality 

impacts from 

biocides 

• Bird collisions with 

cooling towers 

• Aesthetic impacts 
March 2006 4-19 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

Example 2: Bird collisions with cooling towers is of concern if the 

stability of the local population of any bird species is threatened or if 

the reduction of numbers within any bird population significantly 

impairs its function within the local ecosystem. Monitoring of bird 

collisions has occurred at several nuclear plants with natural draft 

cooling towers. The existing data suggest that cooling towers cause 

only a very small fraction of the total bird collision mortality in the 

U.S. and involve sufficiently small numbers for any species that it is 

unlikely that the losses would threaten the stability of local populations. 

There is also no reason to believe that the annual mortality rate 

resulting from collision of birds with any cooling tower would be 

different during the license renewal term. Thus, bird mortality was 

determined to be a generic (Category 1) issue. 

Example 3: The analysis of aesthetic impacts of license renewal 

involved staff examination of local perceptions at seven case study sites, a brief survey of the original and 

eventual aesthetic impacts at other operating nuclear power facilities, a survey of relevant academic 

literature, and a review of recent newspaper and magazine articles related to these issues. Nuclear power 

facilities, especially those with natural draft cooling towers, stand out starkly from their backgrounds, 

both physically and symbolically. The GEIS acknowledged that some people regard the existing facility 

structures and vapor plumes negatively. However, during license renewal, applicants are not expected to 

alter the existing visual intrusiveness of any facility. Thus, the extent 

of negative perceptions likely remains constant. Because negative 

views have not been sufficient to measurably impact community 

institutions and functions in the past, the staff concluded in the GEIS 

that the impacts on aesthetic resources would likely be small. Thus, 

this issue was determined to be generic (Category 1). 

4.2.4.3 What are some examples of site-specific (Category 2) 

issues, and how were they determined to be site-specific? 

Of the 92 environmental issues in the generic environmental impact 

statement for license renewal (GEIS), 23 issues need a site-specific 

review and analysis. Twenty-one of these are considered to be 

Category 2 issues. The remaining two issues, environmental justice 

and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields, were not categorized 

and are addressed by the site-specific analysis. Three examples of 

site-specific (Category 2) issues are given here. 

Example 1: The entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages at facilities with once-through 

cooling systems requires a site-specific analysis for two reasons. First, a single significance level cannot 

be assigned. While the impacts may be small at many facilities, they may be moderate or even large at a 

few facilities with once-through cooling systems. Second, ongoing restoration efforts may increase the 

numbers of fish susceptible to intake effects during the license renewal period, so that entrainment studies 

conducted in support of the original license may no longer be valid. For these reasons, the entrainment of 

fish and shellfish is a site-specific (Category 2) issue for facilities with once-through cooling systems. 

Three examples of 

Category 2 issues 

• Entrainment of fish 

and shellfish at 

facilities with once 

through cooling 

systems 

• Threatened or 

endangered species

• Historic and 

archaeological 

resources 

Green Turtle*

* Photo by Ursula Keuper-Bennett/Peter Bennett.
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-20 March 2006 

Example 2: Threatened or endangered species is a potentially relevant issue for all cooling system types 

and for transmission lines. The GEIS review showed that neither current cooling system operations nor 

electric power transmission lines associated with nuclear power facilities are having a significant adverse 

impact on any threatened or endangered species. However, widespread conversion of natural habitats and 

other human activities continues to cause the decline of native plants and animals. As biologists review 

the status of species, additional species threatened with extinction are being identified; consequently, it is 

not possible to ensure that future power facility operations will not be found to adversely affect some 

currently unrecognized threatened or endangered species. Future endangered species recovery efforts 

may require modifications of power facility operations. Without site-specific and project-specific 

information, the magnitude or significance of impacts on threatened and endangered species cannot be 

assessed or predicted. Thus, because no generic conclusion on the significance of potential impacts on 

endangered species can be reached, this is a site-specific 

(Category 2) issue. 

Example 3: Historic and archaeological resources are considered to 

be a site-specific (Category 2) issue because site-specific 

information is needed to assess the significance of impacts to these 

resources. Determinations of impacts must be made through 

consultation with a State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Any mitigation measures must likewise 

be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

4.2.4.4 During the environmental review, how are generic issues and site-specific issues reviewed? 

Generic and site-specific issues are dealt with differently during the environmental review. Issues that 

were resolved generically (Category 1) are not reevaluated in the site-specific supplement to the generic 

environmental impact statement on license renewal (SEIS) because the conclusions reached would be the 

same as in the generic environmental impact statement for license renewal (GEIS), unless new and 

significant information is identified that would lead the NRC staff to 

reevaluate the GEIS’s conclusions. During the environmental 

review, the NRC staff makes a concerted effort to determine whether 

new and significant information exists for the specific site being 

evaluated that would change the generic conclusions for Category 1 

issues. 

Site-specific issues (Category 2 issues) must be thoroughly analyzed 

by the applicant as part of its submittal and included in detail in its 

environmental report. The NRC staff then independently evaluates 

the issue as part of its SEIS. 

4.2.4.5 Does the NRC take the Category 1 (generic) issues “off the 

table” for public review? 

The NRC does not take the generic (Category 1) issues “off the 

table” for public review. If there is new and significant information 

that would change the conclusions reached in the generic environmental impact statement for license 

renewal (GEIS), then the staff notifies the Commission and the issue requires a site-specific analysis. 

Site specific issues 

(Category 2 issues) must 

be thoroughly analyzed. 

Issues that were resolved 

generically (Category 1) 

are not reevaluated in 

the site specific 

supplement to the generic 

environmental impact 

statement on license 

renewal unless new and 

significant information is 

identified that would lead 

the NRC staff to 

reevaluate the GEIS’s 

conclusions. 
March 2006 4-21 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

During the scoping process and the environmental review, the NRC is 

looking for any information that could demonstrate that there are 

unique characteristics related to the facility or the environment 

surrounding the facility that would lead to the conclusion that the 

generic determination for a particular issue is not valid for a specific 

site. The NRC staff discusses and evaluates potential new and 

significant information on impacts of operations during the renewal 

term in the site-specific supplement to the generic environmental 

impact statement on license renewal (SEIS). 

4.2.4.6 Are human health issues a “generic issue”? Why aren’t they evaluated for each facility? 

Not all human health issues are considered generic (Category 1). The radiological impacts on human 

health (both to the public and to plant workers) and noise are considered generic (Category 1) issues. 

However, the impacts of microbiological organisms on public health, under certain facility 

configurations, and the acute effects of electromagnetic fields are considered to be site-specific 

(Category 2) issues. The chronic effects of electromagnetic fields were not categorized as either generic 

or site-specific because research is continuing in this area and a consensus scientific view has not been 

reached. 

For the generic issue of radiological impacts on human health, radiation doses to members of the public 

from the current operation of nuclear power facilities have been examined from a variety of perspectives, 

and the impacts were found to be well within design objectives and regulations in each instance. Because 

there is no reason to expect effluents to increase during the period of the renewal license, effluent levels 

during continued operation are expected to be well within regulatory limits. However, as with all 

Category 1 conclusions, the NRC staff review evaluates each application and the site to determine if there 

is new and significant information that would change the conclusion in the generic environmental impact 

statement for license renewal (GEIS). In addition, current mitigation practices have resulted in declining 

public radiation dose and are expected to continue to do so. The NRC staff concluded in the GEIS that 

the significance of radiation exposures to the public attributable to operation after license renewal will be 

small at all sites and that this is a generic (Category 1) issue. 

Occupational doses attributable to normal operation during the license renewal term were also examined 

from several different perspectives. An estimate of a 5-8 percent increase in doses for the typical plant 

worker for the renewal period was made, based on the slight increase in radioactive inventories that 

occurs as a plant ages. Even with this increase, the anticipated doses will remain well below the 

regulatory limits. Therefore, occupational radiation exposure during the renewed license period meets the 

standard of small significance and thus would be a generic (Category 1) issue. 

4.2.4.7 What issues are precluded from consideration? 

A number of issues are not considered in the environmental review for license renewal conducted by the 

NRC, including but not limited to: 

• safety, 

• operational issues that require a separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review (such as 

an independent spent fuel storage installation), 

New information can be 

identified from a 

number of sources, 

including the applicant, 

NRC review activities, 

other agencies, or 

public comments. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-22 March 2006 

• security and safeguard issues, 

• emergency preparedness (including distribution of potassium iodide), 

• need for power, 

• spent fuel disposal and storage, 

• economic feasibility, and 

• cost-benefit analyses. 

Section 4.3 discusses these issues in further depth and provides the reason why they are not considered in 

the environmental evaluation. 

4.2.4.8 What if new information is revealed about an existing issue? 

New information can be identified from a number of sources, including the applicant, NRC review 

activities, other agencies, or public comments. If new information is revealed about an existing issue, 

then the NRC evaluates the significance of that information by using regulatory guidance (such as 

NUREG-1555, Volumes 1 and 2) and calling upon experts from within the NRC, its contractors or other 

recognized institutions. If the new information concerns a generic issue (a Category 1 issue), then the 

NRC staff determines whether the new information indicates that the analysis supporting the NRC license 

renewal environmental protection rule is not correct, e.g., the impacts are beyond that described in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (GEIS) 

and codified in the NRC’s rule. 

If the new and significant information is relevant to the particular plant and is also relevant to other 

plants, then the NRC staff will seek Commission approval to either suspend the application of the rule on 

a generic basis or delay granting the particular renewal application (and possibly other renewal 

applications) until the analysis in the GEIS is updated and the rule amended. If the rule is suspended, 

then each subsequent site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement on license 

renewal (SEIS) will reflect the corrected analysis until such time as the rule is amended. If the new and 

significant information is relevant only to the particular plant, then the NRC staff will seek Commission 

approval to waive the application of the rule on a site-specific basis for that issue and perform an analysis 

to the level of detail that would be the equivalent of a site-specific issue (a Category 2 issue). The SEIS 

would reflect the corrected analysis, as appropriate. 

4.2.4.9 What if a new issue is identified that has not been considered before? 

New information can be identified from a number of sources, including the applicant, NRC review 

activities, other agencies, or public comments. If a new issue is revealed, then it is first analyzed to 

determine whether it is within the scope of the license renewal evaluation (see response to Question 

4.2.4.7 for issues that the Commission has determined are not within the scope of license renewal). If a 

new environmental issue is determined to be within the scope of license renewal and it was not addressed 

in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 

(GEIS) or codified in the NRC license renewal environmental protection rule, then the NRC evaluates the 

significance of the information by calling upon experts from within the NRC, its contractors or other 

recognized institutions. If the new issue is relevant only to a particular site, then the NRC staff will 
March 2006 4-23 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

perform a site-specific analysis and include its conclusion in the site-specific supplement to the generic 

environmental impact statement on license renewal (SEIS). If the new and significant information 

appears to be relevant to other sites, then the NRC staff will consider the issue in future SEISs and include 

it as a candidate for evaluation in the periodic update of the GEIS and possible amendment to the rule. 

4.2.4.10 What are some examples of new issues that have been discussed during license renewal? 

Although a number of new issues have been raised and evaluated by the NRC and the results of the 

evaluation documented in the appropriate site-specific supplements to the generic environmental impact statement on 

license renewal (SEIS), the issues that were identified were not significant and did not invalidate any of 

the staff’s generic determinations. Two examples follow. 

Example 1: During the scoping meetings on the Calvert Cliffs license application, a member of the public 

raised the issue of extremophiles, which are microbiological organisms that live in high-radiation and 

high-temperature environments. The NRC staff evaluated this issue and determined that, while it was 

new information, it was not significant because extremophiles would not likely be able to survive and 

compete with the indigenous microbiota of the relatively cold waters of Chesapeake Bay, once cooling 

water was discharged from the Calvert Cliffs facility. 

 Example 2: A new issue was identified by the staff 

during its review of the North Anna license renewal 

application. The staff identified a potential issue 

related to the nuisance species water hyacinth 

(Hydrilla verticillata), a submerged, aquatic 

macrophyte (large plant) that inhabits many 

freshwater rivers, lakes, and ponds in North 

America. Although higher water temperatures can 

increase the growing season of water hyacinths, the 

staff concluded that the issue was not significant 

because grass carp appeared to be effectively 

controlling the growth and biomass of the water 

hyacinth. 

4.2.4.11 Who decides if a comment contains new and significant items that have been discussed during 

license renewal? 

The NRC staff determines whether an issue is new and significant 

after a thorough evaluation of the issue. New and significant 

information would involve an environmental issue that was not 

covered in the generic environmental impact statement for license 

renewal (GEIS) or codified in NRC’s regulations and that could

materially affect the Commission's earlier conclusion. It could also 

be information that was considered in the analyses summarized in 

the GEIS but that leads to a finding of environmental impact that is 

different from the finding presented in the GEIS (and codified in 10 CFR Part 51). 

Hydrilla verticillata

The NRC staff determines 

whether an issue is new and 

significant after a thorough 

evaluation of the issue. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-24 March 2006 

4.2.4.12 What are some examples of new and significant items that have been discussed during license 

renewal? 

As of the beginning of 2006, there have not been any examples of new issues that were also considered 

significant. This does not mean that there are no “new and significant” issues that will be found during 

the license renewal evaluation process. However, it is an indication that the review and analyses 

performed in preparing the generic environmental impact statement for license renewal (GEIS) were 

comprehensive and thorough. Both the public scoping sessions and the site evaluations are expected to 

remain essential parts of the license renewal process for raising issues for consideration. 

4.2.4.13 What is meant by significance and what do the three levels of significance (SMALL, 

MODERATE, and LARGE) mean? 

Significance indicates the importance of likely environmental impacts. The determination of significance 

is made by considering two variables: context and intensity. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and 

social context in which the effects will occur. In the case of license renewal, the context is the 

environment surrounding the facility. Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, in whatever context it 

occurs. 

The NRC developed a three-level standard of significance – SMALL, 

MODERATE, and LARGE – using the President’s Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines: 

SMALL – environmental impacts are not detectable or are so minor 

than they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important 

attribute of the resource. 

MODERATE – environmental impacts are sufficient to alter noticeably 

but not destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

LARGE – environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient 

to destabilize important attributes of the resource. 

