Standard Review Plans for

Environmental Reviews for

Nuclear Power Plants

Supplement 1: Operating

License Renewal

Final Report

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

Revision 1
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: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Office of Administration 

Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.RESOURCE@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, 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 

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

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 contractorprepared 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).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account 

of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. 

Government. Neither the U.S. Government nor any 

agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, 

expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for any third party’s use, or the results of 

such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or 

process disclosed in this publication, or represents that 

its use by such third party would not infringe privately 

owned rights.
Standard Review Plans for

Environmental Reviews for

Nuclear Power Plants

Supplement 1: Operating

License Renewal

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: May 2013

Date Published: June 2013

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

Revision 1
 
 iii 

ABSTRACT

This document provides guidance to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in implementing the 

provisions in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51), “Environmental 

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions” when conducting an 

environmental review for the renewal of a nuclear power plant operating license(s). This standard review 

plan guides the staff in preparing a plant-specific supplemental environmental impact statement to 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants. This document supplements NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews 

for Nuclear Power Plants, which provides guidance for the environmental reviews of construction 

permits, initial operating licenses, early site permits, and combined licenses for new nuclear power plants. 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT 

The information collections contained in the environmental standard review plans are covered by the 

requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and 

Related Regulatory Functions,” and were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

approval number 3150-0021. 

PUBLIC PROTECTION NOTIFICATION 

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 

information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently 

valid OMB control number. 

 v 

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................... iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. v 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ......................................................................................... vii 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................... 1.0-1 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ................................................. 2.0-1 

2.1 General Plant Information ............................................................................................. 2.1-1 

2.2 Refurbishment Activities ............................................................................................... 2.2-1 

2.3 Employment .................................................................................................................. 2.3-1 

2.4 Description of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................................ 2.4-1 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................. 3.0-1 

3.1 Land Use and Visual Resources .................................................................................... 3.1-1 

3.2 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise ............................................................................ 3.2-1 

3.3 Geologic Environment .................................................................................................. 3.3-1 

3.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 3.4-1 

3.5 Ecological Resources .................................................................................................... 3.5-1 

3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 3.6-1 

3.7 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................. 3.7-1 

3.8 Human Health ................................................................................................................ 3.8-1 

3.9 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................... 3.9-1 

3.10 Waste Management ....................................................................................................... 3.10.1-1 

3.10.1 Radioactive Waste Systems .......................................................................... 3.10.1-1 

3.10.2 Nonradioactive Waste Systems ...................................................................... 3.10.2-1 

3.11 References ..................................................................................................................... 3.11-1 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES and MITIGATING ACTIONS ............................... 4.0-1 

4.1 Land Use and Visual Resources .................................................................................... 4.1-1 

4.2 Air Quality and Noise .................................................................................................... 4.2-1 

4.3 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................................... 4.3-1 

4.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 4.4-1 

4.4.1 Surface Water and Groundwater Use Conflicts ............................................ 4.4.1-1 

4.4.2 Groundwater Use Conflicts ........................................................................... 4.4.2-1 

4.4.3 Groundwater Use Conflicts ........................................................................... 4.4.3-1 

4.4.4 Groundwater Quality Degradation ................................................................ 4.4.4-1 

4.4.5 Radionuclides Released to Groundwater ...................................................... 4.4.5-1 
 vi 

4.5 Ecological Resources .................................................................................................... 4.5-1 

4.5.1 Water Use Conflicts with Ecological Resources ........................................... 4.5.1-1 

4.5.2 Effects on Terrestrial Resources ................................................................... 4.5.2-1 

4.5.3 Impingement and Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms .................................. 4.5.3-1 

4.5.4 Thermal Impacts on Aquatic Organisms ....................................................... 4.5.4-1 

4.5.5 Special Status Species and Habitats .............................................................. 4.5.5-1 

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 4.6-1 

4.7 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................. 4.7-1 

4.8 Human Health ................................................................................................................ 4.8-1 

4.8.1 Microbiological Hazards to the Public .......................................................... 4.8.1-1 

4.8.2 Electric Shock Hazards ................................................................................. 4.8.2-1 

4.9 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................... 4.9-1 

4.10 Waste Management ....................................................................................................... 4.10-1 

4.11 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 4.11.1-1 

4.11.1 Environmental Consequences of the Uranium Fuel Cycle ........................... 4.11.1-1 

4.11.2 Environmental Consequences of Replacement Power Alternative 

 Fuel Cycles .................................................................................................... 4.11.2-1 

4.11.3 Environmental Consequences from the Termination of Nuclear Plant 

Operations and Decommissioning ............................................................. 4.11.3-1 

4.12 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................... 4.12-1 

4.13 References ..................................................................................................................... 4.13-1 

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS ....................................... 5.0-1 

5.1 Postulated Plant Accidents ............................................................................................ 5.1-1 

5.2 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives ...................................................................... 5.2-1 

5.3 References ..................................................................................................................... 5.3-1 

6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO LICENSE RENEWAL ......................................................................... 6.0-1 

6.1 The No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................ 6.1-1 

6.2 Replacement Power Alternatives .................................................................................. 6.2-1 

6.3 References ..................................................................................................................... 6.3-1 

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 7.0-1 
 vii 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

APE area of potential effects 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act 

DBA design-basis accident 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EMF electromagnetic field 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPM environmental project manager 

ER environmental report 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESRP environmental standard review plan (NUREG-1555) 

ESRP/S1 environmental standard review plan, Supplement 1 (NUREG-1555, Supplement 1) 

FES final environmental statement 

FR Federal Register

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant 

(NUREG-1437) 

MSA Magnuson-Stevens Act 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESC National Electrical Safety Code 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

PILOT payments in lieu of tax 

PUD Public Utility District 

ROW(s) right(s) of way 

ROI region of influence, interest, or impact 
 viii 

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternatives 

SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternatives 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
 1 

INTRODUCTION 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) consists of a series of instructions developed for U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff use in conducting environmental reviews for the renewal of 

nuclear power plant operating licenses and preparing plant-specific supplemental environmental impact 

statements (SEISs) to NUREG-1437, Revision 1, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS). This ESRP amends NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, “Standard 

Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Environmental Standard Review 

Plan for Operating License Renewal,” issued October 1999. Use of this ESRP helps ensure the 

completeness and consistency of the environmental review and analyses conducted by the NRC staff in its 

SEISs. This ESRP is a companion to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Preparation of 

Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications. 

Questions regarding the content of any plan in this document may be directed to the NRC at the following 

address: 

Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch 

Division of License Renewal 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Additional copies of these plans may be obtained as indicated on the inside front cover of this document. 

NRC’s Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act

This ESRP demonstrates how NRC staff meets the provisions in Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and 

Related Regulatory Functions” to conduct environmental reviews for the renewal of nuclear power plant 

operating licenses and prepare plant-specific SEISs to the GEIS. The NRC regulations at 10 CFR Part 51 

implement Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NRC published the 

license renewal provisions of 10 CFR 51 in the Federal Register on December 18, 1996 (61 FR 66537), 

which became effective on January 17, 1997. The NRC’s intention in developing the rule was to improve 

the efficiency of the environmental review process for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating 

licenses. These provisions also support the analyses conducted for and reported in the GEIS. 

Environmental Review Process 

After receiving an application for license renewal, including the applicant’s environmental report (ER), 

the NRC staff performs an acceptance review of the ER to determine whether the information provided is 

sufficiently complete to begin the environmental/NEPA review process. After reviewing the information 

and assessments presented in the applicant’s ER, the NRC staff begins to prepare the plant-specific SEIS. 

These ESRPs guide the NRC staff’s environmental review and preparation of the plant-specific SEIS. In 
 2 

the SEIS, the NRC staff analyzes the environmental impacts of renewing the operating license of a 

nuclear power plant (the proposed action) and the alternatives to renewing the license. The completed 

plant-specific SEIS presents the staff’s recommendation whether to renew the operating license of the 

nuclear power plant. The NRC’s record of decision (ROD) considers this recommendation, along with 

the findings from the safety review (10 CFR Part 54). 

The NRC’s NEPA review process consists of the following actions required by 10 CFR Part 51: 

• Publish a notice of intent to prepare an SEIS in the Federal Register (see 10 CFR 51.27, “Notice of 

Intent,” and 10 CFR 51.95(c), “Post Construction Environmental Impact Statements: Operating 

License Renewal Stage”) and send copies of the notice to appropriate Federal, State, and local 

agencies; Indian Tribes; appropriate State, regional, and metropolitan clearinghouses; and any 

interested persons upon request (see 10 CFR 51.116, “Notice of Intent”). The notice describes the 

proposed action and explains the scoping process, states the locations of copies of the ER available 

for public inspection, and invites public participation in the scoping process. 

• Conduct scoping (see 10 CFR 51.28, “Scoping—Participants,” 10 CFR 51.29, “Scoping—

Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement to Environmental Impact Statement,” and 

40 CFR 1506.6(b)(3), “Public Involvement”). The scoping process includes identifying and inviting 

the appropriate agencies, Indian Tribes, interest groups, and persons to participate in the process. 

Concerning license renewal, scoping focuses on allowing other parties to raise environmental issues 

that they believe are significant and yet are not addressed or not adequately addressed in the ER. 

Parties may raise issues at the public scoping meeting, which the NRC staff routinely holds in the 

vicinity of the plant, and in written comments. The scoping process also routinely includes a staff 

visit to the plant site and communication with local, regional, and State officials and representatives 

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

additional information from the applicant. 

• Prepare a draft SEIS (see 10 CFR 51.70, “Draft Environmental Impact Statement—General,” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft Environmental Impact Statement—Contents,” and 10 CFR 51.95(c)). In 

developing the draft SEIS, the NRC staff will evaluate (verify and validate) information provided by 

the applicant and will seek out and collect information from independent sources. 

• Distribute the draft SEIS for comment (see 10 CFR 51.73, “Request for Comments on Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement”). The NRC will publish a notice of the availability of the SEIS in 

the Federal Register and will distribute copies of the draft SEIS to the U.S Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA); appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; Indian Tribes; appropriate 

State, regional, and metropolitan clearinghouses; organizations and individuals who have expressed 

interest in the review; and any other parties requesting a copy (see 10 CFR 51.74, “Distribution of 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement to Draft Environmental Impact Statement; 

News Releases”). 

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

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

This includes determining whether the comments identify new and significant information that was 

neither considered in the GEIS nor addressed in the applicant’s ER. After considering the 
 3 

environmental impacts associated with license renewal and replacement power alternatives, the staff 

will determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that 

preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 

The NRC will publish a notice of the availability of the final SEIS in the Federal Register and will 

distribute copies to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency; appropriate Federal, State, and local 

agencies; Indian Tribes; appropriate State, regional, and metropolitan clearinghouses; organizations 

and individuals who have expressed interest in the review and participated in the environmental 

review; and any other parties requesting a copy (see 10 CFR 51.93, “Distribution of Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement to Final Environmental Impact Statement; News 

Releases,” and 10 CFR 51.118, “Final Environmental Impact Statement—Notice of Availability”). 

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

board determines that it is in the public interest or if a request for hearing and petition to intervene 

are granted. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.105(a)(10), “Notice of Proposed Action,” the agency will 

issue a notice of opportunity for hearing as soon as practicable after the application has been 

docketed. Any person whose interest may be affected by the action may request a hearing. (See 

also 10 CFR 51.104, “NRC Proceeding Using Public Hearings; Consideration of Environmental 

Impact Statement.”) 

• Publish a ROD (see 10 CFR 51.103, “Record of Decision—General”). Among other things, the 

ROD will discuss the alternatives considered in the SEIS, the measures taken to minimize 

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

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

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

for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The NRC publishes the Commission’s 

final decision on the application in the Federal Register. 

For license renewal, the environmental project manager (EPM) is responsible for the environmental 

review and preparation of the plant-specific SEIS. The EPM interacts with the applicant’s technical and 

supervisory personnel as well as with NRC management. In addition, the EPM coordinates the efforts of 

technical staff and contractor personnel during the acceptance review of the applicant’s ER and the 

environmental review conducted for the plant-specific SEIS. With assistance from the technical staff, the 

EPM develops the overall recommendations for action to be taken by the Director of the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). 

EPM responsibilities include managing the acceptance review of the ER and the environmental review 

conducted for the plant-specific SEIS. The purpose for the acceptance review is to determine whether the 

applicant’s ER provides sufficient information and analysis to support the plant-specific environmental 

review. If the ER is acceptable, it is docketed, and the environmental review may begin. 

The environmental review is conducted by the environmental technical staff in NRR’s Division of 

License Renewal, NRR’s Division of Risk Assessment (DRA), and by the EPM. The responsibilities of 

the environmental technical staff in carrying out the environmental review, including criteria for ER 

acceptability, are provided in this ESRP. During the course of the technical staff’s environmental review, 

it may be necessary to request additional information from the applicant. Requests for additional 
 4 

information are transmitted to the applicant by the EPM. RAIs also serve as a public record of the staff’s 

concerns about the applicant’s ER during the environmental review. 

Environmental standard review plans for each resource area contained in this ESRP provide procedures 

for the environmental review leading to the preparation of the draft SEIS. The EPM is responsible for 

reviewing the draft SEIS and ensuring that the technical staff’s conclusions meet NRC NEPA 

requirements and reflect NRC policy. In accordance with NRC standards, it is expected that each SEIS 

prepared by NRC staff will: 

• stand on its own as an analytical document which fully informs decisionmakers and the public of the 

environmental effects of the proposed action and those of reasonable alternatives 

• emphasize the issues that are significant and reduce emphasis on other issues and background 

material 

• be written in plain language 

The draft SEIS is submitted for review and comment to the division director, the Office of the General 

Counsel, and the division branch chiefs. Final approval is obtained from the EPM’s division director 

before publication of the draft SEIS for public comment. 

The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; 

NUREG-1437)

The 1996 GEIS1

 was prepared to address the environmental impacts associated with the renewal of 

nuclear power plant operating licenses. The GEIS identifies environmental impact issues that are 

common to all nuclear power plants, and impact issues that require plant-specific analyses. The NRC 

staff would prepare plant-specific SEISs to address the impact issues that could not be generically 

dispositioned in the GEIS. 

The GEIS is intended to improve the efficiency of the license renewal process by (1) providing an 

evaluation of the types of environmental impacts that may occur from renewing commercial nuclear 

power plant operating licenses, (2) identifying and assessing impacts that are expected to be generic (the 

same or similar) at all nuclear plants (or plants with specified plant or site characteristics), and 

(3) defining the number and scope of environmental impact issues that need to be addressed in plantspecific SEISs. 

The NRC committed to review and update the original findings in Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on 

NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” located in Appendix B to Subpart A of 

10 CFR Part 51. The Commission stated that it intends to review the assessment of impacts in Table B-1 

and the GEIS and update it on a 10-year cycle, if necessary. Since publication of the 1996 GEIS, over 

40 nuclear plant sites (approximately 70 reactor units) have been the subject of plant-specific 

environmental reviews. The GEIS revision is intended to incorporate lessons learned and knowledge 

 

1 Any reference in this document to the 1996 GEIS includes the two-volume set issued in 1996 and Addendum 1 to the GEIS 

issued in 1999. 
 5 

gained from these plant-specific environmental reviews, as well as other new information and research 

published since the 1996 GEIS. 

The NRC staff reviewed and reevaluated the environmental impact issues and findings in the 1996 GEIS. 

Experience and knowledge gained from license renewal reviews conducted since the 1996 GEIS provided 

new sources of information for the evaluations presented in the revision. In addition, the NRC staff 

considered new research, findings, and other information in evaluating the significance of impacts 

associated with license renewal. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if the findings presented 

in the 1996 GEIS remained valid. In doing so, the NRC considered the need to modify, add to, or delete 

any of the 92 issues in the 1996 GEIS. 

The revised GEIS evaluates 78 environmental impact issues; analyses determined that 60 of these issues 

are adequately addressed for all nuclear power plants. These issues are Category 1 issues, and do not 

require additional analysis in a plant-specific environmental review unless new and significant 

information is found. Of the remaining 18 environmental impact issues, 17 are Category 2 issues, which 

require plant-specific analyses. One issue (chronic effects of electromagnetic fields) is not categorized 

due to the lack of a scientific consensus on its impacts, and the NRC staff does not perform a plantspecific analysis of this issue in SEISs. Once a consensus has been reached by appropriate Federal health 

agencies on the potential health effects from electromagnetic fields, the NRC will revise its guidance and 

evaluation of this issue. 

In the 1996 GEIS, a standard of significance was established for assessing environmental issues. 

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. 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 based upon the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines 

(40 CFR 1508.27): 

• SMALL – environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize 

nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing 

radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed 

permissible levels in the Commission’s regulations are considered small. 

• MODERATE – environmental effects are sufficient to noticeably alter important attributes of the 

resource but not to destabilize them. 

• LARGE – environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize. 

In addition to a determination of significance of environmental impacts associated with an issue, a 

determination was made whether the analysis in the GEIS could be applied to all nuclear plants (as well 

as to all plants with certain plant or site characteristics). Issues were assigned a Category 1 or Category 2 

designation as follows: 

Category 1 issues are those that meet all of the following criteria: 
 6 

• 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 characteristics; 

• A single significance level (i.e., small, moderate, or large) has been assigned to the impacts (except 

for collective off-site radiological impacts from the fuel cycle and from high-level waste and spent 

fuel); 

• Mitigation of adverse impacts associated with the issue has been considered in the analysis, and it 

has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be 

sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 

For issues that meet the three Category 1 criteria, no additional plant-specific analysis is required in future 

SEISs unless new and significant information is identified. 

Category 2 issues are those that do not meet one or more of the criteria of Category 1, and, therefore, 

require additional plant-specific review. 

Scope of the Environmental Standard Review Plans

The ESRPs in Supplement 1, Revision 1, guides the review of the environmental impact issues associated 

with license renewal. The ESRPs address all of the environmental impact issues discussed in the revised 

GEIS as well as any new environmental impact issues identified through the public scoping process. 

They also provide the framework for conducting impact analyses and preparing sections for the plantspecific SEIS. A review procedure is provided for each Category 2 issue. The ESRPs also provide for 

the systematic integration of new and significant information on Category 1 issues. 

Use of the ESRPs in the environmental review process for license renewal would ensure 

• identification of environmental impact issues, data and other information, and analysis 

• consideration of specific environmental issues of concern to Federal, State, regional, and local 

agencies, and Indian Tribes, as appropriate 

• standardization of review procedures for the analysis of environmental impact issues 

• focused environmental review of potentially significant environmental impacts 

Organization of the Environmental Standard Review Plans

The ESRPs are grouped into seven chapters. These chapters are as follows: 

1. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

3. Affected Environment 

4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 
 7 

5. Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

6. Alternatives to License Renewal 

7. Summary and Conclusions 

Chapters 1 through 3 are descriptive in nature. They guide the review of the purpose and need for the 

proposed action, the identification of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, and the description of 

the nuclear plant site and the affected environment. ESRP Chapters 4 and 5 address the analysis of 

environmental impacts. They guide the review of the potential environmental impacts associated with 

continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. ESRP Chapters 6 and 7 

address the evaluation of the alternatives to license renewal. They guide the comparison of the proposed 

action with reasonable alternatives and the summarization of the conclusions regarding the environmental 

impacts of license renewal. 

The environmental review plans in Chapters 4 and 5 identify Category 1 and 2 issues and new and 

significant information. Review plans serve to guide in the: 

• evaluation of the applicant’s process for identifying and evaluating new information 

• evaluation of information submitted by members of the public during the scoping process, and 

information identified during the environmental review to determine whether new information is 

significant 

• identification of the information required to complete a plant-specific review of the issue 

• preparation of statements for the SEIS that describe the issue and present the conclusion 

The format of the ESRPs in this document consists of the following six sections:

I. Areas of Review 

II. Acceptance Criteria 

III. Review Procedures 

IV. Evaluation Findings 

V. Implementation 

VI. Bibliography 

Areas of Review describes the purpose and scope of the environmental review. Acceptance Criteria

provides guidance on determining the acceptability of the environmental impact analysis in the SEIS. 

Review Procedures describe the methods the staff uses in conducting the environmental review. The 

level of detail in the methods of environmental review varies from review plan to review plan. 

Evaluation Findings provides guidance on how to summarize the conclusions of the environmental 

review. Implementation describes how the review plan is used. Finally, the Bibliography section 

contains the bibliographic reference information supporting the material cited in the review plan. 
 8 

Each ESRP provides a list of data and information needs under Areas of Review. The following sources 

of information should be considered: 

• applicant’s environmental report (ER) 

• previous NRC Final Environmental Statements and other Environmental Impact Statements (e.g., 

SEISs) 

• applicant’s Safety Analysis Report or Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports 

• NRC Safety Evaluation Reports 

• Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. 

• other Federal and State agencies 

• the Internet and other online information 

New and Significant Information

In the SEIS, the NRC staff is required to address any new and significant information on the 

environmental impacts of license renewal involving Category 1 and Category 2 issues. This section 

describes the identification of new information, evaluation of the significance of new information, and the 

treatment of new and significant information. When no new and significant information is found, a 

statement should be included in the SEIS that briefly describes the search for and evaluation of new 

information and states that no new information was identified or the new information was determined to 

be not significant. 

The NRC staff must identify any new information on the environmental impacts of license renewal. The 

process for identifying new and significant information should consider: 

• The applicant’s ER. Applicants are required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which they are aware. In 

reviewing the applicant’s ER, NRC staff must consider the applicant’s process for discovering and 

evaluating the significance of any new information. Is the process adequate to ensure a reasonable 

likelihood that the applicant would be aware of new information, if it existed? 

• Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. Is the information 

new in the sense that it post dates the analysis conducted for the GEIS? 

• Environmental quality standards and regulations. Have the applicable environmental quality 

standards and regulations changed since the analysis conducted for the GEIS? If so, do the changes 

affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal? 

• Technical literature. Does recent technical literature contain information that would alter 

conclusions in the GEIS for Category 1 issues? Does the information indicate that there may be 

environmental impacts that were not considered in the GEIS? 
 9 

Any new information should be used to develop precisely defined environmental impact issues. After the 

impact issues have been defined, the significance level of each issue should be determined using the 

significance level definitions in the GEIS. Appropriate mitigation measures should be identified and 

considered for each issue for which there is an adverse environmental impact. The consideration of 

mitigation measures should be in proportion to the potential adverse impact. 

If the significance level is moderate or large, the reviewer should prepare an impact assessment for inclusion in the appropriate section of the plant-specific SEIS. The assessment should include a concise 

description of the new environmental impact information (including source) and how this information 

applies to the nuclear plant. The statement should also identify the significance level of the potential 

adverse impacts, and should list any mitigation measures that would be considered appropriate. A 

summary statement and a list of references cited in the impact assessment should also be provided. 

General Instructions

The following instructions, applicable to most of the ESRPs, are provided here to avoid repetition in each 

plan: 

• Project Overview. As an initial step in each individual environmental review, the reviewer is 

expected to develop an understanding of the proposed action. The purpose of this instruction is to 

ensure that reviewers put their individual reviews in perspective with the proposed action and 

concentrate their efforts on significant issues. This general project review is to be conducted as the 

first step (acceptance review phase) of the overall environmental review process and is to be 

completed before developing requests for additional information. 

• Internal Review Coordination. The EPM is the central point of contact for all reviewers. 

Although each ESRP represents a discrete segment of NRC’s environmental review, no review can 

be completed without coordination with related reviews. For example, the technical analysis ESRPs 

(in Chapters 4 and 5) rely on the descriptive chapters (1 through 3) for background information. All 

reviewers are instructed to maintain close communication with other reviewers throughout the 

review procedure. With few exceptions, the reviews are conducted in parallel; thus, other 

environmental reviews may not be available to reviewers before their own environmental review is 

completed. 

• External Review Coordination. The EPM initiates contact with outside agencies and must be 

informed of all subsequent contacts made by reviewers. Each reviewer is expected to be aware of 

any related technical analyses and environmental assessments. Particular attention should be given 

to analyses and environmental assessments prepared under provisions of memoranda of 

understanding between the NRC and other Federal, State, regional, and local agencies, and Indian 

Tribes. Working through the EPM, the reviewer is responsible for resolving any differences of 

opinion between NRC staff analyses and analyses conducted by other agencies. The reviewer must 

ensure that all viewpoints are presented or that the specific provisions of the memoranda of 

understanding are followed. 

• Consultation with Other Agencies. The environmental reviews may require consultation with 

other Federal, State, regional, and local agencies, and Indian Tribes. Federal agencies include, but 
 10 

are not limited to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

concerning threatened and endangered species, the State Historic Preservation Officer and Indian 

Tribes concerning historic and cultural resources listed or eligible for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places; the Environmental Protection Agency (or designated State agencies) responsible 

for compliance with the Clean Water Act; State agencies responsible for consistency determinations 

under the Coastal Zone Management Act and State Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act. 

These consultations should be started as soon as possible during the environmental review process 

and should be coordinated with the EPM. 

• Consultation with the Applicant. All consultations or discussions with the applicant are made 

through the EPM. 

• Site Visit. Most reviewers benefit from a visit to the nuclear plant site. This visit provides the 

reviewer with firsthand knowledge of site and the location and position of facilities. It also allows 

the reviewer an opportunity to study the environment around the nuclear plant site. 

• Depth of Review. The reviewer must conduct an environmental impact analysis in sufficient depth 

to permit verification and validation of the analysis and conclusions. 

• Consideration of Mitigation. Mitigation measures should be considered in proportion to the level 

of impact when adverse impacts are identified. Statements should also describe the potential 

effectiveness of mitigation measures. 

• Best Management Practices. The reviewer must evaluate the applicant’s commitments to use 

practices that minimize, reduce, or avoid adverse impacts. These practices, often referred to as best 

management practices, are activities that can mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. 

• Quality Assurance. Reviewers should identify and evaluate the quality assurance measures taken 

by the applicant in the collection and analysis of data. Quality assurance measures are also 

evaluated when computer models have been used to predict environmental impacts. 

• Findings. Findings should reflect “consensus” agreement among the reviewers. This requires input 

from the reviewer, the EPM, and any other NRC reviewers affected by the findings. 

• Documentation. Each reviewer should maintain documentation, logs, and other records of 

communication and consultation with outside agencies and organizations. 

• Definitions. Use of the following terminology applies only to the environmental review process. 

Terms such as plant and station, used in an EIS, continue to reflect the choice of terms used to 

identify the nuclear plant (e.g., Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Oconee Nuclear Station). 

- Station: Consists of all facilities (reactor containment, turbine, and control buildings, intakes, 

discharges, etc.) located on the power plant site. Generally, the station includes everything 

located on the applicant’s property that supports the existing reactor(s). In some cases, intake 

and discharge structures may be located offsite, but are considered part of the station. 

Transmission lines and their associated facilities are generally not considered part of the 

station. Other facilities not associated with the production of electricity (e.g., a visitor center 

or a fish hatchery), however, are considered part of the station. 
 11 

- Plant: The nuclear reactor, reactor power conversion systems, intake and discharge 

structures, and all other facilities involved with the production of electricity. A plant can be 

more than one reactor and power conversion system. Transmission lines and other off-station 

facilities are not part of the plant. 

- Unit: One reactor power conversion system. Generally, the term “unit” is used only when 

the applicant is proposing to relicense more than one unit. 

- Facility: Any individual identifiable part of the station or plant. Examples: The visitor 

center is a facility. A substation is a facility. An intake system could be a facility (if 

discussed separately from the remainder of the plant). 

- Mitigation: Impact mitigation is the process of modifying an activity to prevent, eliminate, 

and/or reduce the adverse environmental impact. 

Bibliography

10 CFR Part 2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 2, “Rules of Practice for Domestic 

Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders.”

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of 

Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

40 CFR Part 1500. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 1500, 

“Purpose, Policy, and Mandate.” 

40 CFR Part 1501. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 1501, 

“NEPA and Agency Planning.” 

40 CFR Part 1502. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 1502, 

“Environmental Impact Statement.” 

40 CFR Part 1503. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 1503, 

“Commenting.” 

40 CFR Part 1504. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 1504, 

“Predecision Referrals to Council of Proposed Federal Actions Determined to be Environmentally 

Unsatisfactory.” 

40 CFR Part 1505. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 1505, 

“NEPA and Agency Decision Making.” 

40 CFR Part 1506. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 1506, 

“Other Requirements of NEPA.” 
 12 

40 CFR Part 1507. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 1507, 

“Agency Compliance.” 

40 CFR Part 1508. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 1508, 

“Terminology and Index.” 

61 FR 66537. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plant Operating Licenses. Final Rule. December 18, 1996. 

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 USC 7401 et seq. 

Clean Water Act (CWA). 33 USC 1251 et seq. 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended. 16 USC 1451 et seq. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. “Section 6.3—Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary 

of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final Report.” In Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Main Report. NUREG-1437, 

Vol. 1, Addendum 1. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013a. Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear 

Power Plant License Renewal Applications. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 1.0-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to the U.S. 

NRC Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License 

Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of the purpose 

and need for the proposed action. The discussion of purpose and need is found in Section 1.3 of the 

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

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introduction is consistent with the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 
 1.0-2 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51, concerning format for presentation of material 

in environmental impact statements 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A(4), concerning purpose of and need for action 

Technical Rationale

Renewal of an operating license by the NRC is just one of the conditions required for continued safe 

operation of a nuclear power plant beyond the term of the initial license. Renewing the operating license 

would provide the licensee, State regulators, and utility officials with the option of extending plant 

operations beyond the term of the initial license should circumstances warrant it, whereas not renewing 

the operating license eliminates this option. Therefore, the Commission has defined the purpose and need 

for license renewal in terms of providing the licensee, State regulators, and utility officials with the option 

of extending the operating period of the nuclear plant. One or more introductory paragraphs should be 

prepared that present the Commission’s definition of purpose and need. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared is informational in nature; no specific analysis of the data is required. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer should prepare one or more introductory paragraphs for the supplemental environmental 

impact statement (SEIS) and should include the purpose and need for license renewal as it appears in 

Section 1.3 of the GEIS. 

The purpose and need for the proposed action (i.e., renewal of a commercial nuclear power plant 

operating license) is to provide an option to continue plant operations beyond the current operating 

license term to meet future system generating needs, as such needs may be determined by State, 

utility, system, and, where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers. Unless there are 

findings in the safety review required by the Atomic Energy Act or NEPA environmental review that 

would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC has no role in energy planning 

decisions of power plant owners, State regulators, system operators, and, in some cases, other Federal 

agencies, as to whether the plant should continue to operate. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

 
 1.0-3 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 2.0-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of the discussion 

of alternatives and the proposed action. The proposed action for license renewal is described in 

Section 2.1 of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

(GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The purpose of this section is to (1) provide a statement of the proposed action (license renewal) for the 

SEIS and (2) provide background information related to the regulatory basis for license renewal and a 

brief description of the alternatives. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introduction prepared under this ESRP is consistent with the 

following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 
 2.0-2 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5). In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant to Part 54 of 

this chapter, the Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of 

license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning 

decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51, concerning format for presentation of material 

in environmental impact statements 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A(5), concerning alternatives including the proposed action 

Technical Rationale

Renewal of a plant operating license is defined in 10 CFR Part 51 as a major Federal action requiring the 

preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The introductory paragraphs prepared under this 

ESRP should clearly define the action and provide the readers of the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS) with background information related to license renewal. This information is 

summarized in the GEIS. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared is informational in nature; no specific analysis of the data is required. Much 

of the required material may be taken directly from the GEIS. However, the reviewer should reflect the 

applicant’s schedule for activities in preparation for license renewal, including refurbishment. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer for this ESRP should prepare several introductory paragraphs for the SEIS. The first 

paragraph should clearly state the nature of the proposed action (license renewal). The remaining 

paragraphs should describe the regulatory bases for license renewal, outline the process of license 

renewal, and outline the applicant’s process. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
 2.0-3 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 2.1-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

2.1 GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the description of the plant and 

plant operations during the renewal term. This section includes a description of the layout and 

appearance of the nuclear plant facility and existing structures (onsite and offsite). It also includes 

descriptions of the reactor and electric generating equipment, as well as the plant’s cooling system and 

auxiliary water systems. 

The scope includes (1) description of principal structures, site boundaries, exclusion areas, restricted 

areas, and transportation routes to the site, (2) the type(s) and size(s) of reactors and electrical generating 

equipment and their major performance parameters, (3) a general description of the cooling system and 

modes of operation, (4) the intake and discharge locations and structures, (5) the auxiliary system, and 

(6) performance characteristics for these systems. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed are nuclear power plant site- and plant-specific. The following 

data or information may be needed, as appropriate: 

• a map and description of the plant site location including State and local political jurisdictions 

(e.g., county, town, township, service districts, parish), 
 2.1-2 

• maps of: 

- the site showing site boundaries and properties; plant exclusion area; site structures and 

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

Survey categories; USGS 1997) and land cover; the construction zone for refurbishment, if 

any; sites for any other planned buildings, facilities, and structures (both temporary and 

permanent); areas under lease and public access; and transportation routes entering and 

adjacent to the site 

- the site vicinity within a 6-mile (10-kilometer) radius of the site showing boundaries of 

political jurisdictions, place names, topographic and physiographic features, residential areas, 

airports, industrial and commercial facilities, roads and highways, railroads, American Indian 

and/or Bureau of Indian Affairs lands held in trust for American Indians, Indian Tribes’ 

lands, and military reservations 

- the region within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the site showing political jurisdictions, 

place names, topographic and physiographic features, and transportation networks and 

facilities 

• Identification and description of known and reasonably foreseeable Federal and non-Federal projects 

and other actions that may contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts of license renewal 

and extended plant operation. Identify and map all Federal facilities, including national parks, 

national forests, national wildlife areas, and military facilities; American Indian and/or Bureau of 

Indian Affairs lands held in trust for American Indians; Indian Tribes’ lands; and State parks, 

recreational areas, and conservation lands. Include distances, as well as nonattainment and 

maintenance areas defined under the Clean Air Act, as amended within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of 

the plant site. 