4.2.4.14 Who decides if an impact is of SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE 

significance? 

For Category 1 issues, the NRC staff assigned a significance level to 

each environmental issue analyzed in the generic environmental impact 

statement for license renewal (GEIS). The discussion of each 

environmental issue in the GEIS includes an explanation of how the 

significance category was determined. The determination of the significance category was made 

independently of the consideration of the potential benefit of additional mitigation. 

For the Category 2 issues, the uncategorized issues, and the newly identified issues, the NRC will assign 

the significance level after an in-depth evaluation. 

Significance indicates 

the importance of likely 

environmental impacts 

and is determined by 

considering two 

variables: context and 

intensity. 

Context is the 

geographic, biophysical, 

and social context in 

which the effects will 

occur. 

Intensity refers to the 

severity of the impact, in 

whatever context it 

occurs. 
March 2006 4-25 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.2.4.15 What are cumulative impacts, and how does NRC evaluate cumulative impacts? 

Cumulative impacts on the environment result when impacts of an 

action are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually small 

impacts that become significant when taken collectively over a 

geographic area or a period of time. Any agency (Federal or 

non-Federal) or non-governmental activities can contribute through 

their actions or approvals to cumulative effects. These combined 

impacts are defined as “cumulative” and include individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a geographic area or a 

period of time. 

The NRC evaluates cumulative effects during the site visit and scoping 

process by identifying the impacts that have affected the environment surrounding the facility. For 

example, the close proximity of another nuclear reactor facility or another industrial facility that also 

discharges warm water into the same river may have a cumulative impact on aquatic ecology that is 

greater than the impact of just one facility. The staff would take into consideration the potential for 

cumulative impacts from both facilities. 

4.2.4.16 How does the NRC consider environmental justice in its environmental review? 

On February 11, 1994, the President issued Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. This Order requires each 

Federal Executive Branch to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations resulting from its actions. 

The memorandum accompanying the Executive Order directed Federal executive agencies to consider 

environmental justice. The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) provided guidance for 

addressing environmental justice. Although the Executive Order is not mandatory for independent 

agencies, the NRC has voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice reviews as part of its 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities. The 

Commission’s “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental 

Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions” contains 

guidance and information for addressing issues of environmental 

justice (69 FR 52040). Specific guidance was formulated by the NRC 

staff and is found in NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office 

Instruction LIC-203, Procedural Guidance for Preparing 

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. 

In order to perform a review of environmental justice in the vicinity of 

a nuclear power plant, the NRC staff examines the geographic 

distribution of minority and low-income populations within 80 

kilometers (50 miles) of the site. The staff uses the most recent census 

data available. The staff also supplements its analysis by field inquiries to such groups as county 

planning departments, social service agencies, agricultural extension personnel, and private social service 

agencies. Once the locations of minority and low-income populations are identified, the staff evaluates 

Cumulative impacts on 

the environment result 

when impacts of an 

action are added to 

other past, present, 

and reasonably 

foreseeable future 

actions. 

Addendum 1 of the 

GEIS documented the 

NRC staff’s analysis of

the potential 

cumulative impacts of 

transporting spent 

nuclear fuel in the 

vicinity of a single 

high level waste 

repository. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-26 March 2006 

whether any of the environmental impacts of the proposed action could affect these populations in a 

disproportionately high and adverse manner. 

4.2.4.17 What is mitigation, and who decides if it is necessary? 

According to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 

CFR 1508.20), mitigation means: 

• avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an 

action, 

• minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and 

its implementation, 

• rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment, 

• reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the 

life of the action, and 

• compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. 

In terms of the impacts during license renewal, this definition can include such activities as: 

• using best-management practices to mitigate the impact of any required dredging, 

• relocating a project, such as additional storage or lay-down yards, to avoid impact on a historic or an 

archaeological site, 

• reconfiguring intake structures to reduce impingement or entrainment of fish and shellfish larvae, and 

• making structural changes to equipment to mitigate the potential for severe accidents. 

4.2.4.18 Could the generic environmental impact statement for license renewal (GEIS) become outdated 

and is it ever updated? 

In 10 CFR Part 51, the Commission anticipated the need to revisit the 

GEIS and its implementing regulations. The Commission declared its 

intent to revisit the GEIS on a 10-year cycle to determine whether the 

technical bases or conclusions needed to be updated. The GEIS 

represents a snapshot in time. Therefore, it is appropriate to periodically 

determine whether changes have occurred that should be included in an 

update to the GEIS. Science and the natural environment evolve and the 

scientific community’s understanding of issues, methods, and 

assumptions may need to be revisited. Experience gained in using the 

regulatory framework may identify situations in which the NRC staff 

has used less than optimal approaches to address issues and to state 

conclusions. Changes in statutes, regulations, policies, and practices and the structure of the power 

market may have a cascading impact on the NRC licensing framework. 

An example of the past updating of the GEIS is the addendum that was published in 1999. This 

addendum documented the NRC staff’s analysis of the potential cumulative impacts of transporting spent 

nuclear fuel in the vicinity of a single high-level waste repository. It summarized the staff’s analyses of 

Mitigation is: 

• avoiding, 

• minimizing, 

• rectifying or 

• eliminating an 

impact or 

• compensating 

for the impact 

The environmental 

review does take into 

account the 

environmental effects 

of postulated plant 

accidents that might 

occur during the 

license renewal term. 
March 2006 4-27 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

the environmental impacts of the transportation of higher enrichment and higher burn-up spent nuclear 

fuel, which were found to be consistent with the values in Table S–4 of 10 CFR 51.52. 

Currently, the GEIS for license renewal, which was originally issued in 1996 as NUREG-1437, is being 

updated. A notice of intent to update the GEIS was published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2003 

(68 FR 33209). Public scoping meetings occurred during July 2003 in four regional locations (Atlanta, 

Georgia; Oak Lawn, Illinois; Anaheim, California; and Boston, Massachusetts), and the comments 

obtained from these meetings and from letters and emails sent to the NRC are being evaluated to 

determine whether and how the GEIS should be updated. The scoping process helps the NRC staff 

identify and eliminate from a detailed study those issues that are peripheral, that are not in scope, or that 

have been covered by other environmental reviews. The NRC is considering these comments and will 

factor the appropriate issues into a draft updated GEIS and into proposed rule changes if necessary. After 

all interested stakeholders (including the public) have had an opportunity to comment on the draft of the 

GEIS and the proposed rule, the NRC will issue a final GEIS and a final rule. 

4.2.4.19 What kind of changes might be made in the generic environmental impact statement for license 

renewal (GEIS)? 

As a framework, the NRC staff compiled a list of issues that may prompt changes in the GEIS, including: 

• new and significant information (see responses to Questions 4.2.4.11 and 4.2.4.12), 

• changes in NRC staff practices resulting from legislative or industry actions, for example, the 

designation of Yucca Mountain as the repository for spent nuclear waste in Public Law 107-200, 

116 Stat. 735 (2002) (see response to Question 4.5.2), 

• statutory or regulatory changes, for example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 

regulations establishing performance standards on cooling water intake structures for existing 

facilities, 

• industry structural changes, for example, changes in the regulation of the power market or the 

distinctions between generators and distributors of power, which may have some bearing on the 

influence or control over activities that the current license holder may have as compared with that of 

the original license holder, 

• incorrect characterizations that occurred in the GEIS, for example, the statement that license renewal 

is a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment (see response to 

Question 4.2.1.2), 

• omitted issues, for example, the impacts associated with dredging activities that may occur 

periodically and within the period of extended operation, 

• confusion, for example, confusion between the impacts from severe accidents, which is a generic 

(Category 1) issue, and the analysis of severe accident mitigation alternatives, which is a site-specific 

(Category 2) issue, and 

• realignment to improve clarity, for example, of the 92 specific issues listed in the GEIS, some are 

listed twice – once pertaining to the renewal process and again pertaining to refurbishment. Other 

issues are listed once, with a statement that they apply to both refurbishment and renewal. This can 

be confusing for a reader who is trying to understand how many issues are involved. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-28 March 2006 

4.2.4.20 How can you process license renewal applications when you are updating the generic 

environmental impact statement for license renewal (GEIS)? 

New applications will be evaluated under the existing regulatory framework using the GEIS as previously 

published and codified in NRC’s regulations. However, insights and information gained during the GEIS 

update process and from experience with the completed license renewals using the GEIS will be used 

during the review of ongoing and upcoming applications until the update of the GEIS and appropriate 

revisions to 10 CFR Part 51 are completed. 

4.3 Scope of the Environmental Review for License 

Renewal 

Some of the most frequent questions from members of the public relate 

to what issues are considered within the scope of license renewal. 

Defining the scope is an important step because it allows the NRC to 

concentrate on the essential issues of the action being considered. This 

section answers some of the most common questions related to the scope of the environmental review for 

license renewal. 

4.3.1 Why are there limits on the scope of the environmental review? 

The scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an environmental 

impact statement. The purpose of scoping is to identify the significant issues related to a proposed action. 

Scoping also identifies and eliminates from detailed study those issues that are not significant or have 

been covered by a prior environmental review. Having a defined scope 

for the environmental review allows the NRC to concentrate on the 

essential issues of actions being considered rather than on issues that 

may have been or are being evaluated in different regulatory review 

processes, such as a safety review. 

4.3.2 Why are safety issues outside the scope of the 

environmental review? 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process focuses on 

environmental impacts rather than on issues related to the safety of an 

operation. Safety issues become important to the environmental review 

when they could result in environmental impacts, which is why the 

environmental effects of postulated accidents are considered in the 

site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement 

on license renewal (SEIS). Because the NEPA regulations do not 

include a safety review, the NRC has codified the regulations for 

conducting an environmental impact statement separate from the 

regulations for reviewing safety issues during license renewal. The 

regulations governing the environmental review are in 10 CFR Part 51 

and the regulations covering the safety review are in 10 CFR Part 54. 

For this reason, the license renewal process includes an environmental 

The scope consists of 

the range of actions, 

alternatives, and 

impacts to be 

considered in an 

environmental impact 

statement. 

The National 

Environmental Policy 

Act process focuses on 

environmental impacts 

rather than on issues 

related to the safety of 

an operation. Safety 

issues become 

important to the 

environmental review 

when they could result 

in environmental 

impacts. As a result, 

the environmental 

effects of postulated 

accidents are 

considered in the site 

specific supplement. 
March 2006 4-29 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

review that is distinct and separate from the safety review. Because the two reviews are separate, 

operational safety issues and safety issues related to aging are considered outside the scope for the 

environmental review, just as the environmental issues are not considered as part of the safety review. 

However, safety issues that are raised during the environmental review are forwarded to the appropriate 

NRC organization for consideration and appropriate action. 

4.3.3 Accidents can cause environmental impacts, so does the environmental review consider 

accidents? 

The environmental review does take into account the environmental effects of postulated plant accidents 

that might occur during the license renewal term. It also includes a review of the alternatives to mitigate 

severe accidents if this has not previously been evaluated for the applicant’s plant (see Section 4.4). The 

purpose of this consideration is to ensure that plant changes (i.e., hardware, procedures, and training) with 

the potential for improving severe accident safety performance are identified, evaluated, and, if 

appropriate, implemented. As a result, the impacts of accidents are considered within the scope of the 

environmental review for license renewal. 

4.3.4 Why are security issues outside the scope of the 

environmental review? 

Security issues such as safeguards planning are not tied to a license 

renewal action but are considered to be issues that need to be dealt with 

constantly as a part of the current (and renewed) operating license. 

Security issues are periodically reviewed and updated at every operating 

plant. These reviews continue throughout the period of an operating license, whether the original or 

renewed license. If issues related to security are discovered at a nuclear plant, they are addressed 

immediately, and any necessary changes reviewed and incorporated under the operating license. 

4.3.5 Why are acts of terrorism considered outside the scope of the environmental review? 

The NRC and other Federal agencies have heightened vigilance and implemented initiatives to evaluate 

and respond to possible threats posed by terrorists, including the use of aircraft against commercial 

nuclear power facilities and independent spent fuel storage installations 

(as discussed in the response to Question 4.8.1). Malevolent acts 

remain speculative and beyond the scope of a National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) review. The NRC routinely assesses threats and 

other information provided by other Federal agencies and sources. The 

NRC also ensures that licensees meet appropriate security-level 

requirements. The NRC will continue to focus on prevention of 

terrorist acts for all nuclear facilities and will not focus on site-specific 

evaluations of speculative environmental impacts resulting from 

terrorist acts. While these are legitimate matters of concern, they will 

continue to be addressed through the ongoing regulatory process as a 

current and generic regulatory issue that affects all nuclear facilities 

and many of the activities conducted at nuclear facilities. The issue of security and risk from malevolent 

acts at nuclear power facilities is not unique to facilities that have requested a renewal to their licenses. 

Security issues need to 

be dealt with constantly 

as a part of the current 

(and renewed) 

operating license. 

The NRC will continue 

to focus on prevention 

of terrorist acts 

through the ongoing 

regulatory process as 

a current and generic 

regulatory issue that 

affects all nuclear 

facilities. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-30 March 2006 

4.3.6 Why are emergency preparedness questions outside the scope of the environmental 

review? 

The Commission considered the need for a review of emergency planning issues in the context of license 

renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR Part 54, which included public notice and 

comment. As discussed in the Statement of Consideration for rulemaking (56 FR 64966), the programs 

for emergency preparedness at nuclear power facilities apply to all nuclear power facility licensees and 

require the specified levels of protection from each licensee regardless of plant design, construction, or 

license date. Requirements related to emergency planning are in the regulations at 10 CFR 50.47 and 

Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. These requirements apply to all operating licenses and will continue to 

apply to facilities with renewed licenses. Through its standards and required exercises, the Commission 

reviews existing emergency preparedness plans throughout the life of any facility, keeping up with 

changing demographics and other site-related factors. Therefore, the Commission has determined that 

there is no need for a special review of emergency planning issues in the context of an environmental 

review for license renewal. 

4.3.7 Why is need for power outside the scope of the environmental review? 

The regulatory authority over licensee economics (including the need for power) falls within the 

jurisdiction of the states and to some extent within the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. The proposed rule for license renewal had included a cost-benefit analysis and 

consideration of licensee economics as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. 

However, during the comment period, state, Federal, and licensee representatives expressed concern 

about the use of economic costs and cost-benefit balancing in the proposed rule and the generic 

environmental impact statement for license renewal (GEIS). They noted that President’s Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations interpret NEPA to require only an assessment of the 

cumulative effects of a proposed Federal action on the natural and man-made environment and that the 

determination of the need for generating capacity has always been the states’ responsibility. For this 

reason, the purpose and need for the proposed action (i.e., license renewal) is defined in the GEIS as 

follows: 

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, licensee, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) 

decision-makers. 

10 CFR 51.95(c)(2) states that 

the supplemental environmental impact statement for license renewal is not required to 

include discussion of need for power or the economic costs and economic benefits of the 

proposed action except insofar as such benefits and costs are either essential for a 

determination regarding the inclusion of an alternative in the range of alternatives considered 

or relevant to mitigation. 
March 2006 4-31 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.3.8 How do I get answers to my questions that fall outside the scope of the environmental 

review from the NRC? 

There are three different ways for members of the 

public to receive answers to questions that fall outside 

the scope of the environmental review: 

• Public meetings – Members of the public are 

invited to plant-specific public meetings (see 

response to Question 5.1.3), where NRC staff 

members are available to answer any questions 

related to NRC-regulated activities that members of 

the public may have, including those that are 

outside the scope of the environmental review. 

• NRC website – Answers to many questions that are 

outside the scope of the environmental review are also found on the NRC website, www.nrc.gov. 

The NRC has also developed a number of Frequently Asked Questions documents as well as 

informational brochures and fact-sheets to address issues that are of concern to the public. These 

documents, brochures, and fact sheets are also located on the NRC website. 

• NRC environmental project manager – For plant-specific questions that are outside the scope, 

members of the public could contact the environmental project manager assigned by the NRC for the 

license renewal review for the specific plant. The phone number for each of the NRC environmental 

project managers is given on the NRC website, as well as in Federal Register notices and at the 

public meetings. The NRC environmental project manager can either answer questions or direct 

callers to the appropriate person in the agency for responding to their questions that are outside the 

scope of the review. 

4.4 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) Review 

An analysis of SAMAs is included as part of the environmental review 

of the application for license renewal if it had not been considered 

earlier for the facility. A definition of SAMAs and an explanation of 

why they are included in the environmental review are included in this 

section. In addition, the process used to evaluate SAMAs and the types 

of changes that may occur in the plant as a result of the analysis are 

also discussed. 

4.4.1 What is a Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

(SAMAs) review? 

The SAMAs review is an evaluation of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents. Severe accidents are 

those that could result in substantial damage to the reactor core, whether or not there are serious off-site 

consequences. The NRC staff reviews and evaluates SAMAs to ensure that changes that could improve 

severe accident safety performance are identified and evaluated. Potential improvements could include 

hardware modifications, changes to procedures, and changes to the training program. 

Public Meeting 

Severe accidents are 

those that could result 

in substantial damage 

to the reactor core, 

whether or not there 

are serious off-site 

consequences. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-32 March 2006 

In some cases, SAMAs may have already been evaluated by the 

NRC staff in a previous environmental impact statement (EIS), 

supplement, or environmental assessment (EA) written for a facility 

before the applicant applied for license renewal. In such cases, the 

evaluation does not have to be repeated for that particular facility, 

according to NRC regulations in 10 CFR 51.53. However, if the 

NRC staff has not previously evaluated SAMAs for an applicant’s 

plant in an EIS, a supplement, or an EA, the license renewal 

applicant is required to consider alternatives to mitigate severe accidents as part of the license renewal 

application. 

4.4.2 Why are SAMAs considered part of the environmental review? 

The Commission’s regulations (10 CFR Part 51) require that license renewal applicants consider 

alternatives to mitigate severe accidents if the NRC staff has not previously evaluated severe accident 

mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) for the applicant’s plant in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or 

related supplement or in an environmental assessment. This requirement results, in part, from a court 

decision partially reversing a Commission decision upholding an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

(ASLB) determination that it need not adjudicate a contention alleging that the NRC staff must consider, 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), severe accident mitigation design alternatives in 

an environmental impact statement for an operating license (Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 

719 [3d Cir. 1989]). At the time that this requirement was established, licensees were identifying 

individual plant vulnerabilities and considering cost-beneficial improvements, e.g., in the individual plant 

examination (IPE) and the individual plant examination for external events (IPEEE) programs. The 

Commission believes that it is unlikely that any site-specific consideration of severe accident mitigation 

alternatives for license renewal would identify major plant design changes or modifications proving to be 

cost-beneficial for reducing severe accident frequency or consequences. However, because these 

programs had not yet been completed at all plants, the Commission considered a general conclusion 

regarding severe accident mitigation to be premature, and required a site-specific consideration of 

SAMAs for license renewal for plants lacking previously evaluated SAMAs in an EIS, related 

supplement, or environmental assessment. 

4.4.3 What is the process for the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) review? 

The evaluation of SAMAs is a four-step process, as shown in Figure 4.1. The first step is to characterize 

overall plant risk and the leading contributors to the risk. This typically involves the extensive use of a 

plant-specific probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) study. The PSA identifies the different contributors 

of system failures and human errors that would be required for an accident to progress either to core 

damage or to containment failure. 

The second step is to identify potential improvements that could reduce the risk. Information from the 

PSA, such as dominant accident sequences, equipment failures, and operator actions is used to identify 

plant improvements that would have the greatest impact in reducing risk. Improvements identified in 

other NRC and industry studies, as well as SAMAs analysis for other plants, are also considered in this 

process. 

A Severe Accident 

Mitigation Alternatives 

review is an evaluation of 

alternatives to mitigate 

severe accidents. 
March 2006 4-33 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

Figure 4.1. Generalized Process for Identifying and Evaluating Potential Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

(SAMAs) 

The third step is to quantify the risk-reduction potential and the implementation cost for each of the 

improvements. The risk reduction is typically estimated using a conservative analysis that generally 

overestimates the risk-reduction potential by assuming that the plant improvement is highly effective in 

eliminating the accident sequence that the improvement is intended to address. Implementation costs are 

generally underestimated by neglecting certain cost factors, such as maintenance costs or surveillance 

costs associated with the plant modification. Overestimating the risk-reduction potential and under 

estimating the implementation costs in this step make it more likely that a potentially useful safety 

improvement would be retained for further consideration in the final step. 

The risk-reduction potentials and the implementation cost estimates are used in the final step, which is to 

determine whether implementation of any of the improvements is justified. In determining whether the 

improvement is justified, the NRC staff looks at three factors: whether the improvement is 

cost-beneficial, in other words, whether the estimated benefit is greater than the estimate of the 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-34 March 2006 

implementation cost of the SAMAs; whether the improvement provides a significant reduction in total 

risk, in other words, whether it eliminates a sequence or containment failure mode that contributes to a 

large fraction of plant risk; and whether the risk reduction is associated with aging effects during the 

period of extended operation, which would be an improvement implemented as part of the license renewal 

process. 

4.4.4 What is the outcome of the review? 

The outcome of the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

(SAMAs) analysis is a list of plant improvements that meet 

the criteria of being cost-beneficial, provide a significant 

reduction in total risk, and are associated with aging effects 

during the period of extended operation. 

In some cases, however, the review leads to a determination 

that there are no specific SAMA candidates that are 

cost-beneficial. This may be the case where there is a low 

residual level of risk and where the applicant has, in fact, 

already implemented many plant improvements. In other 

cases, a SAMA that is potentially cost-beneficial may not 

relate to adequately managing the effects of aging during the 

period of extended operation. Such SAMAs need not be 

implemented as part of the license renewal pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54. 

4.4.5 Does the applicant have to implement any identified changes?

The only changes that must be implemented by the applicant as part of 

the license renewal process are those that are identified as being 

cost-beneficial, that provide a significant reduction in total risk, and

that are related to adequately managing the effects of aging during the 

period of extended operation. However, the Severe Accident 

Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) evaluation may identify some plant 

enhancements that appear to be cost-beneficial but that are not related 

to adequately managing the effects of aging during the period of 

extended operation. Such enhancements are considered as current 

operating issues and are further evaluated as changes that might 

appropriately be made under the current operating license rather than as 

a license renewal issue. 

4.4.6 Have any changes been implemented at a plant as a 

result of the Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 

(SAMAs) review?

The SAMAs analyses that have been performed to date have found 

SAMAs that were cost-beneficial, or at least possibly cost-beneficial 

subject to further analysis, in approximately half of the plants. However, none of the SAMAs identified 

related to managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they did not 

The Severe Accident Mitigation 

Alternatives analysis results in 

a list of plant improvements 

that meet the criteria of: 

• being cost beneficial 

• providing a significant 

reduction in total risk, and 

• being associated with aging 

effects during the period of 

extended operation. 

The SAMAs analyses 

that have been 

performed to date have 

found SAMAs that 

were cost beneficial, 

or at least possibly 

cost beneficial subject 

to further analysis, in 

approximately half of 

the plants. None of the 

SAMAs identified 

related to managing 

the effects of aging 

during the period of 

extended operation. 
March 2006 4-35 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

need to be implemented as part of license renewal, pursuant to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 54. In 

general, the cost-beneficial SAMAs were identified for further evaluation by the licensee under the 

current operating license. In several cases, the applicant has decided to implement the modifications even 

though they were not related to license renewal. 

4.5 Storage and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Although the storage and disposal of high-level waste are not within the scope of environmental issues 

pertaining to license renewal, questions about these topics are asked frequently during public meetings 

and other opportunities for public comment. In the interest of providing a full picture of the issues 

associated with nuclear power facilities, this section provides information about the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act and the status of Yucca Mountain as a repository for spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors and 

the storage of spent fuel at nuclear power facilities. 

4.5.1 What is the Nuclear Waste Policy Act?

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act establishes the Federal government’s responsibility to provide a place for 

the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel and the generators’ 

(commercial nuclear power facilities’) responsibility to bear the costs of permanent disposal. The Act 

authorizes and requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to locate and build a permanent repository 

and an interim storage facility and develop a transportation system to safely link nuclear plants to the 

repository and interim storage facility. The Act was signed into law by President Reagan on January 7, 

1983. The Act obligated DOE to begin disposal of high-level radioactive waste from commercial nuclear 

facilities by January 31, 1998. To date, an application for licensing these facilities has not been submitted 

to the NRC. 

4.5.2 What is the status of Yucca 

Mountain? 

For over two decades, research has been 

conducted to determine whether a site near 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is suitable for 

safely isolating highly radioactive nuclear 

waste. Four major steps – site 

characterization, site approval, licensing 

review, and construction – have to be 

completed before operation of the 

proposed high-level waste repository could 

occur. The first step, site characterization, 

including excavation of exploratory 

tunnels and testing of groundwater, has 

been completed. The result of the 

characterization study was documented by 

the development of an environmental 

impact statement (EIS). A draft EIS was Yucca Mountain, Nevada 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-36 March 2006 

published in 1999 and a supplemental EIS in 2001. The final EIS was published along with a site 

recommendation in 2002. 

The second step is site approval. Following publication of the final EIS and the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s (DOE’s) determination that the site is scientifically suitable for a geologic repository, President 

Bush recommended the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, site for development as a geologic repository. On 

July 9, 2002, the U.S. Congress approved this recommendation in Joint Resolution 87, which designated 

Yucca Mountain as the repository for spent nuclear waste. On July 23, 2002, the President signed 

Joint Resolution 87 into law (Public Law 107-200, 116 Stat. 735 [2002]). 

The DOE is currently (early-2006) focused on the third major step of 

the process. The DOE is preparing an application to obtain a license 

from the NRC to construct a repository. The NRC is responsible for 

developing the regulations to implement the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) safety standards and for licensing the 

repository. After the DOE submits the license application to the NRC, 

the NRC has three years to review the application and could request a 

fourth year from Congress, if needed, to make its determination on 

licensing. 

If licensed, the final step is construction and operation of the facility. The construction process would be 

conducted by the DOE, which has the responsibility for developing a permanent disposal facility for spent 

fuel and other high-level waste and which would operate the facility. 

4.5.3 If the repository is not yet completed, where is the spent 

nuclear fuel currently being stored?

Every 1 to 2 years, approximately one-third of the nuclear fuel in an 

operating reactor needs to be unloaded and replaced with new fuel. 

The used fuel is commonly called “spent nuclear fuel.” Nuclear power 

facilities have temporary storage for spent fuel in steel-lined concrete 

pools that are filled with water (spent fuel pools). The water acts as a 

natural barrier for radiation from the fuel assemblies and keeps the fuel 

thermally cool while it decays and becomes less radioactive. Because 

the designers of the nuclear power facilities originally anticipated that 

the spent fuel would be reprocessed (see response to Question 4.5.9), 

they designed the nuclear facilities to store about a decade’s worth of 

used fuel. However, at this time commercial reprocessing is not being 

pursued. 

If the storage capacity of the spent fuel pool is approached, then 

licensees may consider alternatives, such as above-ground dry storage 

casks. In dry storage casks, spent fuel is surrounded by inert gas inside 

a sealed metal cylinder that is enclosed within a metal or concrete outer shell. Depending on the design of 

the casks, they are either placed horizontally or vertically on a concrete pad. The pad, casks, and 

associated security infrastructure are called an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI). The 

NRC approves the design of the casks after conducting a technical review to ensure that the casks are safe 

A nuclear fuel pellet 

the size of the tip of 

your little finger is 

equivalent to the 

energy provided by 

1780 pounds of coal 

or 149 gallons of oil. 

Approximately 40,000 

metric tons of used fuel 

has been produced to 

date by the U.S. 

nuclear energy industry 

during more than 

40 years of operation. 

If all the fuel 

assemblies were 

stacked side by side 

and laid end to end 

they would cover an 

area the size of a 

football field to a depth 

of about five yards. 
March 2006 4-37 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

and secure for use at nuclear power facilities. The NRC has approved 14 cask designs for use. By the 

beginning of 2006, there were ISFSIs at: 

• 28 nuclear power reactor sites 

• 8 decommissioned or decommissioning nuclear power reactor sites 

• two storage facilities operated by the DOE at the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering 

Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho 

• one ISFSI at the General Electric Morris facility in Illinois. 