• the number of units and description of each reactor, including type (e.g., boiling-water reactor and 

pressurized-water reactor), power conversion system manufacturer, fuel assembly description, and 

total quantities of uranium 

• engineered safety features 

• the historic average irradiation level of spent fuel, in megawatt days/ton 

• the rated and design core thermal power, the rated and design gross electrical output, and the rated 

and design net electrical output in megawatts electric (MWe). (The rated power is defined as the 

power level at which each reactor is operated, and the design power is defined as the highest power 

level that would be permitted by plant design. The gross electrical output is the power level measured at the output terminals of the generator and expressed in MWe. The net unit electrical output is 

equal to the gross electrical output minus the nominal service and auxiliary loads.) 

• a simplified flow diagram for the reactor-power conversion system 
 2.1-3 

• a description of the plant’s heat dissipation system, including the water supply source; intake and 

discharge locations; intake velocity; flow path of water from the intake point to the discharge point; 

any installed equipment or mitigation measures that reduce aquatic organism entrainment or 

impingement; and average temperatures of water at the discharge point. The description should 

include each operational mode and indicate the periods of time that the system has historically 

operated in each mode. 

• for each operational mode: 

- the quantities of heat generated, dissipated to the atmosphere, and released in liquid 

discharges 

- identification of the water source and quantities of water withdrawn, consumed, and 

discharged 

• monthly variation and stratification for the body of water used for cooling intake and discharge 

• descriptions of changes to the cooling system in preparation for license renewal or during the 

renewal term 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are 

consistent with the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.52, concerning criteria related to plant-specific analysis of the effects of transportation of 

fuel and waste to and from the facility. Note: Generic determinations have been made that the 

impacts in Table S-4 are bounding for fuel with uranium enrichment of up to 5% by weight 

irradiated to 62,000 megawatt days per ton, provided that fuel is shipped more than 5 years after 

discharge from the reactor. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A-D) describe the analyses which must be performed with respect to the 

environmental impacts of and related interactions with the environment of a plant's cooling water 

and auxiliary systems and which necessitates that the environmental report provide a description of 

such systems, including their water requirements and intakes and discharges, to support the 

discussions of the affected environment. 
 2.1-4 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant’s external appearance and setting description is 

discussed in the following paragraph: 

A description of the overall appearance of the nuclear power plant and its setting is needed to clarify 

the physical parameters of the current power station and any significant modifications to the facility. 

The description of the external appearance of the plant and plant layout should be in sufficient detail 

to form an adequate basis for staff analysis of various land-use and socioeconomic impacts of 

continued plant operations and refurbishment. 

The technical rationale for evaluating the description of the applicant’s reactor system is discussed in the 

following paragraph: 

A description of the overall nuclear energy generating system is useful background information for 

the evaluation of certain environmental impacts resulting from continued plant operations and 

refurbishment activities. This description should include information about reactor type, number of 

units, thermal power level, and other factors about the facility. 

The technical rationale for evaluating the description of the applicant’s cooling systems is discussed in the 

following paragraph: 

The cooling system has the greatest effect on the environment. This section is descriptive in 

nature and presents information necessary for the evaluation of environmental impacts associated 

with cooling system modification related to license renewal and continued plant operations during 

the renewal term. The description of the external appearance of the cooling system and its 

operational modes should be in sufficient detail to form an adequate basis for staff analysis of the 

environmental impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities during the 

license renewal term. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The reviewer should ensure that the description of the layout and appearance of the nuclear plant facility 

and existing structures (onsite and offsite) provides adequate information for the reviews conducted under 

the ESRPs in Chapters 3 and 4. The following review steps are suggested: 

1. Review plant and station layout and external appearance data. 
 2.1-5 

2. Determine the relationship of the plant design and layout to the surrounding environment, including 

any aesthetic features of the site and vicinity. 

3. Identify maps and drawings that show relevant features of the plant, the site, and the region. The 

maps and drawings should also identify significant offsite features, if any, in the vicinity (i.e., 

Federal facilities, including national parks, forests, wildlife areas, Indian and/or Bureau of Indian 

Affairs lands held in trust for Indians, and Indian Tribes’ lands). 

The material to be prepared on the reactor-power conversion system is informational in nature; no 

specific analysis of the data is required. Identify the reactor power conversion and engineered safety 

feature systems and the basic design performance data. As a rule, if the data listed under “Data and 

Information Needs” above are provided, that objective would be met. 

The material to be prepared on the cooling systems is informational in nature. No specific analysis is 

required, but the use of tables such as Table 2.1.3-1 and Table 2.1.3-2 in this ESRP may assist data 

organization. The reviewer should gather the following information largely from design and historical 

documentation for use in later sections: 

• For the general cooling system description, include: 

- type and configuration 

- water source and proximity to facility 

- modes of operation and percentage of time, water source and quantities of water withdrawn, 

consumed, and discharged in each mode 

- specific details depending on system type (see Tables 2.1.3-1 and 2.1.3-2) 

- monthly variation and stratification for the body of water used for cooling intake and 

discharge 

- other major plant systems and flow rates 

• For intake systems include: 

- a drawing of the intake structure showing the relationship of the structure to the water 

surface, bottom geometry, and shoreline 

- the location of the intake in relation to the outfall 

- a description of cooling-water pumping facility 

- a description of the trash racks, traveling screens, trash baskets, and fish return devices 

- performance characteristics (e.g., flow rates, intake velocities) for the operational modes 

identified 

- performance characteristics for specific intake related functions, such as de-icing, trash rack 

clearing, screen washing, trash basket removal, or fish return system operation 

- the location and description of components for the addition of chemicals (e.g., corrosion 

inhibitors, antifouling agents) to the intake system. 
 2.1-6 

• For discharge systems include: 

- drawings of the outfall structure, showing its location in the receiving water body, 

relationship to water surface, bottom geometry, and shoreline 

- a description of discharge canal or discharge lines 

- performance characteristics (e.g., discharge flow rates, discharge velocities, discharge temperatures, and temperature differentials) for the operational modes identified 

- descriptions of specific discharge related components (e.g., diffusers, fish barriers) 

• For heat-dissipation systems include: 

- the location of heat-dissipation system components relative to other site features 

- the design details of heat-dissipation system components affecting system performance 

- heat-dissipation system performance characteristics for the operational modes 

- nuclear power plant site-specific meteorological data 

- nuclear power plant site-specific water supply data 

• For cooling towers, determine average discharge temperatures for each month of the year using 

cooling tower performance curves. The average discharge temperature would be calculated by using 

the average wet-bulb temperature for the month. 

• For spray systems, analyze the applicant’s estimates of average monthly discharge temperatures. 

The depth and extent of this analysis should depend on the seriousness of the predicted impacts of 

the heated effluent on the receiving body of water and the level of confidence in the applicant’s 

model. 

• In the cases where auxiliary systems are employed to further cool the blowdown discharged from 

the main cooling system, determine the final discharge temperature. 

Table 2.1.3-1. Design Details of Heat-Dissipation-System Components 

Component Design Details 

Cooling towers (from the ER) Type 

Configuration 

Materials of construction 

Number and arrangement 

Rated heat-dissipation capacity 

Cooling lakes and ponds (from the ER) Surface area 

Volume 

Bathymetry 

Spray ponds or canals (from the ER) Arrangement and configuration of spray modules 

Pond or canal geometry 

Surface area and water volume 

Condenser (from the ER) Heat transfer area and materials of construction 

Antifouling treatment 
 2.1-7 

Table 2.1.3-2. Performance Characteristics of the Heat-Dissipation System 

Component Design Details 

Cooling towers (from the ER) Input and discharge flow rates and temperatures for monthly 

average meteorological conditions 

Wet-bulb temperature, approach to wet-bulb, and range 

Performance curves 

Air flow 

Power consumption 

Noise levels 

Drift rate and drop size 

Cooling lakes and ponds (from the ER) Flow rates (through condenser) 

Flow-through times 

Flow pattern 

Monthly average water temperatures (mean for entire lake or pond, 

inlet [from condenser], outlet [to condenser]) 

Surface elevation (mean, maximum, minimum) 

Spray ponds or canals (from the ER) Flow rates (through condenser) 

Flow-through times 

Flow pattern 

Monthly average water temperatures (inlet [from condenser], outlet 

[to condenser]) 

Surface elevation (mean, maximum, minimum) 

Spray system operating parameters (e.g., power consumption, drop 

size) 

Once-through systems (from the ER) Condenser flow rate 

Temperature differential across condenser 

Time-of-passage through system (including intake and discharge 

system passage times) 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS should be governed by land-use considerations that could be 

affected by the layout of the nuclear power plant and supporting structures. It should include a summary 

description of the reactor-power conversion and engineered safety feature systems, a flow diagram, and a 

table of design and performance parameters. 

The level of detail of information included in the SEIS should include the following information: 

• narrative description of the cooling system and the intake and discharge structures and 

characteristics 

• sketches of intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation components 

• description of operational modes and their important characteristics (e.g., frequency and duration, 

discharge temperature, water consumption, and chemical concentration factor) 
 2.1-8 

• drawings of important subsystems (e.g., perforated-pipe assemblies) 

The reviewer should verify that cooling system component descriptions are consistent, accurate, and 

given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers of intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation 

system impacts. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 USC 7401 et seq. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997. USGS Land Use and Land Cover Data. USGS Survey Earth 

Resources Observation Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 2.2-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

2.2 REFURBISHMENT ACTIVITIES 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the description of any planned 

refurbishment activities performed in support of license renewal. This section includes a description of 

any major structures and components that would be replaced or modified. 

The scope includes (1) identification and description of major structures and components to undergo 

refurbishment, (2) where construction materials would be stored, as well as removal and disposal, 

(3) description of related activities that have the potential to affect the surrounding environment either 

directly or indirectly. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• description of the proposed refurbishment activity, including specific structures and components that 

would be replaced or modified 

• description of the location where materials would be stored, as well as removal and disposal 
 2.2-2 

• description of any transportation or delivery activities in support of the refurbishment activity, 

including the transport and delivery of equipment, structures, and components (e.g., steam 

generators, vessel heads), as well as any dredging and bridge and road modifications 

• list of applicable Federal and State agency permits required for this activity 

• description of specific refurbishment-related activities that have the potential to either directly or 

indirectly affect the environment 

• discussion of the schedule for the refurbishment activity, including normal maintenance schedules 

and refueling outages 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are 

consistent with the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

Technical Rationale

This section is descriptive in nature and presents information necessary for the evaluation of 

environmental impacts associated with refurbishment. The descriptions should be in sufficient detail to 

form an adequate basis for staff analysis of environmental impacts of refurbishment activities associated 

with license renewal. 

 
 2.2-3 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared on refurbishment activities is informational; no specific analysis is required. 

The reviewer should ensure that description of the plant refurbishment activities provides adequate 

information for the reviews conducted under the ESRPs in Chapters 3 and 4. The following review steps 

are suggested: 

1. Review the discussion of plant refurbishment in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant (GEIS; NUREG-1437). 

2. Obtain a description of the proposed refurbishment activity, including descriptions of the specific 

structures and components that would be replaced or modified. 

3. Obtain descriptions of transport and storage of necessary equipment and materials, including any 

proposed transportation plans. 

4. Obtain the proposed schedule for refurbishment work, including planned changes in staffing, if any. 

5. Prepare a section describing the refurbishment activities for the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS).

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare introductory paragraphs for the SEIS. 

The paragraph(s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 2.3-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

2.3 EMPLOYMENT

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the discussion of employment 

at nuclear power plants. The discussion should include both permanent full-time onsite and refueling 

outage employment (i.e., the total number of full-time applicant and contractor employees), as well as 

information on the average duration of refueling and maintenance outages (number of weeks) and their 

frequency (number of months). 

The reviewer should evaluate the applicant’s projections of the increase in the number of workers 

required to support any refurbishment activity described in Section 2.2. The reviewer should also 

estimate the residential distribution of the refurbishment workforce. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• a description of the plant’s operational employment history, including maintenance and refueling 

outages 

• plant staffing history, including maximum annual average number of workers supporting plant 

operations, maintenance, and refueling outages 
 2.3-2 

• anticipated number of workers onsite during refurbishment activities 

• anticipated changes in the number of workers onsite during and in support of license renewal 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are 

consistent with the following regulation: 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

Technical Rationale

This section is descriptive in nature and presents information necessary for the evaluation of 

environmental impacts associated with plant operations. The descriptions should be in sufficient detail to 

form an adequate basis for analysis of the environmental impacts of continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term and refurbishment. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared on plant employment is informational in nature. No specific analysis is 

required. The following review steps are suggested: 

1. Review the discussion of plant employment in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant (GEIS; NUREG-1437). 

2. Obtain a description of the plant employment history, including maintenance and refueling outages 

and annual average employment. 

3. Obtain anticipated changes in the number of workers onsite during and in support of license renewal 

and refurbishment, if any. 
 2.3-3 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) would 

depend on nuclear power plant site- and plant-specific factors. The reviewer should verify that the plant 

employment description is consistent, accurate, and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the 

reviewers for ESRP sections in Chapters 3 and 4. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 2.4-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

 

2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for describing how the applicant 

identified and selected reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. 

The scope includes (1) a brief description the process used to identify and select alternatives to the 

proposed action by the applicant, and (2) brief descriptions of all of the replacement power alternatives 

considered by the applicant. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• description of the process used by the applicant to determine reasonable replacement power 

alternatives to the proposed action 

• description of all alternatives considered 

• indication of which alternatives should be described in further detail 

• brief description of any alternatives considered that would reduce or avoid adverse effects
 2.4-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are consistent with the 

following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3), concerning alternatives to the proposed action. The discussion of alternatives 

shall be sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in developing and exploring, pursuant to 

Section 102(2)(E) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1069 (NEPA), “appropriate 

alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts 

concerning alternative uses of available resources.” To the extent practicable, the environmental 

impacts of license renewal and the replacement power alternatives should be presented in 

comparative form. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii). The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing 

adverse impacts, as required by Section 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal issues in 

Appendix B to Subpart A of this part. No such consideration is required for Category 1 issues in 

Appendix B to Subpart A of this part. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5). In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant to Part 54 of 

this chapter, the Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of 

license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning 

decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51, concerning format for presentation of material 

in environmental impact statements 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51(5), concerning alternatives including the 

proposed action 
 2.4-3 

Technical Rationale

The GEIS does not contain any conclusions regarding the environmental impact or acceptability of 

alternatives to license renewal. Accordingly, the NRC must conduct an analysis of reasonable 

alternatives to license renewal in plant-specific environmental reviews. A reasonable alternative must be 

commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s operating 

license, or expected to become commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the 

expiration of the reactor’s operating license. Analysis of replacement power alternatives does not involve 

the determination of whether any power is needed or should be generated. The decision to generate 

power and the determination of how much power is needed are at the discretion of State and utility 

officials. The potential environmental impacts evaluated include land use, ecology, aesthetics, water 

quality, air quality, solid waste, human health, socioeconomics, environmental justice, and historic and 

cultural resources. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared for the plant description of alternatives to the proposed action is informational 

in nature; no specific analysis is required. The following review steps are suggested: 

1. Obtain a description of the process used by the applicant to determine reasonable replacement power 

alternatives to the proposed action. 

2. Obtain a list of alternatives considered by the applicant and state authorities. 

3. Obtain a list of which of the considered alternatives were selected to be described in greater detail. 

4. Prepare a section describing the considered alternatives to the proposed action for the supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The information in the SEIS would depend on nuclear power plant site- and plant-specific factors. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

 
 2.4-4 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS). NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.0-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for preparing the introduction to 

sections that describe the plant’s affected environment based on the reviews conducted under ESRP 

Sections 3.1 through 3.11. 