Another option for storage of fuel is in an away-from-reactor interim storage facility. Private Fuel 

Storage, LLC (PFS), has submitted a request to the NRC for a license to build such a privately owned 

facility on the reservation of the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, about 80 kilometers (50 miles) 

southwest of Salt Lake City, Utah. On February 24, 2005, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

(ASLB) completed its review of the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility and ruled in favor of the 

PFS. The Commission upheld the ASLB decision in a Memorandum and Order dated September 9, 2005, 

and authorized the NRC staff to issue a license to construct and operate the PFS facility. 

4.5.4 What will happen if Yucca Mountain is never finished or approved for storing nuclear 

waste? 

The NRC’s Waste Confidence Rule, found in 10 CFR 51.23, states that “the Commission has made a 

generic determination that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and 

without significant environmental impacts for at least 30 years beyond the licensed life for operation 

(which may include the term of a revised or renewed license) of that reactor at its spent fuel storage basin 

or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations. Further, the Commission 

believes there is reasonable assurance that at least one mined geologic repository will be available within 

the first quarter of the twenty-first century, and sufficient repository capacity will be available within 

30 years beyond the licensed life for operation of any reactor to dispose of the commercial high-level 

waste and spent fuel originating in such reactor and generated up to that time.” 

The staff is confident that there will eventually be a licensed high-level waste repository. If the site near 

Yucca Mountain is eventually found to be unsuitable, alternative sites will be considered. Until a 

permanent high-level waste repository is operational, the spent nuclear fuel will be safely stored either 

onsite or at offsite interim storage facilities. 

4.5.5 Who is paying for the storage of spent fuel now and who will pay for the transportation to 

and storage of spent fuel at Yucca Mountain?

The storage of spent fuel onsite (either in a spent fuel pool or an independent spent fuel storage 

installation [ISFSI]) is paid for by the licensee and ultimately by electricity consumers. The 

transportation and disposal of spent fuel at a centralized repository (such as Yucca Mountain) is also 

funded by electricity consumers. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act established the Nuclear Waste Fund as a 

means to pay for a permanent repository, an interim storage facility (if needed), and the transportation of 

used fuel. Since 1982, electricity consumers have paid into the fund a fee of one-tenth of one cent for 

every nuclear-generated kilowatt-hour of electricity consumed. By the end of the twentieth century, 

customer payments plus interest totaled more than $16 billion. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-38 March 2006 

4.5.6 How is an onsite storage facility licensed?

 Onsite storage facilities are licensed separately from 

the reactor license renewal process. The NRC 

authorizes storage of spent nuclear fuel at an 

independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) 

under two licensing options: a site-specific license or a 

general license. 

Under a site-specific license, an applicant submits a 

license application to NRC and the NRC performs a 

technical review of all the safety aspects of the 

proposed ISFSI. If the application is approved, the 

NRC issues a site-specific license that is valid for 20 years. The spent fuel storage license contains 

technical requirements and operating conditions (fuel specifications, cask leak testing, surveillance, and 

other requirements) and specifies what the licensee is authorized to store at the site. The site-specific 

license is a stand alone license, independent of the NRC license issued to possess and operate a nuclear 

power facility. 

A general license authorizes a nuclear power 

plant licensee to store spent fuel in 

NRC-approved casks at an existing site that is 

licensed for operating of a power reactor under 

10 CFR Part 50. An NRC-approved cask is one 

that has undergone a technical review of its 

safety aspects and been found to meet all of the 

NRC’s requirements in 10 CFR Part 72. The 

NRC issues a Certificate of Compliance for a 

cask design to a cask vendor after a rulemaking 

determines its technical adequacy. The cask 

certificate expires 20 years from the date of 

issuance. Licensees are required to perform 

evaluations of their sites to demonstrate that the site is adequate for storing spent fuel in dry casks. These 

evaluations must show that the cask Certificate of Compliance conditions and technical specifications can 

be met. The licensee must also review its security program, emergency plan, quality assurance program, 

training program, and radiation protection program, and make any necessary changes to incorporate the 

ISFSI at its reactor site. 

4.5.7 Is the security of the nuclear waste stored onsite being reviewed? 

Although it is very unlikely that any substantial radiological release would occur from a terrorist attack on 

a spent fuel pool or dry cask storage facility, the NRC is conducting a comprehensive evaluation, which 

includes consideration of potential consequences of terrorist attacks. Assessing the precise amount of 

contamination resulting from a release depends on many factors, such as type and amount of damage to 

the pool or dry cask storage facility, location of the damage, proximity of the storage facility to populated 

areas, and meteorological conditions at the time of the event. As part of this evaluation, the agency will 

consider the need for additional requirements to enhance licensee security and public safety. 

High-level Waste Shipment 

Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation 
March 2006 4-39 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.5.8 Are onsite storage facilities secure from terrorist attacks? 

The NRC considers spent fuel storage facilities to be robust; in the event of a terrorist attack similar to 

those of September 11, 2001, it is unlikely that any substantial radiological release would occur. Unlike 

the structures that were destroyed on September 11, 2001, spent fuel pools and dry storage casks are not 

constructed of flammable material that would fuel long-duration fires. If an attack were to occur, 

licensees have approved emergency plans, tested biennially, that coordinate local, state, and Federal 

government responses. The NRC believes that the health and safety of the public are well protected. 

4.5.9 What is the policy of the United States concerning reprocessing?

Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel involves the chemical treatment of the fuel to separate unused uranium 

and plutonium from radioactive fission products. Spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed and some 

recovered plutonium can be used in new fuel assemblies. When most U. S. nuclear plants were built, the 

industry, with the Federal government’s encouragement, planned to recycle or reprocess used nuclear 

fuel. In 1979, a decision was made by President Carter to ban commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing 

because of concerns about possible proliferation of weapons-grade material. President Regan lifted the 

reprocessing ban in 1981, however there was little or no interest in pursuing reprocessing by the nuclear 

industry. In early 2006 the U.S. DOE announced a new initiative called the Global Nuclear Energy 

Partnership which envisions the development and deployment of a closed fuel cycle that enables the 

recycling and consumption of long lived radioactive waste. Such a program would require the 

reprocessing of spent fuel. Reprocessing of spent fuel does occur in other countries. 

4.6 Human Health Issues 

The most commonly asked questions relating to human health issues include the potential for radiation 

exposure to the public and the potential for adverse effects from such exposure. This section responds to 

commonly asked questions regarding radiation exposure and its effect on human health. 

4.6.1 What is radiation and where does it come from? 

Radiation is naturally present in our environment and has been since the planet was formed. Radiation is 

a form of invisible energy waves or particles. It is emitted from 

unstable atoms as they change to become more stable. Such atoms are 

termed “radioactive” and materials containing significant amounts of 

radioactive atoms are called “radioactive material.” Life has evolved in 

an environment that has significant levels of ionizing radiation. It 

comes from outer space (cosmic), the ground (terrestrial), and even 

from within our own bodies. It is present in the air we breathe, the food 

we eat, the water we drink, and the construction materials we use to 

build our homes. Certain foods such as bananas and brazil nuts naturally contain higher levels of 

radioactive material than other foods. Brick and stone homes have higher natural radiation levels than 

homes made of other building materials such as wood. 

During the late nineteenth century, scientists discovered natural radioactive elements. In the early 

twentieth century, scientists were able to create radioactive elements from stable elements. In 1942, 

scientists were able to split atoms deliberately, which released the energy that was in the nucleus and 

Radiation is a form of 

invisible energy waves 

or particles. It is 

emitted from unstable 

atoms as they change 

to become more stable.
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-40 March 2006 

created unstable atoms in the process. Although there are different types of energy and particles emitted 

from different types of radioactive material, there is no difference between natural and man-made 

radiation. 

Radiation dose is measured in a unit called a rem, which is based on the effect of radiation on the human 

body. It takes into account both the amount of radiation deposited in body tissues and the type of 

radiation. Radiation dose is often measured in millirem, or one-thousandth of a rem. In the International 

System of units (SI units) the unit of dose is the sievert (Sv), which is equivalent to 100 rems. The 

average person in the United States receives about 360 millirems of radiation a year (3.6 mSv per year). 

About 300 millirems (3 mSv) are from natural sources and 60 millirems (0.6 mSv) are from human-made 

sources. 

Table 4.1 illustrates the dose that an average person receives annually (the annual effective dose 

equivalent), the sources of radiation, and the fractions of radiation exposure from various sources. 

Approximately 82 percent of our total exposure to radiation comes from natural sources, including radon 

gas (approximately 55 percent of our exposure to natural sources), the sun and outer space (8 percent), the 

earth’s soil and rocks (8 percent), and the human body itself (11 percent). The remaining 18 percent of 

our total radiation exposure comes from human-made or artificial sources, primarily medical and dental 

x-rays and consumer products. The nuclear fuel cycle is responsible for less than 3/100ths of 1 percent of 

the total annual radiation dose to the average person (based on the calculated dose from all facets of the 

nuclear power cycle divided by the population of the United States). 

Table 4.1. Annual Radiation Dose to an Average Individual (Annual Effective Dose Equivalent) 

Source Dose (mrem/yr)(a) Percent of Total 

Natural 

 Radon 200 55 

 Cosmic rays 27 8 

 Terrestrial (soil and rocks) 28 8 

 Internal (body) 39 11 

 Total Natural 300 82 

Human-made 

 Medical x-ray 39 11 

 Nuclear medicine 14 4 

 Consumer products(b) 10 3 

 Occupational(c) 0.9 <0.3 

 Nuclear fuel cycle <1 <0.03 

 Fallout <1 <0.03 

 Miscellaneous <1 <0.03 

 Total human-made 63 18 

Total Natural and Human-made 363 100 

Source: Adapted from NCRP Report 93, “Public Radiation Exposure from Nuclear Power Generation in the United States,” as 

abstracted by the University of Michigan (http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/) 

(a) 1 mrem is equal to 0.01 millisieverts. 

(b) Such as radon in domestic water supplies, building materials, mining, and agricultural products, and tobacco. 

(c) Individual employed in occupations that utilize radioactive materials or sources of radioactivity such as nuclear medicine,

manufacturing, and power production.
March 2006 4-41 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.6.2 Is radiation harmful? 

Health effects from exposure to radiation range from no effect at all to death and can be responsible for 

inducing diseases such as leukemia, breast cancer, and lung cancer. Very high (hundreds of times higher 

than a rem), short-term doses of radiation have been known to cause 

prompt (or early, also called acute) effects, such as vomiting and 

diarrhea, skin burns, cataracts, and even death. 

When radiation interacts within the cells of our bodies, several events 

can occur. First, the damaged cells can repair themselves and 

permanent damage does not result; this is the most common outcome 

for x-rays, gamma radiation, and beta radiation. Second, the cells may 

die, much like large numbers of cells do every day in our bodies, and 

dead cells may be replaced through normal biological processes. Third, 

the cells may either incorrectly repair themselves, resulting in a change 

in the cells’ genetic structure that can mutate and subsequently be 

repaired without any effect, or can sometimes form pre-cancerous cells 

that may become cancerous. Radiation is only one of many agents with 

the potential for causing cancer, and cancer caused by radiation cannot be distinguished from cancer 

attributed to other causes, such as chemical carcinogens. 

The associations between radiation exposure and the development of cancer are mostly based on studies 

of populations exposed to relatively high levels of ionizing radiation (for instance, the Japanese atomic 

bomb survivors and the recipients of selected diagnostic or therapeutic medical procedures). Although 

radiation can cause cancers at high doses and high dose rates, currently there are no data to unequivocally 

establish the occurrence of cancer following exposures to low doses and 

dose rates below about 10 rems (10,000 millirems [0.1 sieverts]). For 

example, people living in areas of the country that receive greater levels 

of background radiation (such as Denver, Colorado) do not show higher 

rates of cancer. 

The chances of getting cancer from a low dose of radiation is not 

known precisely because the few effects that may occur cannot be 

distinguished from normally occurring cancers. The normal chance of 

dying from cancer is about one in five. The actual amount of radiation 

any member of the public receives from activities occurring at nuclear power facilities is so small that 

scientists have been unable to make empirically based estimates of radiation risk from such low levels of 

exposure with any precision. 

There are many difficulties involved in designing research studies that can accurately measure the 

projected small increases in cancer cases that might be caused by low exposures to radiation when 

compared to the normal rate of cancer. The best that scientists can do is to make an unsubstantiated 

assumption that any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer or having some 

hereditary effect and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. This is called a linear, 

no-threshold dose response model and is used to describe the relationship between radiation dose and the 

occurrence of cancer. It is known that this model errs on the side of overestimating radiation risks. This 

model suggests that any increase in dose above background levels, no matter how small, results in an 

Radiation is only one 

of many agents with 

the potential for 

causing cancer, and 

cancer caused by 

radiation cannot be 

distinguished from 

cancer attributed to 

other causes, such as 

chemical carcinogens.

People living in areas of 

the country that receive 

greater levels of 

background radiation 

(such as Denver, 

Colorado) do not show 

higher rates of cancer. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-42 March 2006 

incremental increase in risk above existing levels of risk. Although the NRC has accepted this hypothesis 

as a conservative (i.e., cautious) model for determining radiation standards, the NRC, like other 

authoritative bodies, recognizes that this model probably overestimates 

radiation risk. 

4.6.3 How much radiation is released from a nuclear power 

facility? 

The NRC has established strict limits on the amount of radioactive 

releases to the environment allowed from nuclear power facilities and 

the resulting exposure for members of the public. These requirements 

are given in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2 

(http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-ap

pb.html). Whereas contaminants may be present and detectable offsite, 

the release limits have been designed and proven to be protective of the 

health and safety of the public (including sensitive populations) and the 

environment. 