The scope includes (1) review of the affected environment in the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1) 

and (2) preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are consistent with 

the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), concerning status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal 

permits, licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection.
 3.0-2 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and, analytic, 

and written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating environmental 

impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared is informational and descriptive; no specific analysis of data is required. The 

introduction should list the information to be presented and describe its relationship to the environmental 

consequences to be presented in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. It should indicate that the objective of SEIS 

Subsections 3.1 through 3.11 is to provide a general description of the affected environment as 

background and/or baseline information. Some detailed descriptions may be needed to support the 

analyses of environmental impacts in Chapter 4. 
 3.0-3 

It is important to point out specific sections of this chapter that address environmental issues raised by the 

public in scoping meetings or in correspondence on the license renewal application. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer for this ESRP should prepare a paragraph(s) to introduce the nature of the material to be 

presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRPs 3.1 through 3.11. The depth and extent of 

the input to the SEIS would be governed, in part, by the extent of the potential impacts of continued 

operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment activities in support of license renewal. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.1-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.1 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of land use and visual 

resources of the site and vicinity, the region, and the in-scope transmission lines and corridors. 

The scope should include establishing the nature and extent of present and planned land use and visual 

impacts within areas that might be impacted by continued plant operations during the license renewal 

term or modified as a result of refurbishment in support of license renewal. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors and presented in conjunction with the maps included in Section 2.1. The degree of detail 

should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impact. The following data or 

information may be needed, if appropriate: 

• land-use data (onsite and offsite) and descriptions from prior environmental documents, including 

the applicant’s environmental report (ER) and final environmental statements (FESs) prepared for 

nuclear plant construction and operation 

• description of the plant site location in relationship to State and local political jurisdictions 

(e.g., county, town, township, service districts, parish) 
 3.1-2 

• description of the site boundaries and properties; plant exclusion area; site structures and facilities; 

major land uses and land cover; the construction zone for refurbishment, if any; sites for any other 

planned buildings, facilities, and structures (both temporary and permanent); areas under lease or 

with public access; and transportation routes entering and adjacent to the site 

• description of the site vicinity within a 6-mile (10-kilometer) radius regarding political jurisdictions, 

major land uses and land cover, topographic and physiographic features, transportation networks and 

facilities, place names, Indian and/or Bureau of Indian Affairs lands held in trust for Indians, and 

Indian Tribes’ lands 

• description of the region within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the site regarding political 

jurisdictions, place names, topographic and physiographic features, and transportation networks and 

facilities 

• identification and description of known and reasonably foreseeable Federal and non-Federal projects 

and other actions that may contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts of license renewal 

and extended plant operation: all Federal facilities, including national parks, national forests, 

national wildlife areas, and military facilities; American Indian and/or Bureau of Indian Affairs 

lands held in trust for Indians; Indian Tribes’ lands; and State parks, recreational areas, and 

conservation lands. Include distances, as well as nonattainment and maintenance areas defined 

under the Clean Air Act, as amended, within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the plant site 

• description of land uses and land cover within the in-scope transmission lines and corridors and any 

current and planned restrictions or covenants on use 

• description of the plant’s visual setting, including the identities and heights of the tallest visible plant 

structures, significant lights and vapor plumes, as well as direction and distances from which these 

structures, lights, and plumes are visible 

• description of the existing visual impacts of in-scope transmission lines and corridors’ level of 

significance, distance, and type of observer 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of onsite and offsite land use and the transmission lines and corridors 

are based on the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), concerning status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal 

permits, licenses, approvals, and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 
 3.1-3 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

• 15 CFR Part 930, the regulations governing implementation of the requirement for Federal 

consistency with approved coastal management programs (as set forth in the Coastal Zone 

Management Act of 1972). 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that provides background 

information to be used in evaluating land-use impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

activities associated with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The reviewer’s analysis of land-use characteristics should be closely linked with the impact assessment 

review described in ESRP Section 4.1 to establish the land-use characteristics most likely to be affected 

by license renewal. The following review steps are suggested: 

1. Review the applicant’s ER, scoping issues, and any other applicable land-use information. 

2. Identify onsite and offsite land uses and land cover, including areas within the in-scope transmission 

lines and corridors that could be affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment associated 

with license renewal. 

3. Describe political jurisdictions, place names, topographic and physiographic features, and 

transportation networks and facilities. 
 3.1-4 

4. Identify any current and planned site and local land-use, zoning, and development plans relevant to 

population and housing growth and control and changes in land use patterns. 

5. Identify known and reasonably foreseeable Federal and non-Federal projects and other actions 

within the region that may contribute to the cumulative environmental impacts of license renewal 

and extended plant operation. 

6. Identify potential impacts to a coastal zone or coastal watershed, as defined by each State 

participating in the National Coastal Zone Management Program. 

7. Identify any visual impacts of the plant and of the in-scope transmission lines from various viewing 

locations. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer should ensure that the land-use information is adequate as a basis for assessment of the 

effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal. The 

reviewer should consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian 

Tribes to assess the accuracy of the land-use designations, if necessary. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

15 CFR Part 930. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 15, Commerce and Foreign Trade, Part 930, 

“Federal Consistency with Approved Coastal Management Programs.” 

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. 42 USC 7401 et seq. 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), as amended. 16 USC 1451 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.2-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.2 METEOROLOGY, AIR QUALITY, AND NOISE

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the meteorology, air 

quality, and noise environment of the site and surrounding area, and characterization of atmospheric 

transport. This review should provide background information for inclusion in the supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS) and input to reviewers for ESRPs for license renewal dealing with 

evaluation of the impacts of continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment 

activities in support of license renewal. 

The scope includes descriptions of (1) regional climatology, (2) meteorological characteristics of the site 

and vicinity using data from the onsite meteorological monitoring program, (3) local and regional 

atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics, (4) local and regional air quality, and (5) noise 

generation of, and in the vicinity of, the site. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential 

impacts. The following data or information may be needed, if appropriate: 

• climatic descriptions from prior environmental documents, including the environmental impact 

statements (EISs) prepared at the construction-permit and operating-license stages
 3.2-2 

• recent climatological data from nearby National Weather Service (NWS) stations 

• extreme weather events, such as floods, hails, thunderstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., from the 

National Climatic Data Center Storm Events database, and historical events and damages to the site 

or nearby areas 

• summary of meteorological data from the onsite meteorological program for the most recent 5-year 

period 

• descriptions of meteorological phenomena, if any, associated with the plant’s cooling system 

operation 

• a description of regional air quality, including the locations of mandatory Federal Class I areas 

• topographic data if substantially different from the data presented in earlier EISs 

• lists of nonattainment and/or maintenance areas in the region 

• a map of the region within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the nonattainment and maintenance 

areas of the site 

• any current or past noise studies and analyses conducted in the vicinity of the site 

• nearby sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, nursing homes, biota, and habitat 

• list of loudest-noise-generating facilities and activities in the surrounding area, with given distances 

to the nearest site boundary 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of site meteorology, air quality, and noise are based on the 

following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), “Status of Compliance.” The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals, and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed 

action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental 

report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental 

quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use 

regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which have been 

imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental 

protection. 
 3.2-3 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

• 40 CFR Part 50 concerning the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

• 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart W, concerning requirements related to applicable implementation plans 

• 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W, concerning air quality models 

• 40 CFR Part 81, Subparts C and D, concerning attainment status designations approved by the EPA 

and identification of mandatory Class I Federal areas 

• 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B, concerning requirements for determining conformity of Federal actions 

to State or Federal implementation plans 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

• Regulatory Guide 1.23, Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants

(NRC 2007) 

• ESRP 2.7 in NUREG-1555 provides guidance on onsite meteorological measurements for use in 

licensing applications 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating air quality, 
 3.2-4 

meteorology, and noise impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated 

with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The review of meteorology, air quality, and noise should be conducted in stages to permit termination 

when sufficient analysis has been completed to reach the appropriate conclusions. The following review 

steps are suggested: 

1. Review the air quality discussion in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant (GEIS; NUREG-1437) to identify the information considered and 

the conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by 

the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Obtain descriptions of the site meteorological, climatological, dispersion characteristics, and 

acoustic (noise) environment from prior environmental documents. 

3. Obtain recent meteorological data for the site and climatological data for the region surrounding the 

site. 

4. Obtain the air-quality attainment status and available air-quality data for the region. 

5. Update the descriptions of meteorology, climatology, air quality, and noise environment presented 

in prior environmental documents using recent data. 

6. Determine if there is significant new information that would require specialized atmospheric 

modeling. 

7. If the atmospheric dispersion calculations would be required to determine the potential impact of 

workers’ vehicles on air quality in nonattainment or maintenance areas, or for dose calculations, or 

if specialized atmospheric modeling would be required, then continue the review at Step 9. 

Otherwise, prepare a section for the SEIS that presents an updated summary of the meteorology and 

climatology, air quality, and noise environment for the plant site and region. The summary should 

address normal conditions and historic severe weather, including the frequency and severity of 

severe weather phenomena. 

8. Determine the specific atmospheric models to be used to support reviews being conducted under 

other ESRPs and the data requirements of those models. Models to support dose calculations are 

described in Regulatory Guides 1.111, Rev. 1, Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and 

Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors

(NRC 1977), and 1.145, Rev. 1, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident 

Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants (1983). Models approved by the Environmental 

Protection Agency for air quality calculations are listed in Appendix W of 40 CFR 51. 
 3.2-5 

9. Prepare the meteorological data for use by the atmospheric models and assist the reviewers of the 

other ESRPs in making the appropriate model calculations. 

10. Prepare a section for the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that presents an 

updated summary of the meteorology, climatology, air quality, and noise environment for the plant 

site and region. The summary should address normal conditions and historic severe weather. The 

section should describe and summarize the meteorological data used in atmospheric model 

calculations. The atmospheric models used should be identified in the SEIS, but detailed model 

descriptions should be avoided. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer should ensure that the meteorology, air quality, and noise information is adequate as a basis 

for assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal. The reviewer should consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected 

American Indian Tribes to assess the accuracy of the meteorology, air quality, and noise information, if 

necessary. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

40 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 50, “National 

Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.” 

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

“Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.” 

40 CFR Part 81. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 81, “Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and 

Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors. Regulatory 

Guide 1.111, Rev. 1. 
 3.2-6 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential 

Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.145, Rev 1. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear 

Power Plants. Regulatory Guide 1.23.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.3-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.3 GEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENT 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the geology and 

soils of the site and surrounding area. This review should provide background information for inclusion 

in the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) and input to reviewers for supplemental 

ESRPs for license renewal dealing with evaluation of the impacts of continued plant operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. 

The scope includes (1) description of geologic setting, (2) overview of seismicity and seismic history, (3) 

description of onsite soils and their relationship to site geology, and (4) description of soil erosion 

potential at the site. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed, if appropriate: 

• descriptions of geologic setting at the plant site, including occurring rock types, formation names, 

and thicknesses 

• descriptions of seismic potential at the site and seismic history 

• identity of largest known local and historic regional earthquake
 3.3-2 

• description of safe-shutdown earthquake for the plant 

• description of onsite soils (e.g. overburden and unconsolidated material) and their relationship to site 

geology (whether the material was brought in from offsite or is naturally occurring) 

• description of onsite erosion control and run-off best management practices 

• description of erosion potential at the site 

• identity of any important farmland soils (e.g., prime farmland) on or in the vicinity of the site 

• description of any rare or unique geologic resources, including rock, mineral, or energy rights and 

assets at or adjoining the site, including resource extraction activities 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of site geology and soils are based on the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), “Status of Compliance.” The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed 

action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental 

report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental 

quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use 

regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which have been 

imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental 

protection. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 
 3.3-3 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating impacts 

associated with geology and soils from continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated 

with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The review of geology and soils should be conducted in stages to permit termination when sufficient 

analysis has been completed to reach the appropriate conclusions. The following review steps are 

suggested: 

1. Review the discussion of potential impacts of continued plant operation and refurbishment activities 

on geology and soils in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Power Plant (GEIS; NUREG-1437) to identify the information considered and the 

conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Obtain descriptions of regional and local geology, soils, geologic resources, and seismic setting. 

3. Obtain descriptions of the site geology, soils, geologic resources, and seismic setting from prior 

environmental documents. 

4. Obtain descriptions of seismic potential at the site and seismic history, including the largest known 

local and historic regional earthquake and safe-shutdown earthquake for the plant. 

5. Obtain descriptions of any onsite erosion control plans and run-off best management practices. 

6. Prepare a section for the SEIS that presents an updated summary of the geology and soils, including 

significant geologic resources, and seismic setting for the plant site and surrounding region. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer should ensure that the geology and soils information is adequate as a basis for assessment of 

the effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. The reviewer 

should consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, and local agencies, as well as Indian Tribes, to 

assess the accuracy of the geology and soils information, if necessary. 

 
 3.3-4 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

40 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 51, 

“Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.4-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.4 WATER RESOURCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of water use and 

quality that could affect or be affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with 

license renewal.

The scope includes (1) consideration of such water uses as domestic, municipal, agricultural, industrial, 

mining, recreation, navigation, and hydroelectric power, (2) identification of their locations, 

(3) quantification of water diversions, consumption, and returns, (4) consideration of site-specific and 

regional data on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of groundwater and surface water to 

provide the basic data for the evaluation of water-quality impacts to water bodies, aquifers, aquatic 

ecosystems, (5) water use related to continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal, and (6) preparation of a section describing water use and water quality for the supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS). The review should be limited to present and reasonably known 

future water uses.

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
 3.4-2 

• maps (including digital databases such as a Geographic Information System) showing the 

relationship of the site to the major hydrological systems, surface water bodies, floodplains, and 

groundwater aquifer systems that could affect or be affected by plant water withdrawals and/or 

discharges 

• quantitative descriptions of present and known future surface water uses (withdrawals, 

consumptions, and returns), groundwater withdrawals, and nonconsumptive water uses (recreational, 

navigational, instream, etc.) that may affect or be affected by continued plant operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. This should include any bodies of water or aquifers 

at distances close enough to affect or be adversely affected by the plants. This should also include a 

quantitative description of any water uses that provide potential liquid pathways for both 

radiological and nonradiological effluents. The following should be included: 

- locations of diversions and returns concerning the site and the water body 

- identification of the water body 

- average monthly withdrawal and return rate for each surface water diversion by use category.

- locations and depths of wells in relation to the site 

- identification of aquifers 

- identification of any Environmental Protection Agency-designated sole source aquifers

- the average monthly groundwater withdrawal rates by use category 

- identification of water bodies and locations concerning the site within a 6-mile (10-kilometer) 

radius, including any delineated floodplains or zones of inundation for adjoining and onsite 

surface water features (maps may be useful) 

- the type and location of activity on the identified water body (maps may be useful)

- the use rate variation over time

• summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by Federal or State regulations 

• a water-use diagram for the plant showing flow rates to and from the various water systems 

(e.g., circulating water system, sanitary system, radwaste and chemical waste systems, service water 

systems), points of consumption, and source and discharge locations 

• for the water-use diagram, the data and narrative description for maximum water consumption, 

water consumption during periods of minimum water availability, and average operation by month 

and by plant operating status 

• a description of other station water uses (i.e., all facilities not associated with the proposed plant) 

showing flow rates to and from the facility, average water consumption, and maximum water 

consumption 
 3.4-3 

• the mean, range, and temporal and spatial variations of the surface water and groundwater quality 

characteristics 

- For surface waters: water temperature, suspended solids, total dissolved solids, hardness, 

turbidity, color, odor, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, biological oxygen demand, chemical 

oxygen demand, phosphorus forms (total and orthophosphate), nitrogen forms (ammonia, 

nitrate, nitrite, organic), alkalinity, chlorides, sulfate, sodium, potassium, calcium, 

magnesium, heavy metals (e.g., Hg, Pb), pH, phytoplankton (chlorophyll a), and indicator 

microorganisms (e.g., total coliform, fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci) 

- For groundwaters: the above-surface-water data, minus phytoplankton and with silica, iron, 

and bicarbonate added 

• other nuclear power plant site-specific water-quality characteristics 

• descriptions of preexisting aquatic environmental stresses and their effects on surface or 

groundwater quality for waters that interact with the plant (e.g., water bodies at or near the site that 

do not meet established water-quality standards). These should include State 303d lists of impaired 

waters which classify the quality of each of the State’s water bodies and are required under the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) 

• descriptions of pollutant sources with discharges to water that may interact with the plant, including 

locations relative to the site and the affected water bodies, and the magnitude and nature of the 

pollutant discharges, including spatial and temporal variations 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the review of water use are based on the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), “Status of Compliance.” The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed 

action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental report 

shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality 

standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use regulations, 

and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which have been imposed by 

Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 
 3.4-4 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicant's plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and 

withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on water 

availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related impacts on stream 

(aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be provided. The applicant shall 

also provide an assessment of the impacts of the withdrawal of water from the river on alluvial 

aquifers during low flow. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C). If the applicant’s plant pumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite) of 

groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on groundwater must 

be provided. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D). If the applicant's plant is located at an inland site and utilizes cooling 

ponds, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on groundwater quality must be provided. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P). An applicant shall assess the impact of any documented inadvertent 

releases of radionuclides into groundwater. The applicant shall include in its assessment a 

description of any groundwater protection program used for the surveillance of piping and 

components containing radioactive liquids for which a pathway to groundwater may exist. The 

assessment must also include a description of any past inadvertent releases and the projected impact 

to the environment (e.g., aquifers, rivers, lakes, ponds, the ocean) during the license renewal term. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

• 33 CFR Part 330, Appendix A, concerning conditions, limitations, and restrictions on construction 

activities 

• 40 CFR Parts 122-133, concerning National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit conditions for discharges, including storm-water discharges 

• 40 CFR Part 147, concerning restrictions on waste disposal options 

• 40 CFR Part 149, concerning possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in 

or above a sole source aquifer 

• 40 CFR Part 165, concerning the disposal and storage of pesticides and pesticide containers 
 3.4-5 

• 40 CFR Part 403, concerning waste effluents 

• 40 CFR Part 423, concerning effluent limitations on existing and new point sources 

• 40 CFR Parts 700–716, concerning practices and procedures for managing toxic chemicals 

• Federal, State, regional, local, and Indian Tribal water laws and water rights 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

• Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not a 

substitute for and does not negate the requirement for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 

weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, 

and to consider alternatives to the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse 

impacts. If an environmental assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting 

authority, the NRC would consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the 

environmental impacts in striking an overall cost-benefit balance. When no such assessment of 

aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with 

the permitting authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) should establish its own 

impact determination. 

• Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be 

considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. 

Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994), the United States Supreme Court 

interpreted the Clean Water Act as allowing States to impose conditions on certifications, such as 

limitations on a given project, insofar as necessary to enforce a designated use contained in the 

State's water quality standard. The Court held that these limitations do not have to be specifically 

tied to a discharge requirement.

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating water use 

and quality impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with license 

renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES

The reviewer’s analysis of surface water and groundwater use should consider the aspects of water use 

that are concerned with consumptive use, nonconsumptive use, and effluent pathways. The depth of 

analysis would be related to the importance of water use and proximity of the use to the plant. Emphasis 

should be given to those water uses that are expected to change during refurbishment and/or the license 

renewal term. The following review steps are suggested:
 3.4-6 

1. Identify consumptive water uses that could affect the water supply of the plant or that may be 

adversely affected by the plant, including the following important characteristics:

• water source

• locations of diversions and returns

• amount and time variation of use

• water rights

2. Identify recreational, navigational, and other nonconsumptive water uses. The important 

characteristics to be specified are:

• location 

• activity 

• amount and time variation of use

3. Identify the water uses that provide potential pathways for both radiological and nonradiological 

effluents, including the following important characteristics: 

• water sources 

• location of diversions for consumptive uses 

• location of receptors for nonconsumptive uses 

• amount and time variation of use for each

4. In addition to information obtained from the applicant’s environmental report (ER) and from 

responses to subsequent questions to the applicant, use additional sources of data, such as

• local water-supply companies or agencies 

• river basin commissions 

• State agencies (e.g., water resources, fish and wildlife) 

• various Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological 

Survey, and Indian Tribal agencies when needed to complete the analysis. Local water users 

may be questioned during the site visit.

5. Using the above information, compile and tabulate water uses by the categories and characteristics 

described in this ESRP section, but limit the analysis to consideration of present and reasonably 

known future water uses.

6. Ensure that water-use data and information are adequate to serve as a basis for assessing the impacts 

of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal on water use.
 3.4-7 

• In evaluating the adequacy of this material, the reviewer should ensure that data are sufficient 

to predict water-use impacts to the plant as well as water-use characteristics to be impacted 

by refurbishment and operation during the renewal term. 

• Consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and Tribal agencies in making this 

evaluation.

The reviewer’s analysis of water quality should ensure that the physical, chemical, and biological waterquality parameters that could affect or be affected by continued plant operations during the license 

renewal term and refurbishment in support of license renewal have been described. The reviewer should 

take the following steps:

1. Identify the location and spatial distribution of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics, 

the monthly and annual ranges, and the historical extremes of those water-quality characteristics that 

could potentially affect or be affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment. 

2. Determine the presence of existing water-quality-related environmental stresses. Consult the quality 

criteria requirements of other water users, as indicated by the approved water-use classification 

(such as 303(d), lists) or water resource planning documents for the water body in question. 

3. When applicable, discuss the water-quality conditions, floodplains and waterway buffer zones, water 

rights, and agreements as they affect water quality and water supply and resource plans for the site 

and vicinity with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American Tribal water resource 

and pollution control and monitoring agencies. 

4. Obtain the information primarily from the applicant’s ER, responses to questions to the applicant, 

and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American Tribal agencies. 

Use sources of data such as river basin planning organizations and State and Federal agencies, such 

as the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. 

Geological Survey, if additional information or verification is deemed necessary. 

5. Ensure that the 

• data are sufficient to provide quantitative information on the physical, chemical, and 

biological water-quality characteristics potentially affecting or affected by continued plant 

operations and refurbishment 

• hydrologic and water-quality descriptions are sufficient, concerning relevancy, completeness, 

reliability, and accuracy for input to the impact assessments of other sections 

• Federal, State, regional, local, and Tribal agencies appropriate to the objectives of this review 

have been consulted.
 3.4-8 

6. When evaluating the adequacy of this material: 

• consult the applicable standards and guides for this environmental review and use the site 

visit and/or consultations with permitting agencies to evaluate the completeness of the waterquality descriptions.

• evaluate, when necessary, the collection of additional data, the verification of data, and the 

substantiation of the methodology used to estimate water-quality parameters

7. Include the appropriate depth and extent of the input to the environmental impact statement (EIS) as 

governed by the hydrologic and water-quality characteristics that could affect or be affected by 

continued plant operations and refurbishment and by the nature and magnitude of the expected 

impacts. The following information should be included as input to the EIS: 

• descriptions of site and vicinity surface-water and groundwater occurrence, flow, and quality 

that could affect or be affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment. The 

description may consist of statistical summaries of the relevant characteristics, including 

mean, mean low and high, and historical low and high values (as available) for the site and 

vicinity. The data included should be commensurate with the anticipated impacts. Figures 

may be used to show long-term and seasonal trends, such as variations in dissolved oxygen 

and nutrient concentrations and pH variations. 

• a description of the water-quality related environmental stresses in the site and vicinity.

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS

The reviewer should ensure that the water-use information is adequate as a basis for assessment of the 

effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. The depth and 

extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the water-use characteristics of the site and vicinity 

and the potential water-use impacts of continued plant operations during the license renewal term and 

refurbishment in support of license renewal. The information should be presented in a concise form. 

Data should be given in tables where appropriate.

The following information should be included:

• a summary of present and reasonably known future groundwater withdrawals on the site and for 

distances great enough to cover potentially affected groundwater aquifers 

• a summary of present and reasonably known future surface-water uses that are within the 

hydrological system in which the plant is located and that may affect or be adversely affected by the 

plant 

• a summary of present and reasonably known future recreational, navigational, and other 

nonconsumptive water uses (maps may be useful) 

• references to applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and Tribal water use laws 
 3.4-9 

V. IMPLEMENTATION

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

33 CFR Part 330. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 330, 

“Nationwide Permit Program.” 

40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, “EPA 

Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” 

40 CFR Part 123. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 123, “State 

Program Requirements.” 

40 CFR Part 124. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 124, 

“Procedures for Decisionmaking.” 

40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125, “Criteria 

and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” 

40 CFR Part 129. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 129, “Toxic 

Pollutant Effluent Standards.” 

40 CFR Part 130. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 130, “Water 

Quality Planning and Management.” 

40 CFR Part 131. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 131, “Water 

Quality Standards.” 

40 CFR Part 132. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 132, “Water 

Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System.” 

40 CFR Part 133. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 133, 

“Secondary treatment Regulation.” 

40 CFR Part 147. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 147, “State, 

Tribal, and EPA-Administered Underground Injection Control Programs.” 
 3.4-10 

40 CFR Part 149. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 149, “Sole 

Source Aquifers.” 

40 CFR Part 165. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 165, “Pesticide 

Management and Disposal.” 

40 CFR Part 403. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 403, “General 

Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution.” 

40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 423, “Steam 

Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.” 

40 CFR Part 700. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 700, 

“General.” 

40 CFR Part 702. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 702, “General 

Practices and Procedures.” 

40 CFR Part 704. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 704, 

“Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.” 

40 CFR Part 707. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 707, “Chemical 

Imports and Exports.” 

40 CFR Part 710. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 710, 

“Compilation of the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory.” 

40 CFR Part 711. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 711, “TSCA 

Chemical Data Reporting Requirements.” 

40 CFR Part 712. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 712, “Chemical 

Information Rules.” 

40 CFR Part 716. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 716, “Health 

and Safety Data Reporting.” 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended, 33 USC 1251 et seq. (Clean Water Act). 

PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994)

Rosaler, R. (ed). 1994. Standard Handbook of Plant Engineering. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, 

New York. 
 3.4-11 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.5-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.5 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of terrestrial and 

aquatic resources that could affect or be affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment 

associated with license renewal. 

The scope of the terrestrial review should include (1) a description of species composition, spatial and 

temporal distribution, abundance, and other structural and functional attributes of biotic assemblages that 

could be affected by license renewal; (2) identification and location of any vulnerable, irreplaceable, or 

otherwise important terrestrial natural resources, habitats, and wildlife sanctuaries and preserves; and 

(3) preparation of a section describing terrestrial resources for the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

The scope of the aquatic review should include (1) a description of the spatial and temporal distribution, 

abundance, and other structural and functional attributes of biotic assemblages that could be affected by 

license renewal, (2) identification of any “important” or irreplaceable aquatic natural resources and the 

location of sanctuaries and preserves, and (3) preparation of a section describing aquatic resources for the 

SEIS. 

Data and Information Needs

Information and data on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and resources should be utilized for developing 

the following descriptions of ecological resources in the SEIS. 

• Region, describe:
 3.5-2 

- the ecosystem and habitats of the ecoregion that includes the site 

- the geomorphic, or physiographic, province 

- the characteristic vegetation and animal species, including climax vegetation and typical 

succession in the area of the site 

- the marine ecoregion of the ocean or gulf waters near the plant if it is located near such 

waters 

- the watershed(s) and names and locations of source and receiving water bodies for the plant’s 

cooling system. Provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Plant Hardiness Zone. 

• Site and vicinity, describe: 

- local soil types 

- water and sediment quality 

- vegetation and animal communities 

- physiographic habitats (such as upland forest, swamps marshes, wetlands, rivers, streams, 

etc.) 

- significant water bodies that intercept or parallel in-scope transmission lines 

- Include detailed maps and descriptions, as appropriate that contain site and in-scope 

transmission lines and stream crossings, any significant natural heritage areas, and known 

locations or historic sightings of migratory bird rookeries, etc. 

• Potentially affected water bodies, describe: (Aquatic Ecology) 

- location of site concerning the principal nearby water bodies that it affects 

- the source and receiving water bodies in terms of relationship to the watershed, size, 

shoreline, bathymetry, tidal and net flows including seasonal or occasional variations, bottom 

types (e.g., sand, silt, clay, sandy silt, silty sand, etc.), and both sediment and water quality 

- location of main channel, dams, and flood control 

- additional uses of the water body other than for cooling water. 

• In-scope transmission lines and rights-of-way (ROWs), describe: (Terrestrial Ecology) 

- transmission lines and ROWs including length of transmission lines or portions of lines and 

width of ROWs 

- ROW maintenance plans, procedures, or protocols and pesticides and herbicides used in 

ROW maintenance, including descriptions of how and when they are released 

- locations where ROWs cross wetlands and waterfowl areas as well as other vulnerable or 

otherwise important terrestrial habitats (also map these areas) 

Additionally, the reviewer should provide brief descriptions of the following: 

• the environment before European settlement and the transition of the environment on the site from 

before plant construction to the present. Include major changes or modifications to the land and/or 
 3.5-3 

water bodies over the projected life of the plant. Typical things to describe include channelization, 

navigation, pollution, habitat degradation or fragmentation, urbanization, development, and pond or 

reservoir creation. Include pollution control or other programs designed for environmental 

improvement. 

• major wildlife living around site in the past and which species remain today. Refer to historic and 

cultural resources when possible to avoid repeating information. 

• occurrence, location, and description of communities and habitats of special interest in the vicinity 

of plant, such as wetlands, natural heritage areas and other areas of public or scientific interest, or 

others that may be particularly sensitive or susceptible either directly or indirectly to the effects of 

continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment in support of license 

renewal 

• occurrence of invasive species in the vicinity of the plant and documentation of any management 

activities undertaken by the plant to control such species 

• wildlife management plans and best management practices (if applicable), including pesticides and 

herbicides used routinely to maintain the site 

The reviewer should summarize the following, if applicable: 

• studies or monitoring programs of ecological resources on or in the vicinity of the site in terms of 

when and where conducted and by whom, the objective (why conducted), the biological entities or 

attributes chosen for study, methods and results (how conducted) applicable to this license renewal 

application, and what data or data summaries might be available for Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) review 

• information on Federally-listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species and critical habitat and 

State-listed species and habitat that could be found on the site or in the vicinity of the site, including 

the area within the in-scope transmission line corridors. For such species, summarize historical 

occurrences, population size and trends, critical habitat, and potential habitat. Similar information 

will be needed for any species with essential fish habitat on or in the vicinity of the site. Describe 

any license renewal and refurbishment activities as well as any modifications to plant operation that 

may affect such species and habitats. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of ecological resources are based on the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), “Status of Compliance.” The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed 

action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental report 

shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality 

standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use regulations, 
 3.5-4 

and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which have been imposed by 

Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicant's plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and 

withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on water 

availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related impacts on stream 

(aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be provided. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond heat 

dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act 316(b) 

determinations and, if necessary, a 316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR Part 125 or 

equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant cannot provide these 

documents, it shall assess the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting 

from thermal changes and impingement and entrainment. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of refurbishment, 

continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction activities on important plant 

and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the impact of the proposed action on 

threatened or endangered species in accordance with Federal laws protecting wildlife, including but 

not limited to the Endangered Species Act, and essential fish habitat in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531, et seq.), requires the identification of threatened 

and endangered species and critical habitats, and formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service. 
 3.5-5 

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668 et seq.), prohibits the taking, possessing, 

selling, purchasing, bartering, transporting, importing, or exporting of the bald or golden eagle, dead 

or alive, or any part, nest, or egg without a permit. 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703, et seq.), concerning declaring that it is unlawful to take, 

import, export, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird. Feathers, or other parts of 

nests and eggs, and products made from migratory birds are also covered by the Act. “Take” is 

defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, or 

collecting. 

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451 et seq.), requires that Federal actions, 

including licensing or permitting actions, be consistent with U.S. Department of Commerce 

(NOAA) approved State Coastal Management Plans, which protect resources in a state’s coastal 

zone. 

• Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251, et seq.), concerning restoration and maintenance of the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of water resources. 

• Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 USC 1361, et seq.), concerning the protection of 

marine mammals. 

• Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 USC 1401, et seq.), concerning 

dumping of dredged material into the ocean. 

• Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), concerning the deposition of debris 

in navigable waters, or tributaries to such waters. 

• The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 USC 1801, et 

seq.), established the Essential Fish Habitat provisions to identify and protect important habitats of 

federally managed marine and anadromous fish species and shellfish species. 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

• Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. 2, Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations

(NRC 2012), contains technical information for the design and execution of terrestrial 

environmental studies, the results of which may be appropriate for inclusion in the applicant’s 

environmental report. The reviewer should ensure that the appropriate results are included in the 

environmental report. 

 
 3.5-6 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating terrestrial 

and aquatic resource impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated 

with license renewal. 

This description of the environment includes the ecological resources potentially affected by current and 

future nuclear plant operations. Ecological resources include members and attributes of aquatic, 

terrestrial, riparian, and wetland plant and animal communities. Wetlands and riparian habitats are the 

interface between aquatic and terrestrial habitats and are defined as follows. NRC generally includes 

wetland and riparian habitats under terrestrial resources. According to the Environmental Protection 

Agency (1993): 

Wetlands are defined as– 

“Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency 

and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” 

Riparian areas are defined as– 

“Vegetated ecosystems along a water body through which energy, materials, and water pass. 

Riparian areas characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic flooding and 

influence from the adjacent water body. These systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some 

combination of these two land forms; they do not in all cases have all of the characteristics 

necessary for them to be classified as wetlands.” 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The reviewer should ensure that the regional and site-specific terrestrial and aquatic ecological 

information is adequate to serve as a basis for assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. The following review steps are suggested: 

Terrestrial Review: 

1. Describe the terrestrial communities from available information such as present and past studies, 

Federal and state sources, etc., and include representative species of plants, mammals, birds, reptiles, 

and amphibians. 