The NRC sets limits on radiological effluents, requires monitoring of 

effluents and foodstuffs to ensure that those limits are met, and has set dose limits to regulate the release 

of radioactive material from nuclear power facilities. All reactor licensees monitor their effluents and 

calculate offsite doses caused by radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents and direct radiation. These 

calculations are performed to demonstrate the licensee’s compliance with its technical specifications and 

NRC regulations. Requirements for redundance in monitoring as well as the monitoring of various 

pathways that could result in the release of radiation to the environment ensure that unmonitored and 

unplanned releases are avoided. The licensee’s Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) provides for 

collection and analysis of a variety of samples such as soil, water, plants, and animals. Actual 

measurements are made of the liquid and airborne releases from the facility, and they are verified by the 

monitoring program described in the ODCM. As a result of these criteria, the average person (not 

including a radiation worker employed at the facility) living within 80 

kilometers (50 miles) of a nuclear power facility receives less than 1 

millirem per year (0.01 millisieverts per year) of radiation dose from the 

nuclear power facility. This is compared to the approximately 300 

millirems per year (3 millisieverts per year) received from natural 

sources and 60 millirems per year (0.6 millisieverts per year) from 

human-made sources, as discussed in the response to Question 4.6.1. 

This dose can also be compared to the radiation received from the 

earth’s crust, which ranges from 23 millirems per year (0.23 

millisieverts per year) along the Atlantic Coast to 90 millirems per year (0.9 millisieverts per year) on the 

Colorado Plateau. Other sources of radiation that are common in our lives include airline flights, which 

give about 1 millirem (0.01 millisieverts) of radiation dose per 1,600 kilometers (1,000 miles) flown. A 

round-trip cross-country airplane trip would give a dose of about 5 millirems (0.05 millisieverts). The 

dose from watching television is about 1-2 millirem (0.01-0.02 millisieverts) per year, and from a single 

medical x-ray is about 40 millirems (0.4 millisieverts). 

The NRC sets limits 

on radiological 

effluents, requires 

monitoring of effluents 

and foodstuffs to 

ensure that those 

limits are met, and has 

set dose limits to 

regulate the release of 

radioactive material 

from nuclear power 

facilities. 

An NCI study concluded 

that there is “no 

evidence that an excess 

occurrence of cancer 

has resulted from living 

near nuclear facilities.” 
March 2006 4-43 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.6.4 Does radiation from nuclear power facilities cause cancer? 

The average annual dose to a member of the public from a nuclear power facility is in the range of less 

than 1/1000th rem (1 millirem) per year (0.01 millisieverts per year). This is compared to the 10 rems 

(10,000 millirems [100 millisieverts]) discussed in the response to 

Question 4.6.2. At doses above 10 rem (0.1 Sv) a relationship between 

radiation and health effects can be observed. There are no data to 

unequivocally establish the occurrence of health effects or cancer 

following exposures to low doses and dose rates below 10 rem (0.1 Sv). 

Although there is a statistical chance that radiation levels that small 

could result in a cancer, it has not been possible to calculate with any 

certainty the probability of receiving cancer from a dose this small. 

Because many agents cause cancer, it is often not possible to say 

conclusively whether it is a radiation-induced cancer or not. 

At the request of Congress, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) 

published a study in 1991, “Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear 

Facilities,” which looked at cancer mortality rates around 52 nuclear 

power facilities, 9 U.S. Department of Energy facilities, and 1 former 

commercial fuel reprocessing facility. The NCI study concluded that 

there is “no evidence that an excess occurrence of cancer has resulted 

from living near nuclear facilities.” Additionally, the American Cancer 

Society has concluded that although reports about cancer case clusters in such communities have raised 

public concern, studies show that clusters do not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do 

elsewhere in the population. 

4.6.5 I have read reports stating that there are excess cases of a specific type of cancer in the 

vicinity of a specific nuclear facility. Doesn’t that mean that radiation from nuclear power 

facilities causes cancer? 

Authors of various reports have stated or implied that there are cause-and-effect relationships in the 

statistical associations between cancer rates and reactor operations. While it is true that cancer rates vary 

among locations, it is very difficult to ascribe the cause of a cluster of cancers to some local 

environmental exposure, such as radiation from a nuclear power facility. Statistical association alone 

does not demonstrate causation, and well-established scientific methods must be used to determine that 

for two things that appear to be associated over time, it can be concluded that one causes the other. For 

example, a person could say, “In the winter I wear boots, and in the winter I get colds.” While there is a 

strong statistical association between wearing boots and getting colds, it would be inappropriate to say 

that wearing boots causes colds. 

The scientific community adheres to several principles of good science that need to be employed before a 

cause-and-effect claim can be made. These principles include whether the study can be replicated, 

whether it has considered all the data or was selective (e.g., in the population or in the years studied), 

whether it evaluated all possible explanations for the observations, whether the data were valid and 

reliable, and whether its conclusions were subjected to independent peer review, evaluation, and 

confirmation. 

The American Cancer 

Society has concluded 

that although reports 

about cancer case 

clusters in such 

communities have 

raised public concern, 

studies show that 

clusters do not occur 

more often near 

nuclear plants than 

they do elsewhere in 

the population. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-44 March 2006 

A number of studies that conformed to these principles have been performed to examine the health effects 

around nuclear power facilities: 

• National Cancer Institute – In 1990, at the request of Congress, the National Cancer Institute 

conducted a study of cancer mortality rates around 52 nuclear power plants and 10 other nuclear 

facilities. The study covered the period from 1950 to 1984 and evaluated the change in mortality 

rates before and during facility operations. The study concluded there was no evidence that nuclear 

facilities may be linked causally with excess deaths from leukemia or from other cancers in 

populations living nearby. 

• University of Pittsburgh – Investigators from the University of Pittsburgh found no link between 

radiation released during the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear station and cancer deaths 

among nearby residents. Their study followed for a period of 20 years over 32,000 people who lived 

within 8 kilometers (5 miles) of the facility at the time of the accident. 

• Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering – In January 2001, the Connecticut Academy of 

Sciences and Engineering issued a report on a study around the Haddam Neck nuclear power plant in 

Connecticut and concluded that exposures to radionuclides were so low as to be negligible and found 

no meaningful associations to the cancers studied. 

• American Cancer Society – In 2004, the American Cancer Society concluded that although reports 

about cancer clusters in some communities have raised public concern, studies show that clusters do 

not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do by chance elsewhere in the population. 

Likewise, there is no evidence that links the isotope strontium-90 with increases in breast cancer, 

prostate cancer, or childhood cancer rates. Radiation emissions from nuclear power plants are closely 

controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for nearby communities. 

• Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology – In 2001, the Florida Bureau of Environmental 

Epidemiology reviewed claims that there are striking increases in cancer rates in southeastern Florida 

counties caused by increased radiation exposures from nuclear power plants. However, using the 

same data to reconstruct the calculations on which the claims were based, Florida officials were not 

able to identify unusually high rates of cancers in these counties compared with the rest of the state of 

Florida and the nation. 

• Illinois Public Health Department – In 2000, the Illinois Public Health Department compared 

childhood cancer statistics for counties with nuclear power plants to similar counties without nuclear 

plants and found no statistically significant difference. 

In summary, there are no studies to date that are accepted by 

the scientific community that show a correlation between 

radiation dose from nuclear power facilities and cancer 

incidence in the general public. The amount of radioactive 

material released from nuclear power facilities is well 

measured, well monitored, and known to be very small. The 

doses of radiation that are received by members of the public 

as a result of exposure to nuclear power facilities are so low 

that resulting cancers have not been observed and would not 

be expected. 

Field Radiation Measurements 
March 2006 4-45 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.6.6 How are radiation and releases of 

radioactive material regulated and 

monitored at nuclear power 

facilities? 

NRC regulations require licensees to control 

and limit releases to the environment (the air 

and water) to very small amounts. As part of 

NRC requirements for operating a nuclear 

power facility, licensees must keep releases of 

radioactive material to unrestricted areas 

during normal operation as low as reasonably 

achievable (as described in the NRC’s 

regulations in 10 CFR Part 50.36a) and comply 

with radiation dose limits for the public as 

given in the regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. 

In addition, NRC regulations require licensees to maintain various effluent and environmental monitoring 

programs so that the impacts from plant operations are minimized and the extent of releases are accurately 

recorded and reported. 

The control of releases is accomplished by barriers. One method used to control the release of radioactive 

material to the environment is to keep contaminated areas of the plant under negative pressure so that air 

leaks into the building, rather than out. In addition, exhaust pathways out of the building may be filtered 

to prevent the movement of radionuclides into the environment. Exhaust pathways are monitored so that 

there is a proper characterization of material that may be leaving the plant. Workers in contaminated 

areas are also monitored, along with any tools or equipment that is moved from the building, in order to 

prevent the spread of radioactive material. 

The NRC requires licensees to report plant discharges and results of environmental monitoring around 

their plants to ensure that potential impacts are detected and reviewed. Licensees must also participate in 

an interlaboratory comparison program, which provides an independent check of the accuracy and 

precision of environmental measurements. 

Licensees are required to keep accurate records on releases to the air 

and water. In annual reports, licensees identify the amount of liquid 

and airborne radioactive effluents discharged from plants and calculate 

associated doses. Licensees also must report environmental 

radioactivity levels around their plants annually. These reports, which 

are available to the public, include sampling from thermoluminescent 

dosimeters (which measure radiation dose levels); airborne radioiodine 

and particulate samplers; samples of surface, groundwater, and 

drinking water and downstream shoreline sediment from existing or 

potential recreational facilities; and samples of ingestion sources such 

as milk, fish, invertebrates, and broad-leaf vegetation. 

Wildlife Refuge 

The NRC conducts 

periodic onsite 

inspections of each 

licensee’s effluent and 

environmental 

monitoring programs 

to ensure compliance 

with NRC 

requirements. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-46 March 2006 

The NRC conducts periodic onsite inspections of each licensee’s effluent and environmental monitoring 

programs to ensure compliance with NRC requirements. The NRC documents licensee effluent releases 

and the results of their environmental monitoring and assessment effort in inspection reports that are 

available to the public. 

Over the past 25 years, radioactive effluents released from nuclear power facilities have decreased 

significantly. During the early part of that period, a significant contributor to the reduction was the 

addition of special systems (called augmented offgas systems) to boiling water reactors, which process 

some of the noncondensible gases formed in the reactor process to limit the radioactive gases released to 

the environment. In recent years, improved fuel performance and licensees’ improved effluent control 

programs further contributed to reducing radioactive effluents. 

4.6.7 Will radiation dose rates to the public increase during the 

license renewal period? 

NRC regulations contain criteria and requirements for nuclear power 

plant licensing that ensure an acceptable level of plant safety, i.e., an 

acceptably low level of risk to public health and safety. The regulations 

are based on sound engineering precepts that are judged to be acceptable 

for safe plant design and operation. Dose levels to the public during the 

license renewal period are not expected to increase from those during the initial licensing period. No 

aging phenomenon has been identified that is expected to increase public radiation doses. Data obtained 

from measurements near nuclear power facilities suggests that, if anything, radiation doses to the public 

related to commercial nuclear power operation are decreasing. 

4.6.8 What are the radiological health implications of extending 

the license for a reactor for 20 years? 

According to 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, “the 

100 year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from 

the fuel cycle, high level waste and spent fuel disposal excepted, is 

calculated to be about 14,800 person-rem (148 person-sieverts) or 12 

cancer fatalities, for each additional 20 year power reactor operating 

term.” 

This calculated value of 12 additional deaths from fatal cancer over the 

20 years of additional operation of a nuclear power plant is based on 

several very conservative assumptions. This calculated value does not represent real expected deaths. 

Realistically, no deaths are expected. At the low radiation doses from nuclear power plant operation, it is 

highly unlikely that any deaths will occur as a result of 20 years of additional operation of a nuclear 

power reactor. 

These calculations use the concept of collective dose, which estimates the effects of radiation dose across 

a very large population. It assumes that a small amount of radiation dose spread out among a large 

population would yield effects similar to a larger amount of radiation dose to a much smaller population. 

This is intentionally a very conservative assumption, i.e., it estimates a dose greater than what could be 

reasonably expected of actual situations. According to the Health Physics Society (www.hps.org), 

Dose levels to the 

public during the 

license renewal period 

are not expected to 

increase from those 

during the initial 

licensing period. 

At the low radiation 

doses from nuclear 

power plant 

operation, it is highly 

unlikely that any 

deaths will occur as a 

result of 20 years of 

additional operation 

of a nuclear power 

reactor. 
March 2006 4-47 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

“[b]elow the dose of ten rem, estimations of adverse health effect is speculative. Collective dose remains 

a useful index for quantifying dose in large populations and in comparing the magnitude of exposure from 

different radiation sources. However, for a population in which all individuals receive lifetime doses of 

less than 10 rem above background, collective dose is a highly speculative and uncertain measure of risk 

and should not be quantified for the purposes of estimating population health risks.” 

The cancer risk factors used in this calculation are also quite conservative. They are from the 

1990 BEIR-V report of the National Research Council’s Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing 

Radiation, Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. In this report, it is estimated 

that “if 100,000 persons of all ages received a whole body dose of 0.1 gray (10 rad) of gamma radiation in 

a single brief exposure, about 800 extra cancer deaths would be expected to occur during their remaining 

lifetimes in addition to the nearly 20,000 cancer deaths that would occur in the absence of radiation. 

Because the extra cancer deaths would be indistinguishable from those that occurred naturally, even to 

obtain a measure of how many extra deaths occurred is a difficult statistical estimation problem.” 

A recent report by the National Research Council (2009), BEIR VII Phase II, “Health Risks from 

Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation” supports the linear, no-threshold dose risk model which 

suggests that the risk of cancer proceeds in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the 

smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation 40 CFR 190 limits doses to individuals in the 

public to 25 millirems (0.25 millisieverts) per year to the whole body. No one living near a nuclear power 

plant in the United States receives a dose above this limit, and very few receive a dose above 1 millirem 

per year (0.01 millisieverts per year), one-thousand times less than 1 rem (0.01 sieverts) and ten-thousand 

times less than the 10-rad (0.1 sieverts) value (1 rem is approximately equal to 1 rad [0.01 gray] for 

radiation from nuclear power reactors) used in the BEIR-V calculation. 

The total radiation dose contribution to the population from current 

nuclear power plants is estimated to be 4.8 person-rem 

(0.048 person-sieverts) per year, while the contribution to the 

population from the complete uranium fuel cycle is 136 person-rem 

(1.36 person-sieverts) per year. The dose to an individual is only a 

very small fraction of these population doses. 

4.6.9 Have there been studies showing an increase in 

strontium-90 radiation levels in baby teeth and 

corresponding cancer incidence as a result of releases 

of radioactive material from nuclear power plants? 

In 2000, a report entitled Strontium-90 in Deciduous Teeth as a 

Factor in Early Childhood Cancer was published by the Radiation 

and Public Health Project. The report alleges that there has been an 

increase in cancer incidence due to strontium-90 released from nuclear power facilities. Elevated levels 

of strontium-90 in deciduous (baby) teeth was claimed in the report as the evidence for the increase in 

childhood cancer. 

The total annual release 

of strontium 90 into the 

atmosphere from all U.S. 

nuclear power plants is 

typically 1/1,000th of 1 

curie, which is so low 

that the only chance of 

detecting strontium 90 is 

sampling the nuclear 

power plant effluents 

themselves. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-48 March 2006 

There are three sources of strontium-90 in the environment: fallout 

from nuclear weapons testing, releases from the Chernobyl accident in 

the Ukraine, and releases from nuclear power reactors. The largest 

source of strontium-90 is from weapons testing fallout as a result of 

above-ground explosions of nuclear weapons (approximately 16.9 

million curies of strontium-90). The Chernobyl accident released 

216,000 curies of strontium-90. 

The total annual release of strontium-90 into the atmosphere from all 

U.S. nuclear power plants is typically 1/1,000th of 1 curie, which is so 

low that the only chance of detecting strontium-90 is sampling the 

nuclear power plant effluents themselves. The NRC regulatory limits 

from effluent releases and subsequent doses to the public are based on 

the radiation protection recommendations of international and national 

organizations such as the International Commission on Radiological 

Protection (ICRP) and the NCRP. Gaseous effluent releases are 

monitored at nuclear power facilities, and the results of monitoring 

performed by the licensees are reported annually to the NRC. The 

effluent release program and the licensee’s monitoring programs are reviewed during the environmental 

review of license renewal. 

In a report published in 2001, the American Cancer Society concluded that although reports about cancer 

case clusters in communities surrounding nuclear power plants have raised public concern, studies show 

that clusters do not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do by chance elsewhere in the 

population. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) has found no 

statistically significant excess of biological effects due to strontium-90 exposures at levels characteristic 

of worldwide fallout, which is the greatest source of strontium-90 in the environment. Likewise, there is 

no new evidence that links strontium-90 with increases in breast cancer, prostate cancer, or childhood 

cancer rates. The American Cancer Society recognizes that 

public concern about environmental cancer risks often 

focuses on risks for which no carcinogenicity has been 

proven or on situations where known exposures to 

carcinogens are at such low levels that risks are negligible. 

The report states that “ionizing radiation emissions from 

nuclear facilities are closely controlled and involve negligible 

levels of exposure for communities near such plants.” 

4.7 Alternatives 

The site-specific supplements to the generic environmental 

impact statement on license renewal (SEISs) contain a 

chapter related to alternatives to the proposed action. A 

consideration of these alternatives is required by National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This section contains 

responses to questions regarding the selection and 

consideration of alternatives. 

The National 

Environmental Policy 

Act requires the 

consideration of 

alternatives to the 

proposed action in an 

environmental impact 

statement (EIS). 

Reasonable 

alternatives include 

those that are 

practical or feasible 

from the technical and 

economic standpoint. 

Wind Generation 
March 2006 4-49 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

4.7.1 Why does the NRC consider alternatives to license 

renewal? 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the 

consideration of alternatives to the proposed action in an environmental 

impact statement (EIS). The President’s Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) says that “reasonable alternatives include those that are 

practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint.” It 

also states that the alternatives are developed “using common sense 

rather than [being] simply desirable from the standpoint of the 

applicant.” NEPA also requires the alternatives analysis in the EIS to 

“include the alternative of no action.” The interpretation of “no action” 

depends on the nature of the proposal being evaluated. In the case of 

license renewal, the “no action” alternative may be thought of in terms 

of continuing with the present course of action, i.e., operation under the 

current operating license until the license has expired. Once the license has expired, the licensee must 

begin decommissioning the facility. 

4.7.2 Doesn’t conducting a review and granting the license so far in advance of the termination 

of the current license almost guarantee that an alternative will not be seriously 

considered by the licensee? 

If a licensee is going to choose an alternative to license renewal, it would want the replacement facility (if 

one is to be built) to be ready to produce power by the end of the operating term of the nuclear power 

facility. In many cases, it can take up to 10 years to design and construct major new generating facilities. 

Thus, conducting the review 10 to 20 years in advance of the termination of the current license is not 

unreasonable for an applicant that may be required to use an alternative to license renewal. 

4.7.3 Why doesn’t the NRC encourage green alternative energy sources such as solar or wind 

power? 

The NRC’s responsibility is to 

ensure the safe operation of 

nuclear power facilities and not 

to formulate energy policy or 

encourage or discourage the 

development of specific 

alternative power generation. 

The staff’s evaluation of 

alternatives in an environmental 

impact statement is limited to 

assessing their environmental 

impact rather than 

recommending energy 

alternatives. 

The NRC’s 

responsibility is to 

ensure the safe 

operation of nuclear 

power facilities and 

not to formulate 

energy policy or 

encourage or 

discourage the 

development of 

specific alternative 

power generation. 

Solar Panels 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 4-50 March 2006 

4.7.4 If an alternative is found that clearly has less environmental impact, why doesn’t the NRC 

require the licensee to pursue the alternative? 

The NRC’s requirements to consider the environmental impacts of various alternatives is based on the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The purpose of NEPA is to ensure that relevant 

agencies examine and disclose the potential environmental impacts of their actions before taking the 

action. NEPA is a procedural statute that does not dictate a decision based on relative environmental 

impacts. Furthermore, the NRC has no authority or regulatory control over the ultimate selection of 

future energy alternatives. Likewise, the NRC cannot ensure that environmentally superior energy 

alternatives are used in the future. The NRC makes a decision to renew or not to renew a license based on 

safety and environmental considerations. The final decision on whether or not to continue operating the 

nuclear facility will be made by the licensee and by state and Federal (non-NRC) decision-makers (see 

response to Question 1.2.10). This final decision will be based on economics, energy reliability goals, 

and other objectives over which the other entities may have jurisdiction. Moreover, given the absence of 

the NRC’s authority in the general area of energy planning, the NRC’s identification of a superior 

alternative does not guarantee that such an alternative will be used. 

As a result, based on the uncertainties involved and the lack of control that the NRC has in the choice of 

energy alternatives in the future, the Commission decided to exercise its NEPA authority to reject license 

renewal applications only in cases where there is such an imbalance between the impacts of license 

renewal and the impacts of the alternatives that it would be unreasonable to allow further consideration of 

license renewal. 

4.8 Security 

Although security issues are considered to be outside the scope of the environmental evaluation for 

license renewal, one of the most common questions related to security is answered in this section. 

4.8.1 What has the NRC done to improve security as a result of the terrorist attacks on 9/11? 

Prior to September 11, 2001, the security measures in place provided 

reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public would be 

protected in the event of an attack that involved radiological 

sabotage. The security measures were designed to protect against the 

threats described in 10 CFR 73.1. However, since September 11, 

2001, the defensive capability of the nuclear power industry has been 

significantly enhanced. The NRC issued orders requiring security 

enhancements, conducted a three-phase audit of licensees’ security 

programs in the weeks following the terrorist attacks, improved the 

process for conducting background investigations of new employees 

at nuclear power facilities, and initiated a number of studies related to 

the protection of nuclear material and facilities. The NRC also 

initiated a number of studies on the effects of a crash of a large commercial aircraft into a nuclear power 

plant. The NRC has also issued more than 60 advisories to its licensees describing changes in the threat 

environment and providing guidance on ways to enhance security. 

Access Control Terminal 
March 2006 4-51 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

NRC major actions since September 11, 2001, 

have included the following: 

• ordering plant owners to increase physical 

security to defend against a more challenging 

adversarial threat, 

• requiring strict site access controls for 

personnel, 

• requiring licensees to conduct vehicle checks 

at greater stand-off distances, 

• improving liaison with Federal, state, and 

local agencies responsible for protection of 

the national critical infrastructure through 

integrated response planning, 

• enhancing communication and liaison with the intelligence community, 

• improving communication between military surveillance authorities, the NRC, and its licensees to 

prepare power plants and to effect safe shutdown should it be necessary, 

• ordering plant operators to improve their capability to respond to events involving explosions or fires, 

• enhancing readiness of security organizations by strengthening training and qualification programs 

for plant security forces, 

• enhancing force-on-force exercise to provide a more realistic test of plant capabilities to defend 

against an adversary force, and 

• working with national experts to predict the realistic consequences of terrorist attacks on nuclear 

facilities, including one from a large commercial aircraft. For the facilities analyzed, the results 

confirm a low likelihood both for damaging the reactor core and releasing radioactivity that could 

affect public health and safety. Even in the unlikely event of a radiological release due to a terrorist 

use of a large aircraft against a nuclear power plant, the studies indicate that there would be time to 

implement the required onsite mitigating actions. These results have also validated the offsite 

emergency planning basis. 

In addition, the NRC works with a variety of other Federal agencies, in particular the Department of 

Homeland Security and the Homeland Security Council, to ensure that security around nuclear power 

plants is well coordinated and that responders are prepared if a significant event occurs. If an event were 

to occur, the NRC would coordinate the resources of more than 18 Federal agencies in response to any 

radiological emergency. 

Security Exercise 

March 2006 5-1 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

5.0 Public Involvement in the License Renewal Process 

Public involvement is a very important part of the environmental evaluation for license renewal. This 

section discusses the means by which members of the public may participate in the environmental 

evaluation. It also provides guidance for members of the public to access the documents on which the 

NRC’s evaluation is based. 

5.1 Public Involvement 

5.1.1 How does a member of the public know that a licensee is planning to renew its license? 

The public is notified through the Federal Register, press releases, and local advertisements after an 

application for the license renewal of a nuclear power plant has been received by the NRC. A notice is 

routinely placed in the Federal Register within a month after receipt of the application. 

Licensees notify the NRC of their plans to submit an application for license renewal often years in 

advance of their submittal. The advance notice assists the NRC in workload planning and ensures that 

staff will be assigned to review the application upon its arrival. Members of the public can view the list 

of anticipated license renewal applications and the date that the licensees are anticipating sending the 

applications to the NRC. This list is provided on the NRC’s website: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html. 

5.1.2 Where do I find information related to license renewal for a specific nuclear power 

facility? 

The status of license renewal activities and industry activities can be found 

on the NRC website at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html 

The following information is added to the web site when available: 

• contact information for the NRC license renewal safety and 

environmental project managers, 

• a copy of the application, 

• the license renewal review schedule, 

• a list of meetings that are open to members of the public along with the agenda for the meetings, 

• a transcript or meeting summary (as appropriate), copies of slides that were used at the meeting, or 

copies of inspection reports if pertinent, 

• the draft and final site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement on license 

renewal (SEIS), and 

• the safety evaluation report. 

The status of license 

renewal activities and 

industry activities can 

be found on the NRC 

website. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 5-2 March 2006 

5.1.3 What are the kinds of meetings that the public can be involved in and how does the public 

find out about them? 

The NRC defines three categories of public meetings that are held for 

different purposes and with varying degrees of public participation. All 

three types of meetings are held during the license renewal process. The 

first type of meeting (Category 1) is commonly held with the applicant 

for a specific plant. Category 1 meetings provide the public with an 

opportunity to observe NRC’s interactions with the applicant, to obtain 

information that assists the public in understanding regulatory issues, and 

to offer constructive comments. The public is invited to observe the 

meeting and has the opportunity to communicate with the NRC staff 

before the end of the meeting. Although most questions can be answered 

at the meeting, some questions require informal follow-up by telephone 

or email. Meetings held with the applicant to discuss the license renewal 

application are also considered Category 1 meetings. 

Category 2 meetings are typically held with a group of representatives of industry, licensees, vendors, or 

non-government organizations, such as public interest and citizen groups, and focus on issues that could 

apply to several facilities. Meetings held during development of the generic environment impact 

statement for license renewal (GEIS) were Category 2 meetings. 

Category 3 meetings are typically held with representatives of non-government organizations, private 

citizens or interested parties, or various businesses or industries. For Category 3 meetings, public 

participation is actively sought, with the intended objective being to provide a range of views, 

information, concerns, and suggestions about regulatory issues. This type of meeting provides the public 

the widest participation opportunities. The public scoping meetings on a site-specific supplement or the 

public meeting to discuss the draft site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement 

on license renewal (SEIS) are considered Category 3 meetings. 

For a typical license renewal application, a number of meetings are open to the public: 

• meetings with the applicant to provide the NRC staff an overview of the license renewal application –

 Category 1, 

• a meeting with members of the public to discuss the conduct of the safety review – Category 3, 

• meetings with the applicant and members of the public to discuss the environmental review scoping 

process – Category 3, 

• meetings with the applicant to present the results of the NRC’s initial safety inspection (Scoping 

Methodology) of the company’s license renewal program – Category 1, 

• meetings with the applicant to present the results of the NRC’s second safety inspection program 

(Aging Management Review) of the company’s license renewal program – Category 1, 

• meetings with the applicant to discuss potential open items that were identified by the NRC staff as 

part of its review – Category 1, 

NRC Public Meeting 
March 2006 5-3 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

• meetings with the applicant and members of the public to discuss the draft and receive comments on 

the draft SEIS – Category 3, 

• meetings with the applicant to discuss issues related to the safety evaluation report – Category 1, and 

• a meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to discuss license renewal for a 

specific facility – Category 1. 

5.1.4 What are the opportunities for public participation during the environmental review of the 

license renewal application? 