2. Note any endemic species, sensitive or indicator species, or keystone species. 

3. Include a description of bird species that nest within the area, migratory species, known migratory 

bird rookeries, and, if applicable, location of the site in relation to any nearby flyways. 
 3.5-7 

4. Describe the types of vegetative communities found on and in the vicinity of the site, especially any 

delineated wetlands or potential wetland habitat. 

5. Include a summary of any available botanical and wildlife surveys that have been conducted on or in 

the vicinity of the site. 

Aquatic Review: 

1. Describe the aquatic communities from available information such as present and past studies, 

Federal and State sources, etc. 

2. Focus on a subset of representative and important species, such as those with the following 

characteristics: potential or reported susceptibility to impingement and entrainment; dominance, 

commonness, or rarity in numbers or biomass; importance to the structure and function of the 

ecosystem, such as keystone species, important trophic links, potential for trophic cascade, or habitat 

formers or modifiers; indicators of water quality or “ecosystem health”; important recreational or 

commercial fish and shellfish; fish consumption advisories; and ecosystem services. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer should ensure that the ecological information is adequate as a basis for assessment of the 

effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. The reviewer 

should consult with appropriate Federal and State agencies to assess the accuracy of the ecological 

information, if necessary. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended. 16 USC 668 et seq. 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 16 USC 1451 et seq.

Endangered Species Act. 16 USC 1531 et seq. 

Executive Order 11988, “Floodplain Management.” 
 3.5-8 

Executive Order 11990, “Protection of Wetlands.” 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 (Clean Water Act). 33 USC 1251, et seq. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 16 USC 1801 et seq. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. 16 USC 1361, et seq. 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. 33 USC 1401, et seq. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 16 USC 703 et seq. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899. 33 USC 403. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. “Chapter 7: Management Measures for Wetlands, 

Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems, Glossary.” In Guidance Specifying Management 

Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002 (January 1993). 

Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/. 

Accessed on January 15, 2013. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2012. Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear 

Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. 2, Washington, D.C. March. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.6-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.6 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for identifying and describing 

historic and cultural resources that may be impacted by license renewal. Historic and cultural resources 

include prehistoric and historic era archaeological sites, historic structures, and traditional cultural 

properties. To identify historic and cultural resources at a nuclear plant site, the staff should review 

historic building surveys, archaeological surveys, historical research, surveys of cultural groups with a 

history of using the area in and around the plant site, and consultations with State Historic Preservation 

Office [SHPO], Tribal Historic Preservation Office [THPO], Office of the State Archaeologist, American 

Indian Tribes, and other knowledgeable groups and agencies. Included in the identification process is an 

assessment of historic and cultural resources, as determined by criteria in the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and in 

consultation with affected Indian Tribes. The descriptions of the historic and cultural resources should be 

of sufficient detail to permit subsequent staff assessment and evaluation of specific impacts of the 

proposed action. 

The scope should include (1) an analysis of the effects of continued plant operations during the license 

renewal term and refurbishment on historic and cultural resources within the area of potential effects 

(APE) in sufficient detail to allow the reviewer to predict the potential for impacts on these resources and 

evaluate the significance of impacts and (2) preparation of input to the supplemental environmental 

impact statement (SEIS).
 3.6-2 

Historic properties means any prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects 

included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by 

the Secretary of the Interior (36 CFR 60). This term includes properties of traditional religious and 

cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the NRHP criteria 

(36 CFR 63). The term also includes archaeological resources, such as artifacts, records, and remains, 

that are related to and located within such prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, or structures. 

Data and Information Needs

The type of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plant-specific 

factors, the amount of previous survey work conducted in the area; and the level of interest from agencies, 

Tribes, and other consulting parties. The following data or information should be included in this section, 

and should be obtained from the applicant’s environmental report (ER), as well as other information 

collected during verification and assessment: 

• a summary of the cultural history of the area, from the beginning of human settlement to the early 

20th century 

• a summary of the land use history at the plant site documenting past levels of ground disturbance 

• a description of the cultural resource sensitivity within a 10-mile radius of the plant boundaries 

• a copy of the site map that identifies the APE 

• a summary of previous cultural resource investigations conducted onsite or within the immediate 

area and the types of resources that have been discovered during previous research 

• a description of the historic and cultural resources identified within the APE that are in or eligible 

for inclusion in the NRHP or are included in State or local registers or inventories of historic and 

cultural resources or are unevaluated (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, 

local, and affected American Indian Tribes) 

• a description of the information from the applicant’s reconnaissance or pedestrian surveys, and 

consultation efforts with the SHPO, appropriate American Indian Tribes, or members of the public 

the applicant used to assess historic and cultural resources within the APE 

• information related to past evaluations of known historic and cultural resources per significance 

criteria for eligibility for the NRHP (36 CFR 60), and associated consultations with the SHPO or 

THPO, local preservation officials, or American Indian Tribal officials 

• information on how the plant considers historic properties during operations 

 
 3.6-3 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of historic and cultural resources impacts during the renewal term are 

based on the relevant requirements of the following: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), “Status of Compliance.” The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed 

action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental 

report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental 

quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use 

regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which have been 

imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental 

protection. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K). All applicants shall identify any potentially affected historic or 

archaeological properties and assess whether any of these properties will be affected by future plant 

operations and any planned refurbishment activities in accordance with the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

• 36 CFR Part 800 defines the process by which a Federal agency meets the requirements under 

Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA to ensure that agency-assisted or agency-licensed undertakings 

consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties included in or eligible for the NRHP. 

Under this regulation, the NRC is required to identify and evaluate all historic properties in the 

project area and take measures to mitigate adverse effects. As indicated in 36 CFR 800.8(c), Section 

106 can be integrated with NEPA reviews. 
 3.6-4 

• 36 CFR Part 63 contains guidance by which historic properties are evaluated and determined 

eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating historic and 

cultural resource impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with 

license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURE 

The description of historic and cultural resources should form the basis for the impact assessment review 

described by ESRP Section 4.6 to establish the historical, cultural, and archaeological characteristics that 

are most likely to be affected by license renewal. The following review steps are suggested: 

1. Review the discussion of potential impacts from continued plant operations and refurbishment 

activities associated with license renewal on historic and cultural resources in the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant (GEIS; NUREG1437) to identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the 

base for evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Review the historic and cultural resource identification and impact assessment prepared by the 

applicant in the ER. Develop a list of questions that arise during the review of the ER. 

3. Coordinate with the environmental project manager (EPM) to identify consulting parties, such as 

SHPO/THPO, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, appropriate Indian Tribes, and any other 

group or organization that has been identified; as the review progresses, additional letters could be 

sent to other interested groups. 

4. Contact the appropriate SHPO/THPO and arrange for a meeting during the site audit to explain the 

proposed action, the NRC’s approach to conducting the cultural resource assessment (Section 106 

integration with NEPA), and opportunities for the SHPO/THPO to comment and to capture any 

issues, concerns, and expectations. If the SHPO/THPO has comments or information that add to or 

amplify that which was provided by the applicant, request that the SHPO/THPO forward, by letter to 

the staff, these additional comments. The SHPO can alert the staff to relevant state and local laws, 

orders, ordinances, or regulations aimed at the preservation of cultural resources applicable to the 

proposed action. Be sure to discuss the following: 

• the APE 

• the status of all historic properties within the APE 

• the data necessary to accomplish the impact assessment 
 3.6-5 

• additional organizations or individuals that might be able to assist in identifying and locating 

historic and cultural resources 

• guidance on consulting with the appropriate Indian Tribes 

5. Contact the State Archaeological Site Files Office and the State Historic Buildings Survey Office 

and arrange to review the files for any recorded sites or buildings in and adjacent to the APE, and 

information concerning the cultural resource surveys that have been conducted. In many cases, the 

site files are located at the SHPO’s office. The sites and buildings identified should match the 

findings presented in the ER. 

6. Review comments received during the scoping process to identify any issues associated with historic 

and cultural resources. 

7. Collect additional information during the site audit. Review cultural resource assessments prepared 

by the applicant and those prepared previously. Tour the APE to see locations where preconstruction and construction activities would occur; visit any known sites within the APE. 

8. Compare the information provided by the applicant with that obtained from the SHPO/THPO and 

the NRHP and resolve any differences in identification, NRHP status, and location of historic and 

cultural resources within the APE. 

9. Compare the areas of the plant site potentially affected by refurbishment activities with known 

cultural resource surveys to determine if the area has been surveyed before and whether there is 

potential for important cultural resources to be located there. Factors to consider include whether 

areas have been heavily disturbed in the past, availability of water or other critical resources, and 

other environmental characteristics, such as slope. 

10. Document the findings in the SEIS. Ensure that any sensitive archaeological reports are withheld 

from public disclosure per Section 304 of the NHPA or have been redacted (e.g., the location of 

historic properties is considered protected information). All redactions must be approved by the 

SHPO. 

11. Document in the SEIS that the NRC is using NEPA to fulfill Section 106 responsibilities 

(36 CFR 800.8). 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The amount of information presented in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of the 

historic properties present in the APE and the effects of continued plant operations, refurbishment, and 

decommissioning activities on historic and cultural resources. The reviewer should verify that historic 

and cultural resources have been identified and described in sufficient detail to provide the basis for 

subsequent analysis and assessment of these impacts. 
 3.6-6 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 60, 

“National Register of Historic Places.” 

36 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 63, 

“Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.” 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property, Part 800, 

“Protection of Historic Properties.” 

48 FR 44716. U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of 

the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. 1983. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. 16 USC 470 et seq. 

U.S. National Park Service (NPS). 1985. “Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation 

Planning.” National Register Bulletin No. 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. National Park Service (NPS). 1990. “Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties.” National Register Bulletin No. 38. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, 

D.C. 

U.S. National Park Service (NPS). 1991. “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” 

National Register Bulletin No. 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013a. Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear 

Power Plant License Renewal Applications. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1. 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.7-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal 

Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

 

3.7 SOCIOECONOMICS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) guides the review and consideration of socioeconomic 

factors that could be directly or indirectly affected by changes in nuclear power plant operations. A 

nuclear power plant and the communities that support it can be described as a dynamic socioeconomic 

system. The communities provide the people, goods, and services required to operate the nuclear power 

plant. Power plant operations, in turn, provide wages and benefits for people and dollar expenditures for 

goods and services. Payments for these goods and services create additional employment and income 

opportunities in the community. The measure of a community’s ability to support the operational 

demands of a nuclear power plant depends on the ability of the community to respond to changing 

environmental, social, economic, and demographic conditions. 

The socioeconomic region of influence (ROI) is defined by the areas where plant employees and their 

families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby affecting the economic conditions of 

the region. The following sections describe the housing, public services, offsite land use, visual aesthetics 

and noise, population demography, and the economy in the ROI surrounding the plant site. 

The scope should include the establishment of the nature and extent of present and planned 

socioeconomic factors within these areas that might be impacted or modified as a result of continued plant 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Descriptions of minority and low-income 

populations, their locations, practices, and customs would have to be addressed in this ESRP. Those 

features of the socioeconomic environment that are not expected to result in socioeconomic impacts 

should be discussed briefly and in a summary manner. 
 3.7-2 

Data and Information Needs

The reviewer should consult the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1), before undertaking extensive 

data collection since socioeconomic impacts may not require an extensive data collection effort. 

The types of socioeconomic data and information needed for analysis would depend on the nuclear power 

plant site- and plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• most recent average annual total number of permanent plant workers and county of residence, 

average number of plant outage workers, frequency, and duration (in days or weeks) 

• U.S. Bureau of Census information and data related to the ROI (by county) economic base, 

including: 

- housing: total number of units, number of occupied units, number of vacant units, vacancy 

rate, and median value 

- demographic information by race and ethnicity and population growth forecasts by county 

- transient (seasonal) population including students attending colleges and universities within 

50 miles of the plant 

- civilian labor force by county 

- largest industrial employment by industrial sector category (North American Industry 

Classification System [NAICS] code) 

- median household income and per capita income 

- percent of families and individuals living below the Census poverty threshold 

- unemployment 

• public water supply system information by source (groundwater or surface water, average daily 

production, system design capacity, and population served) 

• information about the local public schools: school district(s), total enrollment 

• information on local transportation systems: condition of site access roads, average annual daily 

traffic volume and road capacity 

• information on offsite land use 

• visual description of the plant 

• Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Agriculture) information on migrant farm labor in the 

ROI (by county), including: 
 3.7-3 

- number of farms and farm workers working less than 150 days 

- number of farms reporting migrant farm labor 

- number of farms with hired farm labor 

• list of major employers in ROI 

• tax payment information including local tax authorities (i.e., county, municipality, and public school 

district) directly affected by plant operations 

• public recreational facilities, including present and projected capacity and percentage of utilization 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for evaluating community characteristics are based on meeting the following 

regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), “Status of Compliance.” The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed 

action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental report 

shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality 

standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use regulations, 

and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which have been imposed by 

Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

Technical Rationale
 3.7-4 

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating 

socioeconomic impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with 

license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURE 

The reviewer’s analysis of socioeconomic factors should be closely linked with the impact-assessment 

review described in ESRP Chapter 4.7 to establish the socioeconomic factors most likely to be affected by 

license renewal. The following review steps are suggested: 

1. Review the socioeconomics discussion in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the 

conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluation of information identified by the 

applicant and the public. 

2. Determine if there is new information that should be evaluated. The following sources of 

information should be included in the search for new information: 

• The applicant’s ER. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider any new information. 

• Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

3. Describe the socioeconomic characteristics of the counties within the ROI. 

4. Address the following factors in the screening process to identify population influx: 

• labor force 

• transportation 

• housing availability 

• public services 

• regional economy 

5. Describe potentially impacted areas of the ROI and their associated communities in the following 

terms (the extent and detail of the descriptions should be in proportion to the magnitude of the 

impacts anticipated, and only those terms necessary for subsequent impact evaluation should be 

used): 

• demography 

• housing 

• economic base 
 3.7-5 

• social services and public facilities 

• local transportation 

• public water supply 

• education 

• recreation 

• taxation 

6. The reviewer should ensure that the socioeconomic information forms a basis for an assessment of 

impacts in the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS).

7. Based on the results of the assessments listed above, prepare the following for the SEIS: 

• a brief description of the workforce required during continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term and refurbishment 

• a discussion (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) of the local population(s) and public 

infrastructure and services 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The amount of information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of the potential 

effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal on public 

services. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS). NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.8-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.8 HUMAN HEALTH 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the discussion of radiological 

impacts of nuclear power plants. The scope includes descriptions of the radioactive waste management 

program, radiological environmental monitoring and radioactive effluent release programs, and 

occupational radiation exposure. 

Data and Information Needs 

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• a description of the radioactive liquid, gaseous, and solid waste management and effluent control 

systems and information on effluents released into the environment and waste stored onsite 

• historical data on occupational doses to plant workers (from NUREG-0713, “Occupational 

Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities”) 

• a description of the radiological environmental monitoring program and environmental data (from 

the applicant’s annual environmental operating reports) 

• historical maximum doses to a member of the public (from the applicant’s annual radioactive 

effluent release reports) 
 3.8-2 

• information on the potential changes in radiological impacts from continued plant operations during 

the renewal term 

• information on the radiological impacts of refurbishment 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are 

consistent with the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), “Status of Compliance.” The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed 

action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental report 

shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality 

standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use regulations, 

and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which have been imposed by 

Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G). If the applicant’s plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or discharges 

into a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on public health from thermophilic 

organisms in the affected water must be provided. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H). If the applicant's transmission lines that were constructed for the 

specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the 

recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code for preventing electric shock from induced 

currents, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from the 

transmission lines must be provided. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 
 3.8-3 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that provides background 

information to be used in evaluating human health impacts of continued plant operations and 

refurbishment activities associated with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The SEIS section to be prepared on the radiological impacts is informational in nature. No specific 

analysis is required. The following review steps are suggested: 

1. Review the discussion of Human Health in Section 3.9 in the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant (GEIS; NUREG-1437). 

2. Obtain historic information (typically 5 years of data) on radioactive effluents released from the 

applicant’s plant. 

3. Obtain information on expected radioactive releases and exposures from refurbishment activities, if 

any. 

4. Obtain information on projected changes in radioactive releases and exposures from operations 

during the renewal term, if any. 

5. Obtain historical information (typically 5 years of data) on the radiological environmental 

monitoring program. 

6. Obtain historical information (typically 5 years of data) on the occupational doses to plant workers. 

7. Prepare a section describing the radiological programs and systems for the SEIS. This section 

should include summary descriptions of the applicant’s radioactive effluent monitoring and 

radiological environmental monitoring programs. It should also include a discussion of doses 

received by members of the public and plant workers for the most recent calendar year and the trend 

of such doses for the most recent 5 years of plant operation. Doses should be compared with 

relevant regulatory requirements, e.g., Appendix I to 10 CFR 50, 10 CFR 20.1201, and 10 CFR 

20.1301. For the radiological environmental monitoring program, provide a summary of the results 

for the most recent calendar year and a trend of the data for the most recent 5 years of plant 

operation. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The level of detail of SEIS input would depend on plant- and site-specific factors. The information 

included in the SEIS should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitudes of the expected impacts. 

The reviewer should verify that the radiological impact descriptions are consistent, accurate, and given in 

sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers for ESRPs in other chapters. 
 3.8-4 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for Protection 

against Radiation.” 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.9-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.9 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of a supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS) section describing the staff’s identification and description of 

low-income and minority populations that could be disproportionately impacted by continued operations 

and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal. 

The scope includes consideration and discussion of methods that are used to identify and locate minority 

and low-income populations, the location and significance of any populations that are particularly 

sensitive, and any additional information pertaining to any identified disproportional preconditions or 

sensitivities of minority and low-income populations that could be disproportionately high and adversely 

impacted by continued plant operation and refurbishment. The descriptions to be provided by this review 

should be of sufficient detail to permit subsequent staff assessment and evaluation of specific impacts as 

provided in ESRP 4.9. 

Data and Information Needs

The type of data and information needed will be affected by site- and station-specific factors, and the 

degree of detail should be modified according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential impacts. 

The information needed can usually be obtained from the applicant’s environmental report (ER) and 

from other sources as discussed below. The following data or information should be obtained: 
 3.9-2 

• The location of minority and low-income populations within 50-miles (80-kilometers) of the nuclear 

power plant site, including offsite areas that could be impacted by continued reactor operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal (from 

the ER, public contacts, and consultations with Federal, State, regional, local, and representative s 

of affected Native American Tribes). Demographic data would be available from EJView, an online 

geographic information system (GIS) tool offered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

Bureau of the Census block data and Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and 

Referencing (TIGER) geographic system files.2

• Comments and concerns expressed by representatives of minority and low-income communities 

located near the nuclear power plant site (from the environmental report [ER] and comments made 

during scoping meetings and other contacts with the public). As part of scoping, it is important to 

interview representatives of minority communities and other regional contacts (such as social 

service agencies) having specific knowledge about the locations, resource dependencies, customs 

and practices, and preexisting health and socioeconomic conditions of minority and low-income 

populations in the region. This will assist the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in ensuring 

that minority and low-income communities, including transient populations, affected by the 

proposed action are not overlooked and in assessing the potential for significant impacts unique to 

those communities. The resources devoted to this specific outreach should be a matter of 

professional judgment and should be commensurate with the likelihood of disproportionately high 

and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations. Both the outreach process and results 

of the interviews, especially information about circumstances that could lead to disproportionately 

high and adverse impacts from the proposed action, should be documented in the SEIS. 

• A description of resources, customs and practices, circumstances of living (e.g., migrant labor), or 

preconditions (e.g., preexisting health conditions or access to particular facilities or locations) of 

particular minority or low-income populations that may make them likely to experience 

disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts from the proposed action. If there are 

no such populations or mechanisms, the section should describe the search process and state that 

none was identified. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The acceptance criteria for environmental justice information are based on the relevant requirements of 

the following: 

• Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) provides guidance concerning Federal actions to address 

environmental justice in minority and low-income populations. 

• “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and 

Licensing Actions,” (69 FR 52040) affirms that the NRC is committed to the general goals of 

Executive Order 12898 and states that the NRC strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA 

review process for licensing actions. 

 

2

 The TIGER system is accessible online at the Census Bureau TIGER website http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.9-3 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3) (ii)(N). Applicants shall provide information on the general demographic 

composition of minority and low-income populations and communities (by race and ethnicity) 

residing in the immediate vicinity of the plant that could be affected by the renewal of the plant’s 

operating license, including any planned refurbishment activities, and ongoing and future plant 

operations. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

• Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance for addressing environmental justice, 

Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act, December 10, 1997 

(CEQ 1997). 
 3.9-4 

• Guidelines for specific information requirements for environmental justice determinations are 

described in Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 2: 

Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental 

Issues. NRR Office Instruction LIC-203 is revised periodically. Obtain a copy of the latest revision 

for current guidance. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating the 

environmental justice impacts from continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated 

with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The review procedure should be as follows: 

1. Identify minority and low-income populations within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the nuclear 

plant. For each census block group within this area, minority and low-income populations are 

identified when (1) the minority or low-income population of an impacted area exceeds 50 percent 

or (2) the minority or low-income population percentage of the impacted area is meaningfully 

greater than the minority or low-income population percentage in the general population or other 

appropriate unit of geographic analysis (e.g., 50-mile radius geographic area or county) All block 

groups with minority and low-income percentages higher than the geographic area should be 

identified on 50-mile radius maps. 

2. Identify environmental justice issues and unique characteristics of minority and low-income 

populations/communities during the scoping process. 

• Determine geographic distribution by race, ethnicity, and poverty, as well as delineation of 

Tribal lands. Identify any unique characteristics of minority and low-income populations and 

the “special character” of communities located near the nuclear plant. 

In calculating the minority populations, individual(s) who are members of the following 

population groups Census are considered minority individuals: 

- Race: (Not Hispanic or Latino) 

Black or African American 

American Indian or Alaska Native 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.9-5 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

Asian 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 

Some other race 

Two or more races 

- Ethnicity: 

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 

Low-income population is defined as individuals or families living below the poverty level as 

defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (e.g., the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population 

Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty). 

• Sources of information for determining geographic distribution and location of minority 

populations: 

- EJView online geographic information system (GIS) tool offered by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

- Local governments 

- State agencies 

- Local universities 

3. The reviewer’s analysis of minority and low-income populations should be closely linked with the 

impact-assessment review of environmental issues described by the ESRPs 3.1 through 3.8 and 4.1 

through 4.8 to establish the environmental pathways by which minority and low-income households 

are most likely to be affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner, if any. 
 3.9-6 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would depend on plant- and site-specific factors. The level 

of detail of information included in the SEIS should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitudes of 

the expected impacts on populations living in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant in general and on the 

identified minority and low-income populations in particular from the continued operation and 

refurbishment during the license renewal term. The following information should be included in the 

SEIS: 

• A general description of the location of minority and low-income populations within the region 

surrounding the site. This description should ordinarily be accompanied by two maps that highlight 

the location of minority and low-income populations, respectively. These maps would ordinarily be 

based on the most recent Census of Population, supplemented by other information, if available. 

• A description of affected minority and low-income populations such as minority communities 

exceptionally dependent on subsistence resources or identifiable in compact locations, such as a 

Native American settlement. 

• A brief description of any additional important cultural, economic, or human health facts that may 

result in disproportionately high and adverse environmental (including socioeconomic) impacts. 

• A brief description of the overall results and adequacy of any surveys (archival or field) that were 

conducted by the applicant. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions. August 24, 2004. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. December 10, 1997 

Executive Order 12898. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations. 59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.9-7 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Appendix D – Environmental Justice Guidance and Flow 

Chart. In Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering 

Environmental Issues. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Instruction Change Notice, LIC-203, 

Revision 1, Washington D.C. May 24, 2004. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental 

Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Instruction 

Change Notice, LIC-203, Revision 2, February 17, 2009, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.10.1-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.10 WASTE MANAGEMENT 

3.10.1 RADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of a supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS) section describing the applicant’s waste management and effluent 

control systems. 

The scope includes describing the existing systems, describing any changes to the systems to be made 

during the license renewal term or refurbishment, and listing the effluent release points. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential 

impacts. The following data or information may be needed: 

• a description of the radioactive liquid and gaseous waste management and effluent control systems 

• identification of sources of radioactive liquid and gaseous waste material within the plant 

• identification of principal release points for radioactive materials to the environment and historical 

information on composition of discharges
 3.10.1-2 

• identification of any onsite direct radiation sources outside of the plant (e.g., storage of 

contaminated equipment, low-level radioactive waste storage, or storage of used steam generators) 

• information on the changes in radiological waste impacts from operation that are expected during 

the renewal term 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are 

consistent with the following regulation: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), “Status of Compliance.” The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed 

action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental report 

shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality 

standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use regulations, 

and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which have been imposed by 

Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating radioactive 

waste management systems associated with continued plant operations and refurbishment activities 

associated with license renewal. 
 3.10.1-3 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared on the radioactive waste management and effluent control systems is 

informational in nature. No specific analysis is required. The following review steps are suggested: 

1. Review the discussion of radioactive waste management and effluent control systems in the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant (GEIS; NUREG1437). 

2. Obtain a description of the radioactive waste management and effluent control systems for the 

applicant’s plant. The description should include identification of release points. 

3. Obtain information on changes to the radioactive waste management and effluent control systems 

that would affect releases and exposures from continued plant operations during the license renewal 

term. 

4. Obtain information on planned changes to the radioactive waste management and effluent control 

systems during refurbishment. 

5. Prepare a section describing the radioactive waste management and effluent control systems for the 

SEIS. This section should include general descriptions of gaseous, liquid, and solid waste 

processing systems. It should also generally describe the applicant’s gaseous and liquid effluent 

monitoring systems. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would depend on plant- and site-specific factors. The level 

of detail of information included in the SEIS should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitudes of 

the expected impacts. The reviewer should verify that the radioactive waste management and effluent 

control system descriptions are consistent, accurate, and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the 

reviewers for ESRPs in other chapters. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 
 3.10.1-4 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.10.2-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.10.2 NONRADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of a supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS) section describing the applicant’s nonradioactive waste 

management and control systems. 

The scope includes describing the existing systems, describing any changes to the systems to be made 

during the license renewal term or refurbishment. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential 

impacts. The following data or information may be needed: 

• a description of the nonradioactive effluent treatment systems 

• identification of sources and types of nonradioactive liquid and solid waste material within the plant 

• identification of principal release points for nonradioactive materials to the environment and 

historical information on composition of discharges
 3.10.2-2 

• documentation of the permits issued by the agencies responsible for permitting nonradioactive waste 

systems for atmospheric, liquid, or solid effluents (e.g., National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System permits) 

• a description of a pollution prevention and waste minimization program, if available 

• information on the changes in nonradiological impacts from operation that are expected during the 

renewal term 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are 

consistent with the following regulation: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), “Status of Compliance.” The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the proposed 

action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The environmental report 

shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable environmental quality 

standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning and land-use regulations, 

and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which have been imposed by 

Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for environmental protection. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 6, concerning affected environment. The 

environmental impact statement will succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the 

proposed action. Data and analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of 

the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 
 3.10.2-3 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating 

nonradioactive waste management systems associated with continued plant operations and 

refurbishment activities associated with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared on the nonradioactive waste management and effluent control systems is 

informational in nature. No specific analysis is required. The following review steps are suggested: 

1. Review the discussion of nonradioactive waste systems in the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant (GEIS; NUREG-1437). 

2. Obtain a description of the nonradioactive wastes and effluent control systems for the applicant’s 

plant. The description should include identification of the type of waste generated, regulatory 

permits, release points, storage, and disposal. 

3. Obtain information on changes to the nonradioactive waste and effluent control systems that would 

affect releases from continued plant operations during the renewal term. 

4. Obtain information on planned changes to the nonradioactive waste and effluent control systems 

during refurbishment. 

5. Obtain a description of the pollution prevention and waste minimization program or policy, if 

available. 

Prepare a section describing the nonradioactive waste and effluent control systems for the SEIS. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would depend on plant- and site-specific factors. The level 

of detail of information included in the SEIS should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitudes of 

the expected impacts. The reviewer should verify that the nonradioactive waste management and effluent 

control system descriptions are consistent, accurate, and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the 

reviewers for ESRPs in other chapters. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
 3.10.2-4 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 3.11-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

3.11 REFERENCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the listing of references cited in 

the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) chapter on the affected environment. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the following regulation: 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, 

will be written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The environmental project manager (EPM) should contact reviewers for ESRPs 3.1 through 3.10 and 

compile a list of references cited in the SEIS sections. The citations should be checked for completeness.

 
 3.11-2 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The material to be prepared is informational in nature; no specific analysis of the data is required. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.0-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

The following sections address the environmental consequences of (1) the proposed action, which 

includes the potential impacts from continued plant operations and refurbishment, and (2) the 

environmental consequences of alternatives to the proposed action, which includes the potential impacts 

from the construction and operation of fossil fuel alternatives, new nuclear alternative, renewable energy 

alternatives, and alternatives to reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts (e.g., constructing and 

operating a new cooling system). This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for 

the staff’s introduction to the section of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that 

reviews the environmental impacts of continued operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. 

The scope of this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 4.1 through 4.12. 

It includes a description of the environmental issues associated with continued operation during the 

renewal term and refurbishment discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1), identifies those 

issues that the staff has determined to be inapplicable to the applicant’s plant because of plant design, and 

directs readers to SEIS sections that discuss the applicable issues. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are consistent with 

the following regulations:
 4.0-2 

• 10 CFR 51.45(c), “Analysis.” The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of replacement 

power alternatives, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 

effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d) concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of replacement power alternatives; and alternatives available for reducing or 

avoiding adverse environmental effects, among other things. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 7, concerning the environmental consequences of 

alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. 

Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives 

will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level 

of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants.” 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to the environmental impacts of continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and replacement power alternatives. The review should also address 

any new and significant information. 
 4.0-3 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared is informational in nature; no specific analysis of data is required. Environmental issues associated with continued operations during the renewal term and refurbishment considered 

in the GEIS that were determined to be Category 1 or uncategorized (see General Introduction to this 

volume) issues are listed in Table 4.0-1. 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Land Use 

Onsite land use 1 SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with license renewal would be a 

small fraction of the nuclear power plant site and would involve 

only land that is controlled by the licensee. 

Offsite land use 1 SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected by continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.

Offsite land use in 

transmission line right-ofways (ROWs) 

1 SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal 

would continue with no change in land use restrictions.

Visual Resources

Aesthetic impacts 1 SMALL. No important changes to the visual appearance of plant 

structures or transmission lines are expected from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.

Air Quality

Air quality impacts 

(all plants) 

1 SMALL. Air quality impacts from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be 

small at all plants. Emissions resulting from refurbishment 

activities at locations in or near air quality nonattainment or 

maintenance areas would be short-lived and would cease after 

these refurbishment activities are completed. Operating 

experience has shown that the scale of refurbishment activities 

has not resulted in exceedance of the de minimis thresholds for 

criteria pollutants, and best management practices including 

fugitive dust controls and the imposition of permit conditions in 

State and local air emissions permits would ensure conformance 

with applicable State or Tribal implementation plans. 

Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire pumps and 

routine operations of boilers used for space heating would not be 

a concern, even for plants located in or adjacent to nonattainment 

areas. Impacts from cooling tower particulate emissions even 

under the worst-case situations have been small. 

Air quality effects of 

transmission lines 

1 SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is 

insignificant and does not contribute measurably to ambient 

levels of these gases.

Noise

Noise impacts 1 SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory guidelines 

for offsite receptors during continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. 
 4.0-4 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Geologic Environment

Geology and soils 1 SMALL. The effect of geologic and soil conditions on plant 

operations and the impact of continued operations and 

refurbishment activities on geology and soils would be small for 

all nuclear power plants and would not change appreciably 

during the license renewal term. 

Surface Water Resources

Surface-water use and 

quality (non-coolingsystem impacts) 

1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be small if best management 

practices are employed to control soil erosion and spills. Surface 

water use associated with continued operations and refurbishment 

associated with license renewal would not increase significantly 

or would be reduced if refurbishment occurs during a plant 

outage.

Altered current patterns at 

intake and discharge 

structures 

1 SMALL. Altered current patterns would be limited to the area in 

the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts 

have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Altered salinity gradients 1 SMALL. Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to the 

area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These 

impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.

Altered thermal 

stratification of lakes 

1 SMALL. Effects on thermal stratification would be limited to the 

area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These 

impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.

Scouring caused by 

discharged cooling water 

1 SMALL. Scouring effects would be limited to the area in the 

vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts 

have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Discharge of metals in 

cooling system effluent 

1 SMALL. Discharges of metals have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-towerbased heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily 

mitigated at other plants. Discharges are monitored and 

controlled as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit process.

Discharge of biocides, 

sanitary wastes, and 

minor chemical spills 

1 SMALL. The effects of these discharges are regulated by State 

and Federal environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored 

and controlled as part of the NPDES permit process. These 

impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.

Surface water use 

conflicts (plants with 

once-through cooling 

systems) 

1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants with once-through heat 

dissipation systems. 

Effects of dredging on 

surface water quality 

1 SMALL. Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the 

vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge 

shipping has not been found to be a problem for surface water 

quality. Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other State or local 

agencies.