Although public involvement and comments are invited and 

encouraged throughout the environmental review for a particular site, 

the public is specifically invited and encouraged to provide input at two 

critical stages during the environmental review of the license renewal 

application. The first stage is during the scoping process for the 

site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement 

on license renewal (SEIS). This begins approximately 3 months after 

the applicant has submitted its application for license renewal. The 

public is notified at the beginning of the scoping process through the 

publication of a Federal Register notice, a meeting notice on the NRC 

website, through advertisements placed in local newspapers in 

communities near the nuclear power facility, and by flyers distributed 

throughout the local community. The scoping process is conducted to 

define the proposed action, to determine the scope of the SEIS, and to 

identify the significant issues to be analyzed in depth. The NRC 

website, Federal Register notice, and advertisements provide addresses 

for written comments to be submitted in person, by mail, or 

electronically. In addition, the notice contains the time and location of two public scoping meetings that 

are held in the vicinity of the nuclear plant. The meetings are commonly held on the same day, with one 

scheduled in the afternoon and the other during the evening to encourage a greater number of attendees. 

A description of the public scoping meetings is found in the response to Question 5.1.5. Scoping 

comments can also be given orally or submitted in writing at the public meetings. The deadline for 

scoping comments is usually 60 days following the publication of the notice in the Federal Register. 

After the comments have been received, they are 

evaluated and considered in the preparation of the 

site-specific analysis, as appropriate. The comments 

considered to be in scope are listed in Appendix A of the 

draft SEIS, along with the NRC staff’s decision about 

whether the comment will be further evaluated as part of 

the analysis during the preparation of the draft SEIS. 

The second opportunity for public participation occurs 

following the publication of the draft SEIS, which occurs 

approximately a year after the application is received. 

The NRC staff places a “notice of availability” in the 

Federal Register (and on the NRC website) with 

The public is 

specifically invited and 

encouraged to provide 

input at two critical 

stages during the 

environmental review 

of the license renewal 

application; during the 

scoping process for the 

site specific 

supplement, and 

following the 

publication of the draft 

SEIS. 

Public Meeting for North Anna Power 

Station in Virginia 
instructions for the public and other interested parties of how to obtain copies. A copy of this notice, 

along with a copy of the draft SEIS, is also sent to those persons attending the public scoping meeting 

who place their names on a list to receive further information on the license renewal process for that 

specific plant. The notice requests comments on the draft SEIS and provides addresses for delivering and 

sending the comments to the appropriate NRC staff member by mail or electronically. A 75-day period is 

allotted for the public’s review and the receipt of comments. 

Two public meetings are held near the nuclear plant to provide an overview of the draft SEIS and to 

accept additional public comments on the document. Again, the meetings are held on the same day, with

one scheduled for the afternoon and the other for the evening. Every comment received is considered 

and, if appropriate, incorporated into the final document. All of the comments on the draft SEIS are listed 

in Appendix A of the final SEIS, along with the NRC staff’s decision about whether the comment was 

within the scope of license renewal and, if appropriate, where changes to the text of the final SEIS were 

made in response to the comment. 

5.1.5 What happens during the environmental public meetings that are held during the license 

renewal review process?

As discussed in the response to Question 5.1.4, there 

are two sets of public meetings for the environmental 

review of the license renewal application for each 

specific site. The purpose of the first set of meetings 

is to allow the public to participate in the scoping 

process. The purpose of the second set of meetings is 

to elicit public comments on the draft site-specific 

supplement. Each meeting begins with an open 

house, during which the public can view posters or 

displays related to the license renewal process. 

During this time, members of the public can 

informally discuss issues related to the license 

renewal review, including issues that are outside the 

scope of the environmental and safety reviews with 

the NRC staff, any applicant representative present, and any state or local officials attending the open 

house. At the scheduled time, the formal portion of the meeting starts with presentations by the NRC 

staff and its consultants to explain the license renewal process and to discuss the preparation and results 

of the draft site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement on license renewal 

(SEIS). Frequently, the applicant also makes a presentation. Following the presentations, the NRC staff 

requests comments and questions from members of the public. The majority of the formal portion of the 

meeting is devoted to receiving comments and statements from members of the public. The NRC staff 

also accepts written or oral statements relating to the license renewal process. 

Quad Cities Environmental Site Audit

5.1.6 When can I submit written or electronic comments and concerns during the review? 

Although public involvement and comments are invited and encouraged throughout the environmental 

review for a particular site, the NRC solicits both written and oral comments from members of the public 

at two different times during the review. The first period of time is during the scoping process (see 

Final FAQs for License Renewal 5-4 March 2006 
March 2006 5-5 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

to identify significant issues to be analyzed in depth. Public 

scoping meetings are held near the nuclear plant that is 

seeking license renewal. Members of the public are invited to 

provide comments orally or in writing during these meetings. 

The NRC staff publishes a Federal Register notice that 

provides the times and locations. The notice is also placed in 

newspapers in communities near the plant and is posted on the 

NRC’s website for the specific plant undergoing review. It 

provides addresses for written comments to be submitted in 

person, by mail, or electronically. The deadline for comments 

is usually 60 days following the publication in the Federal 

Register of the notice of intent to conduct scoping. 

The NRC also solicits written comments from members of the 

public following publication of the draft SEIS. The NRC staff 

places a notice in the Federal Register and on the NRC 

website that the draft SEIS has been issued with instructions 

for the public and other interested parties on how to obtain 

copies. Copies of the draft SEIS are also available on the NRC website or can be obtained as discussed in 

the response to Question 5.2.8. A copy of the notice and the draft SEIS is also sent to those people from 

the first meeting who requested a copy. The notice requests comments on the draft supplement and 

provides addresses for delivering or sending the comments to the appropriate NRC staff member. 

Usually, a 75-day period is allotted for the public’s review and the receipt of comments. The NRC then 

holds a second set of public meetings in the vicinity of the nuclear facility to present the results of the 

draft SEIS to the public and to obtain comments, both oral and written, from the public. 

5.1.7 Does NRC do anything to ensure that the public that opposes nuclear power knows about 

the review? 

The NRC attempts to notify all stakeholders of any upcoming reviews. This includes Federal, state, and 

local agencies, as well as licensee staff, and members of the public or citizen advocacy groups that have 

previously expressed an interest in the regulatory activities related to a specific nuclear power facility. 

This also includes members of the public and organizations that oppose nuclear power. In addition to 

notices placed in the Federal Register or in local newspapers, the NRC staff notifies stakeholders 

(including members of the public or representatives of groups) who have previously attended public 

meetings related to a specific nuclear power facility or to license renewals. Frequently, these groups also 

receive a courtesy phone call to ensure they have been notified of public meetings on scoping and the 

preliminary conclusions in the draft site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact 

statement on license renewal (SEIS). 

5.1.8 Why doesn’t the NRC hold a full adjudicatory hearing for each plant that requests license 

renewal? 

Hearings on license renewal applications are not mandatory; that is, hearings are held only if a petition 

that shows standing to intervene and sets forth at least one contention (issue) that is suitable for litigation 

in the proceeding is filed. 

Short Comment Letter 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 5-6 March 2006 

5.1.9 As a member of the public how do I request intervention in the license renewal process? 

What is the timetable? 

Any person whose interest may be affected by the proceeding to grant a renewed license to a specific 

facility may file a written request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene with respect to the 

renewal of the license. The regulations related to intervening in a licensing action are governed by 

10 CFR 2.309. 

When the NRC receives a license renewal application, it is made 

available on the NRC’s website at www.nrc.gov. Approximately 2 

months after the NRC receives the application, a notice is posted in the 

Federal Register indicating the opportunity for a hearing regarding the 

renewal of the operating license and instructions for filing a request for 

a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene. Members of the public 

have a minimum of 60 days from the date of the Federal Register

notice in which to file a request for a hearing or a petition for leave to 

intervene. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene 

must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 

Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, or it may be delivered to the 

Commission’s Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland 20855-2738. 

If a request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene is filed by the date established in the Federal 

Register notice, the Commission or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will rule on the request or 

petition, and the Commission or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of 

hearing or an appropriate order. In the event that no request for a hearing or petition is granted, the NRC 

may, upon completion of its evaluation and upon making the findings required under the regulations, 

renew the licenses without further notice. 

5.1.10 What must be included in the request for a hearing or the petition to intervene? 

The regulations (10 CFR 2.309) provide that a request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene 

must show the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the 

results of the proceeding. The petition must specifically explain the reasons that intervention should be 

permitted, with particular reference to the following factors: 1) the nature of the petitioner’s right to be 

made a party to the proceeding, 2) the nature and extent of the petitioner’s property, financial, or other 

interest in the proceeding, and 3) the possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on 

the petitioner’s interest. The petition must also identify the contentions and bases for contentions and 

show the hearing track under which the hearing should be conducted. 

Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or 

controverted. The petitioner must also provide a brief explanation of the bases of each contention and a 

concise statement of the alleged facts or the expert opinion that supports the contention and on which the 

petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide 

references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the 

petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petitioner must provide sufficient 

Any person whose 

interest may be affected 

by the proceeding to 

grant a renewed license 

to a specific facility 

may file a written 

request for a hearing or 

a petition for leave to 

intervene with respect 

to the renewal of the 

license. 
March 2006 5-7 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. 

Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of license renewal (the action under 

consideration). The contention also must be one that, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. 

5.1.11 How do I bring safety, environmental, and security issues to the attention of the NRC? 

There are two methods of reporting safety or security concerns to the NRC. The choice depends on 

whether the concern is considered an emergency or not. 

Emergency concerns include: 

• any accident involving a nuclear reactor, nuclear fuel facility, or radioactive materials, 

• lost or damaged radioactive materials, and 

• any threat, theft, smuggling, vandalism, or terrorist activity involving a nuclear facility or radioactive 

materials. 

Members of the public reporting an emergency concern should call the NRC’s 24-hour Headquarters 

Operations Center at 301-816-5100. Collect calls are accepted. All calls to this number are recorded. 

Non-emergency concerns should be brought to the attention of the NRC project manager assigned to a 

specific plant. The list of NRC project managers is located at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/project-managers.html#pwr. This page also contains a quick link 

to the NRC telephone directory. 

5.1.12 I might have a safety, security, or environmental issue related to a specific facility. Do I 

have to wait until the licensee requests license renewal to have it considered? What if the 

license renewal has already occurred? 

Anyone who has a concern of a safety or environmental nature that applies directly to an operating 

facility need not wait until the licensee requests license renewal to report that concern. Concerns about a 

specific facility should be forwarded to the NRC project manager who is assigned to the site and listed on 

the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/project-managers.html#pwr. Concerns related 

to license renewal should be held until (and if) the licensee submits a license renewal application. If 

license renewal has already been granted, then the concern should be reported to the NRC operating 

reactor’s project manager or, if it involves an emergency as defined in the response to Question 5.1.11, to 

the NRC Headquarters Operation Center. 

5.2 Obtaining Additional Information 

5.2.1 Are documents locally available during the license renewal review? 

Hard copies of documents pertinent to the environmental review are made available to the public at one or 

more local community libraries in the vicinity of the facility. The documents include a copy of the 

licensee’s application containing its environmental report and a copy of the pertinent draft site-specific 

supplement to the generic environment impact statement on license renewal (SEIS). The location of the 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 5-8 March 2006 

libraries is provided in the Federal Register notices related to the environmental review and can be 

obtained by calling the environmental project manager listed on the NRC website for each specific 

facility. 

Documents are also available electronically through the NRC’s website, as discussed in the response to 

Questions 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.7, and 5.2.8. 

5.2.2 May I add my name to a list to receive information during the environmental review? 

Members of the public may add their names to a list to receive information, including a copy of the draft 

and final site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement on license renewal 

(SEIS). A sign-up sheet is available in the lobby outside the public meetings related to the environmental 

review. With requests for information, members of the public may also contact the NRC’s environmental 

project manager listed on the NRC website for each specific facility. 

5.2.3 Does the NRC have a website? 

Yes, the NRC has a website that is updated almost daily. The website 

address is www.nrc.gov. 

5.2.4 What kind of information on license renewal can I get 

from the NRC’s website? 

The NRC website has a special section dedicated to reactor license 

renewal. There is a “quick link” under the heading “Key Topics” that is 

shown on the right side of the NRC website’s home page. This quick 

link takes the reader to a section dedicated to the topic of reactor license 

renewal. There are seven major headings or sources of information 

located on the Reactor License Renewal section of the website: 

• Overview – a brief discussion of the license renewal process. 

• License Renewal Process – a more thorough description of the application process, the environmental 

review, and the inspection program. 

• Regulations – a description of the regulations applicable to license renewal, including the license 

renewal rule in 10 CFR Part 54 and the environmental regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 (links to the 

actual regulations are also available). 

• Reactor License Renewal Guidance Documents – a description of (and links for) most of the 

documents discussed previously in these FAQs, including the Generic Aging Lessons Learned 

(GALL) report (NUREG-1801), the Standard Review Plan (SRP), and Regulatory Guides and 

technical reports related to license renewal. 

• Public Involvement in Reactor License Renewal – a brief description of the public involvement 

process, including links to the schedule of upcoming public meetings, documents that are currently 

available for comment, and information related to any adjudication in process. 

Members of the public 

may add their names 

to a list to receive 

information, including 

a copy of the draft and 

final site specific 

supplement to the 

generic environmental 

impact statement on 

license renewal 

(SEIS). 
March 2006 5-9 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

• Commission Papers Presenting Staff Recommendations – includes links to papers that the NRC staff 

submits to the Commissioners to inform them about matters related to license renewal 

(e.g., rulemaking and adjudication). 

• Status of Current Applications and Industry Initiatives – includes links for each of the power plants 

that have submitted applications, as well as a list of anticipated future applications. For each of the 

power plants, there is a special section containing a link to the license renewal application and 

environmental report, a detailed review schedule for the specific plant, links to any completed 

environmental impact statements and safety evaluation reports, and a 

list of the NRC project managers (with their phone numbers and email 

addresses) for current license renewal applications in process. 

5.2.5 What is the Federal Register and how can I get a copy of it? 

The Federal Register is the official daily publication for rules, proposed 

rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as 

Executive Orders and other Presidential documents. It is published by the 

Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records 

Administration. The public can search the Federal Register database 

online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. This site contains 

volumes of the Federal Register published since 1994 (Volume 59). 

Federal Register citations are commonly given in a form that states the volume first and then, after the 

acronym FR, the page number: e.g., 60 FR 22461, indicating that it is volume 60 and page 22461. 

Searches on the Government Printing Office (GPO) access site can be conducted by Federal Register

date, volume, and page or by key word (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html). Other options for 

obtaining the Federal Register include purchasing a subscription (instructions are on the GPO website) or 

obtaining issues from a local Federal depository library. Locations of such libraries are also given on the 

website. 

Copies of Federal Register notices that deal with license 

renewal are also located on the NRC website: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/a

pplications.html. They are listed by the name of each 

facility that has applied for a renewed license. 

5.2.6 How can I get a copy of the Code of Federal 

Regulations dealing with license renewal? 

The license renewal regulations in Title 10, Energy, in the 

Code of Federal Regulations can be viewed and printed 

from the NRC website at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. In 

addition, copies of the Code of Federal Regulations may 

be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents at 

the U.S. Government Printing Office or the National 

Technical Information Service in Springfield, VA. The 

The Federal Register

is the official daily 

publication for rules, 

proposed rules, and 

notices of Federal 

agencies and 

organizations, as well 

as Executive Orders 

and other Presidential 

documents. 

Federal Register 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 5-10 March 2006 

contact information for these two locations is given in the response to Question 5.2.9. 

5.2.7 How does a member of the public obtain a copy of a license renewal application for a 

specific nuclear power plant? 

The Federal Register notice that indicates that the NRC has received an application from a specific site 

also provides information on how the public can access the application. Copies of the application are 

available electronically on the NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/ 

applications.html. The application is also available electronically from the NRC’s Agency-wide 

Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room 

is accessible from the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. In addition, a copy 

or copies are available to local residents at one or two local libraries in the vicinity of the facility. The 

local library at which copies are available are identified in the Federal Register notice related to the 

environmental review, as discussed in the response to Question 5.2.1. 

5.2.8 How do I get a copy of a draft site-specific supplement to the generic environmental 

impact statement on license renewal (SEIS) related to a particular facility? 

A single copy of each NRC draft SEIS is free, to the extent of availability, upon written request to the 

following address: 

Office of the Chief Information Officer, 

Reproduction and Distribution Services Section 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301-415-2289 

Members of the public who sign up at the public scoping meeting to receive a copy of the draft SEIS for 

that specific facility will automatically be sent a copy once the draft SEIS is published. A copy is also 

available to local residents at the local libraries identified in the Federal Register notice, as discussed in 

the response to Question 5.2.1. 

In addition, the draft SEIS is available for review from the NRC website at the following location: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437. 

5.2.9 How can I get a copy of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (GEIS), and a final specific supplement related to a 

particular facility? 

Copies of the GEIS and the site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement on 

license renewal (SEIS) can be obtained from NRC’s website at the following location: 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/. 

Copies can also be purchased from either of the following sources: 
March 2006 5-11 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

The Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Mail Stop SSOP 

Washington, DC 20402-0001 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov 

Telephone: 202-512-1800 

Fax: 202-512-2250 

or 

The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161-0002 

www.ntis.gov 

1-800-553-6847 or, locally, 703-605-6000 

5.2.10 How can I get answers to additional questions that were not addressed in this document? 

Members of the public are invited to plant-specific public meetings, where NRC staff members are 

available to answer both generic and site-specific questions (see also the response to Question 5.1.4). In 

addition, many answers to questions that are not included in this document can be found on the NRC 

website, www.nrc.gov. The NRC has developed a number of frequently asked question documents, as 

well as informational brochures and fact-sheets. For plant-specific safety and environmental questions

related to a license renewal application, members of the public can contact the safety and/or environmental 

project manager assigned by the NRC for the license renewal review for the specific plant. The name, 

phone number, and email address for each of the NRC safety and environmental project managers is given 

on the NRC website, as well as in Federal Register notices and at the public meetings. The NRC safety

and environmental project managers can either answer questions or direct callers to the appropriate 

person at the NRC.

March 2006 6-1 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

6.0 Bibliography of Published Material Relevant to License Renewal 

10 CFR Part 51. “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory 

Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 54. “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

40 CFR Part 1500. “NEPA and Agency Planning.” 

69 FR 52040. “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory 

and Licensing Actions.” 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 16 USC 1531, et seq. 

American Cancer Society (ACS). 2004. Cancer Facts and Figures – 2004. 

http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF_finalPWSecured.pdf 

Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering, Spring 2001. Bulletin of the Connecticut Academy of 

Science and Engineering, Volume 16.2. Hartford, Connecticut. 

Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology, Florida Department of Health. 2001. Report Concerning 

Cancer Rates in Southeastern Florida. In Letter from David R. Johnson to Interested Parties. 

July 18, 2001. http://www.fpl.com/about/nuclear/contentsfdh_report.shtml 

Illinois Public Department of Health, Fall 2000. Health and Hazardous Substances Registry Newsletter. 

Illinois Public Health, Division of Epidemiologic Studies, Illinois Department of Public Health, 

605 W. Jefferson St., Springfield, Illinois. 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication No. 60. Annals of the ICRP. 

Elsevier. 

National Cancer Institute (NCI). 1990. Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities. Bethesda, 

Maryland. 

National Research Council. 1990. Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. 

BEIR V. Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations. Board on Radiation Effects 

Research Commission of Life Sciences. National Research Council. National Academy Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 2006. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: 

BEIR VII Phase II. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing 

Radiation. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP). 1987. Ionizing Radiation 

Exposures of the Population of the United States. Report No. 93. Washington, D.C. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal 6-2 March 2006 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1988. Public Radiation Exposure 

from Nuclear Power Generation in the United States. Report No. 92. Washington, D.C. 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP). 1988. Exposure of the Population 

in the United States and Canada from Natural Background Radiation. Report No. 94. Washington, D.C. 

Talbott, Evelyn O, A.O. Youk, K.P. McHugh-Pemu, and J.V. Zborowski. 2003. Long Term Follow-up 

of the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident Area: 1979-1998. In Environmental Health 

Perspectives, Volume 111, Number 3. March 2003. Pages 341-348. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants(GEIS). NUREG-1437. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews 

for Nuclear Power Plants – Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal. NUREG-1555, Supplement 1. 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Preparation of Supplemental Environmental 

Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses. Supplement 1 to 

Regulatory Guide 4.2. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Standard Review Plan for Review of License 

Renewal Applications for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1800. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Generic Aging Lessons Learned (GALL) Report. 

NUREG-1801. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001. Standard Format and Content for Applications to 

Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses. Regulatory Guide 1.188. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. License Renewal Inspections. Inspection Manual 

71002. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Policy and Guidance for Licence Renewal 

Inspection Programs. MC-2516. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Procedural 

Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. Instructor 

LIC-203. Washington, D.C. 
Appendix A 

Environmental Issues for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Power Plants

March 2006 A-1 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

Appendix A 

Environmental Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

(10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B) 

The impact evaluation performed by the staff and presented in the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437 (GEIS), identified 92 environmental 

issues that needed to be considered for the license renewal evaluation for power reactors in the U.S. 

These issues are numbered consecutively in the following table (Table A-1) along with short descriptions 

of the issue and the category type. For each of the identified 92 issues, the staff evaluated existing data 

relative to all operating power plants throughout the U.S. From this evaluation, the staff determined 

which issues could be considered generically and which issues do not lend themselves to a generic 

classification. The GEIS divided the 92 issues that were assessed into two categories: one for generic 

issues (which are termed “Category 1 issues”) and the other for site-specific issues (termed “Category 2”). 

Category 1 (generic) issues are those that meet all of the following criteria: 

1) The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all 

plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified plant 

or site characteristic. 

2) A single significance level (i.e., SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE) has been assigned to the impacts 

(except for collective offsite radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and 

spent fuel disposal). (See response to Question 4.2.4.13 for a definition of the levels of significance.) 

3) Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analyses, and it has 

been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be sufficiently 

beneficial to warrant implementation. 

Category 1 issues are termed “generic” because the conclusions related to their environmental impacts 

were found to be common to all plants (or, in some cases, to plants having specific characteristics such as 

a specific type of cooling system). In such cases, a single level of significance can be assigned to them, 

and mitigation is not likely to be beneficial. Issues that are found to be “generic” are not reevaluated in 

the site-specific supplement to the generic environmental impact statement on license renewal (SEIS) 

because the conclusions reached would be the same as in the GEIS, unless new and significant 

information is found that would lead the NRC staff to reevaluate the GEIS’s conclusions. 

Category 2 issues are those in which the GEIS offers no generic conclusion. These issues require a sitespecific review. For each of the Category 2 issues, the staff evaluates site-specific data provided by the 

licensee, other Federal agencies, state agencies, and local government agencies as well as information 

from the open literature and from members of the public. From all these data, the staff makes a sitespecific evaluation of the particular issues and presents its analyses and conclusions in the SEIS for the 

facility. 

The GEIS evaluates 92 environmental issues, and, of these, 69 were found to be generic (Category 1) and 

23 issues needed a site-specific review and analysis, with 21 of these considered to be Category 2 issues. 

The remaining 2 issues (environmental justice and chronic effects of electromagnetic fields) were not 

categorized and are addressed in the site-specific analysis. 
Final FAQs for License Renewal A.2 March 2006 

Table A-1. NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue 

Number Issue Title Category

1 Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water quality 1 

2 Impacts of refurbishment on surface-water use 1 

3 Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures 1 

4 Altered salinity gradients 1 

5 Altered thermal stratification of lakes 1 

6 Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity 1 

7 Scouring caused by discharged cooling water 1 

8 Eutrophication 1 

9 Discharge of chlorine or other biocides 1 

10 Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills 1 

11 Discharge of other metals in wastewater 1 

12 Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) 1 

13 Water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using make-up water from a small river 

with low flow) 

2 

14 Refurbishment 1 

15 Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota 1 

16 Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 1 

17 Cold shock 1 

18 Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish 1 

19 Distribution of aquatic organisms 1 

20 Premature emergence of aquatic insects 1 

21 Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) 1 

22 Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge 1 

23 Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses 1 

24 Stimulation of nuisance organisms 1 

25 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 2 

26 Impingement of fish and shellfish 2 

27 Heat shock 2 

28 Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages 1 

29 Impingement of fish and shellfish 1 

30 Heat shock 1 

31 Impacts of refurbishment on groundwater use and quality 1 

32 Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 gpm). 1 

33 Groundwater-use conflicts (potable and service water, and dewatering; plants that use > 100 gpm) 2 

34 Groundwater-use conflicts (plants using cooling towers withdrawing makeup water from a small river) 2 

35 Groundwater-use conflicts (Ranney wells) 2 

36 Groundwater quality degradation (Ranney wells) 1 

37 Groundwater quality degradation (saltwater intrusion) 1 

38 Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds in salt marshes) 1 

39 Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds at inland sites) 2 

40 Refurbishment impacts 2 

41 Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation 1 

42 Cooling tower impacts on native vegetation 1 

43 Bird collisions with cooling towers 1 

44 Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial resources 1 

45 Power line right-of-way management (cutting and herbicide application) 1 

46 Bird collisions with power lines 1 

47 Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, 

livestock) 

1 
March 2006 A-3 Final FAQs for License Renewal 

Table A-1. (contd) 

Issue 

Number Issue Title Category

48 Flood plains and wetland on power line right-of-way 1 

49 Threatened or endangered species 2 

50 Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and maintenance areas) 2 

51 Air-quality effects of transmission lines 1 

52 Onsite land use 1 

53 Power line right-of-way 1 

54 Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment 1 

55 Occupational radiation exposures during refurbishment 1 

56 Microbial organisms (occupational health) 1 

57 Microbiological organisms (public health) (plants using lakes or canals or cooling towers that discharge 

into a small river) 

2 

58 Noise 1 

59 Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric shock) 2 

60 Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects N/A 

61 Radiation exposures to public (license renewal term) 1 

62 Occupational radiation exposures (license renewal term) 1 

63 Housing impacts 2 

64 Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 1 

65 Public services: public utilities-water supply 2 

66 Public services: education (refurbishment) 2 

67 Public services: education (license renewal term) 1 

68 Offsite land use (refurbishment) 2 

69 Offsite land use (license renewal term) 2 

70 Public Services, transportation 2 

71 Historic and archaeological resources 2 

72 Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) 1 

73 Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) 1 

74 Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term) 1 

75 Design-basis accidents (DBAs) 1 

76 Severe Accidents 2 

77 Offsite radiological impacts (individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel and HLW) 1 

78 Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) 1 

79 Offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and HLW) 1 

80 Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 1 

81 Low-level waste storage and disposal 1 

82 Mixed waste storage and disposal 1 

83 Onsite spent fuel 1 

84 Nonradiological waste 1 

85 Transportation 1 

86 Radiation Doses 1 

87 Waste Management 1 

88 Air Quality 1 

89 Water Quality 1 

90 Ecological Resources 1 

91 Socioeconomic Impacts 1 

92 Environmental Justice N/A 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1850

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

March

YEAR

2006

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Frequently Asked Questions on License Renewal of Nuclear Power Reactors

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

Final

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of License Renewal

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Same as above.

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This report, through a question-and-answer format, provides staff responses to frequently asked questions on the license

renewal process for commercial, nuclear power reactors. The questions were taken from a variety of sources over the past

several years, including written inquiries to the NRC and questions asked at public meetings and during informal discussions

with the NRC staff. The NRC staff attempted to provide answers in a clear and non-technical form. 

This document contains a definition of license renewal including information related to the timing and scheduling of the license

renewal process. It discusses the NRC's role in reviewing, approving, or denying license renewal and the regulatory basis for the

review. Because the public usually encounters the license renewal process in conjunction with the environmental review, this

document is primarily focused on the environmental review process and on related issues such as alternatives to license renewal

and human health issues. However, other aspects of license renewal are addressed, including questions related to the safety

reviews, the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel, and security issues. There are also responses to questions related to

public involvement and to finding sources of additional information on the license renewal process.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

FAQ, Frequently asked questions, License, Renewal, License Renewal, Environmental,

ER, Environmental review, Review, NEPA, Impact assessment, Public involvement,

EA, Environmental assessment, EIS, Environmental Impact Statement, Process

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-001
Printed

on recycled

paper

Federal Recycling Program

NUREG-1850

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission • Washington, D.C. 20555-001