Temperature effects on 

sediment transport 

capacity

1 SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a 

problem.
 4.0-5 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Groundwater Resources

Groundwater

contamination and use 

(non-cooling-system 

impacts) 

1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. 

Industrial practices involving the use of solvents, hydrocarbons, 

heavy metals, or other chemicals, and/or the use of wastewater 

ponds or lagoons have the potential to contaminate site 

groundwater, soil, and subsoil. Contamination is subject to Stateor Environmental Protection Agency-regulated cleanup and 

monitoring programs. The application of best management 

practices for handling any materials produced or used during 

these activities would reduce impacts.

Groundwater use 

conflicts (plants that 

withdraw less than 

100 gallons per minute 

[gpm]) 

1 SMALL. Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not 

expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts. 

Groundwater quality 

degradation resulting 

from water withdrawals 

1 SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear power 

plants would not contribute significantly to groundwater quality 

degradation.

Groundwater quality 

degradation (plants with 

cooling ponds in salt 

marshes) 

1 SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could degrade 

groundwater quality. However, groundwater in salt marshes is 

naturally brackish, and thus not potable. Consequently, the 

human use of such groundwater is limited to industrial purposes.

Terrestrial Resources

Exposure of terrestrial 

organisms to 

radionuclides 

1 SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are 

expected to be well below exposure guidelines developed to 

protect these organisms.

Cooling system impacts 

on terrestrial resources 

(plants with once-through 

cooling systems or 

cooling ponds) 

1 SMALL. No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or animals have 

been reported as a result of increased water temperatures, 

fogging, humidity, or reduced habitat quality. Due to the low 

concentrations of contaminants in cooling system effluents, 

uptake and accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of 

wildlife exposed to the contaminated water or aquatic food 

sources are not expected to be significant issues. 

Cooling tower impacts on 

vegetation (plants with 

cooling towers) 

1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased 

humidity associated with cooling tower operation have the 

potential to affect adjacent vegetation, but these impacts have 

been small at operating nuclear power plants and are not 

expected to change over the license renewal term. 

Bird collisions with plant 

structures and 

transmission lines 

1 SMALL. Bird collisions with cooling towers and other plant 

structures and transmission lines occur at rates that are unlikely 

to affect local or migratory populations and the rates are not 

expected to change.

Transmission line rightof-way (ROW) 

management impacts on 

terrestrial resources 

1 SMALL. Continued ROW management during the license 

renewal term is expected to keep terrestrial communities in their 

current condition. Application of best management practices 

would reduce the potential for impacts.
 4.0-6 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Terrestrial Resources (Continued)

Electromagnetic fields on 

flora and fauna (plants, 

agricultural crops, 

honeybees, wildlife, 

livestock) 

1 SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on 

terrestrial flora and fauna have been identified. Such effects are 

not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Aquatic Resources

Impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic 

organisms (plants with 

cooling towers) 

1 SMALL. Impingement and entrainment rates are lower at plants 

that use closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers because the 

rates and volumes of water withdrawal needed for makeup are 

minimized.

Entrainment of 

phytoplankton and 

zooplankton (all plants) 

1 SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not 

been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and 

is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term.

Thermal impacts on 

aquatic organisms (plants 

with cooling towers) 

1 SMALL. Thermal effects associated with plants that use cooling 

towers are expected to be small because of the reduced amount of 

heated discharge.

Infrequently reported 

thermal impacts (all 

plants) 

1 SMALL. Continued operations during the license renewal term 

are expected to have small thermal impacts with respect to the 

following: 

- Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating 

nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems, has not 

endangered fish populations or been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling 

ponds, and is not expected to be a problem. 

- Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a 

problem. 

- Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not 

expected to affect the larger geographical distribution of 

aquatic organisms. 

- Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at 

some operating nuclear power plants but has not been a 

problem and is not expected to be a problem. 

- Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily 

mitigated at the single nuclear power plant with a once-through 

cooling system where previously it was a problem. It has not 

been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants 

with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be 

a problem.

Effects of cooling water 

discharge on dissolved 

oxygen, gas 

supersaturation, and 

eutrophication 

1 SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number 

of operating nuclear power plants with once-through cooling 

systems but has been mitigated. Low dissolved oxygen was a 

concern at one nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling 

system but has been mitigated. Eutrophication (nutrient loading) 

and resulting effects on chemical and biological oxygen demands 

have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

plants.
 4.0-7 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Aquatic Resources – Continued

Effects of nonradiological 

contaminants on aquatic 

organisms 

1 SMALL. Best management practices and discharge limitations 

of NPDES permits are expected to minimize the potential for 

impacts to aquatic resources during continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. Accumulation of 

metal contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power 

plants, but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper 

alloy condenser tubes with those of another metal. 

Exposure of aquatic 

organisms to 

radionuclides 

1 SMALL. Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to be well 

below exposure guidelines developed to protect these aquatic 

organisms.

Effects of dredging on 

aquatic organisms 

1 SMALL. Dredging at nuclear power plants is expected to occur 

infrequently, would be of relatively short duration, and would 

affect relatively small areas. Dredging is performed under 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly, 

from other State or local agencies. 

Effects on aquatic 

resources (non-coolingsystem impacts) 

1 SMALL. Licensee application of appropriate mitigation 

measures is expected to result in no more than small changes to 

aquatic communities from their current condition. 

Impacts of transmission 

line right-of-way (ROW) 

management on aquatic 

resources 

1 SMALL. Licensee application of best management practices to 

ROW maintenance is expected to result in no more than small 

impacts to aquatic resources. 

Losses from predation, 

parasitism, and disease 

among organisms 

exposed to sublethal 

stresses 

1 SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected 

to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Socioeconomics

Employment and income, 

recreation and tourism 

1 SMALL. Impacts to employment, income, recreation, and 

tourism from continued operations and refurbishment associated 

with license renewal are expected to be small. 

Tax revenues 1 SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local 

jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in 

lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on energy production. The 

amount of tax revenue paid during the license renewal term as a 

result of continued operations and refurbishment associated with 

license renewal is not expected to change. 
 4.0-8 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Socioeconomics – Continued

Community services and 

education 

1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal to local 

community and educational services would be small. With little 

or no change in employment at the licensee’s plant, value of the 

power plant, payments on energy production, and PILOT 

payments expected during the license renewal term, community 

and educational services would not be affected by continued 

power plant operations. 

Population and housing 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal to regional 

population and housing availability and value would be small. 

With little or no change in employment at the licensee’s plant 

expected during the license renewal term, population and housing 

availability and values would not be affected by continued power 

plant operations. 

Transportation 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal to traffic volumes 

would be small.

Human Health

Radiation exposures to 

the public 

1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are 

expected to continue at current levels, and would be well below 

regulatory limits.

Radiation exposures to 

plant workers 

1 SMALL. Occupational doses from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be 

within the range of doses experienced during the current license 

term, and would continue to be well below regulatory limits.

Human health impact 

from chemicals 

1 SMALL. Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting from 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal are expected to be minimized by the licensee 

implementing good industrial hygiene practices as required by 

permits and Federal and State regulations. Chemical releases to 

the environment and the potential for impacts to the public are 

expected to be minimized by adherence to discharge limitations 

of NPDES and other permits.

Microbiological hazards 

to plant workers 

1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be 

controlled by continued application of accepted industrial 

hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures as required by 

permits and Federal and State regulations. 

Chronic effects of 

electromagnetic fields 

(EMFs) 

N/A UNCERTAIN IMPACT. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not 

uncovered consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field 

exposures. EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect 

(e.g., toxic chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic 

acute effects cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are 

subtle. Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, 

no generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible.
 4.0-9 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Human Health – Continued

Physical occupational 

hazards 

1 SMALL. Occupational safety and health hazards are generic to 

all types of electrical generating stations, including nuclear power 

plants, and are of small significance if the workers adhere to 

safety standards and use protective equipment as required by 

Federal and State regulations.

Postulated Accidents

Design-basis accidents 1 SMALL. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has 

concluded that the environmental impacts of design-basis 

accidents are of small significance for all plants. 

Waste Management

Low-level waste storage 

and disposal 

1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in 

place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure 

that the radiological impacts to the environment would remain 

small during the license renewal term.

Onsite storage of spent 

nuclear fuel 

1 SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from 

an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated 

onsite during the license renewal term with small environmental 

effects through dry or pool storage at all plants. 

Offsite radiological 

impacts of spent nuclear 

fuel and high-level waste 

disposal 

N/A UNCERTAIN IMPACT. The generic conclusion on offsite 

radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste is 

not being finalized pending the completion of a generic 

environmental impact statement on waste confidence.* 

Mixed-waste storage and 

disposal 

1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the 

facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling 

and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic 

materials for the public and the environment at all plants. 

License renewal would not increase the small, continuing risk to 

human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all 

plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental 

impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any 

individual plant at licensed sites are small. 

Nonradioactive waste 

storage and disposal 

1 SMALL. No changes to systems that generate nonradioactive 

waste are anticipated during the license renewal term. Facilities 

and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling, 

storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure to toxic 

materials for the public and the environment at all plants.

Uranium Fuel Cycle

Offsite radiological 

impacts – individual 

impacts from other than 

the disposal of spent fuel 

and high-level waste 

1 SMALL. The impacts to the public from radiological exposures 

have been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of this 

part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts to individuals 

from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases, including radon222 and technetium-99, would remain at or below the NRC’s 

regulatory limits.
 4.0-10 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 and Uncategorized Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Uranium Fuel Cycle – Continued

Offsite radiological 

impacts – collective 

impacts from other than 

the disposal of spent fuel 

and high-level waste 

1 There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to 

the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of 

estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not 

be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and 

operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. 

The Commission concludes that the collective impacts are 

acceptable. 

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be 

sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, 

that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 

should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has 

not assigned a single level of significance for the collective 

impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this issue is considered 

Category 1.

Nonradiological impacts 

of the uranium fuel cycle 

1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 

resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant 

would be small.

Transportation 1 SMALL. The impacts of transporting materials to and from 

uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the 

environment are expected to be small.

Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning

Termination of plant 

operations and 

decommissioning on all 

resources 

1 SMALL. License renewal is expected to have a negligible effect 

on the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning 

on all resources. 

* As a result of the decision of United States Court of Appeals in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the NRC 

cannot rely upon its waste confidence decision and rule until it has taken those actions that will address the deficiencies identified 

by the D.C. Circuit. Although the waste confidence decision and rule did not assess the impacts associated with disposal of spent 

nuclear fuel and high-level waste in a repository, it did reflect the Commission’s confidence, at the time, in the technical 

feasibility of a repository and when that repository could have been expected to become available. Without the analysis in the

waste confidence decision and rule regarding the technical feasibility and availability of a repository, the NRC cannot assess how 

long the spent fuel will need to be stored onsite. 

Issues and processes common to all nuclear power plants having generic (i.e., the same or similar) 

environmental impacts are considered Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and significant 

information, the conclusions in the GEIS may be adopted in the SEIS. Category 2 issues are those issues 

that cannot be generically dispositioned and require a plant-specific analysis to determine the level of 

impact. These issues are listed in Table 4.0-2. 

 
 4.0-11 

Table 4.0-2. Category 2 Issues 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Surface Water Resources

Surface water use 

conflicts (plants with 

cooling ponds or cooling 

towers using makeup 

water from a river) 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts could be of small or 

moderate significance, depending on makeup water requirements, 

water availability, and competing water demands. 

Groundwater Resources

Groundwater use 

conflicts (plants that 

withdraw more than 100 

gallons per minute (gpm) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Plants that withdraw more 

than 100 gpm could cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby 

groundwater users. 

Groundwater use 

conflicts (plants with 

closed-cycle cooling 

systems that withdraw 

makeup water from a 

river) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Water use conflicts could 

result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-flow 

conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge. The significance 

of impacts would depend on makeup water requirements, water 

availability, and competing water demands. 

Groundwater quality 

degradation (plants with 

cooling ponds at inland 

sites) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Inland sites with closedcycle cooling ponds could degrade groundwater quality. The 

significance of the impact would depend on cooling pond water 

quality, site hydrogeologic conditions (including the interaction 

of surface water and groundwater), and the location, depth, and 

pump rate of water wells.

Radionuclides released to 

groundwater 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Leaks of radioactive liquids from 

plant components and pipes have occurred at numerous plants. 

Groundwater protection programs have been established at all 

operating nuclear power plants to minimize the potential impact 

from any inadvertent releases. The magnitude of impacts would 

depend on site-specific characteristics.

Terrestrial Resources

Effects on terrestrial 

resources (non-coolingsystem impacts) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Impacts resulting from 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal may affect terrestrial communities. Application of best 

management practices would reduce the potential for impacts. 

The magnitude of impacts would depend on the nature of the 

activity, the status of the resources that could be affected, and the 

effectiveness of mitigation.

Water use conflicts with 

terrestrial resources 

(plants with cooling 

ponds or cooling towers 

using makeup water from 

a river) 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on terrestrial resources in 

riparian communities affected by water use conflicts could be of 

moderate significance. 

 
 4.0-12 

Table 4.0-2. Category 2 Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Aquatic Resources

Impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic 

organisms (plants with 

once-through cooling 

systems or cooling ponds) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impacts of 

impingement and entrainment are small at many plants but may 

be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and 

cooling-pond cooling systems, depending on cooling system 

withdrawal rates and volumes and the aquatic resources at the 

site. 

Thermal impacts on 

aquatic organisms (plants 

with once-through 

cooling systems or 

cooling ponds) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Most of the effects 

associated with thermal discharges are localized and are not 

expected to affect overall stability of populations or resources. 

The magnitude of impacts, however, would depend on sitespecific thermal plume characteristics and the nature of aquatic 

resources in the area.

Water use conflicts with 

aquatic resources (plants 

with cooling ponds or 

cooling towers using 

makeup water from a 

river)

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on aquatic resources in 

stream communities affected by water use conflicts could be of 

moderate significance in some situations. 

Special Status Species and Habitats

Threatened, endangered, 

and protected species and 

essential fish habitat 

2 The magnitude of impacts on threatened, endangered, and 

protected species, critical habitat, and essential fish habitat would 

depend on the occurrence of listed species and habitats and the 

effects of power plant systems on them. Consultation with 

appropriate agencies would be needed to determine whether 

special status species or habitats are present and whether they 

would be adversely affected by continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. 

Historic and Cultural Resources

Historic and cultural 

resources 

2 Continued operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal are expected to have no more than small impacts on 

historic and cultural resources located onsite and in the 

transmission line ROW because most impacts could be mitigated 

by avoiding those resources. The National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) requires the Federal agency to consult with the State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and appropriate Native 

American Tribes to determine the potential effects on historic 

properties and mitigation, if necessary.

Human Health

Microbiological hazards 

to the public (plants with 

cooling ponds or canals 

or cooling towers that 

discharge to a river) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These organisms are not 

expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly 

at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals, or that discharge 

into rivers. Impacts would depend on site-specific 

characteristics.

Electric shock hazards 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Electrical shock potential is 

of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in 

adherence with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). 

Without a review of conformance with NESC criteria of each 

nuclear power plant’s in-scope transmission lines, it is not 

possible to determine the significance of the electrical shock 

potential.
 4.0-13 

Table 4.0-2. Category 2 Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Postulated Accidents

Severe accidents 2 SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric 

releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to 

groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe 

accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to 

mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that 

have not considered such alternatives.

Environmental Justice

Minority and low-income 

populations 

2 Impacts to minority and low-income populations and subsistence 

consumption resulting from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal will be addressed 

in plant-specific reviews. See NRC Policy Statement on the 

Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory 

and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040, August 24, 2004).

Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts 2 Cumulative impacts of continued operations and refurbishment 

associated with license renewal must be considered on a plantspecific basis. Impacts would depend on regional resource 

characteristics, the resource-specific impacts of license renewal, 

and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting the 

resource.

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The environmental project manager (EPM) should prepare the introductory paragraphs for the SEIS. The 

paragraph(s) should introduce the issues to be covered by ESRPs 4.1 through 4.12. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of 

Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions. November 5, 2003. 
 4.0-14 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.1-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.1 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of potential land-use 

and visual impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. 

Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of potential land-use and visual impacts of the plant 

during the license renewal term in the GEIS, (2) review the applicant’s environmental report (ER), 

(3) identifying and addressing any new and significant information, and (4) preparing input to the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the environmental report (ER) on the land-use and visual impacts 

of the plant known to the applicant
 4.1-2 

• new and potentially significant information on the land-use and visual impacts of the plant during 

the license renewal term identified by the public 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of land-use impacts are based on the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(c), “Analysis.” The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of replacement 

power alternatives, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 

effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement, will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the 

environmental impacts of replacement power alternatives, and alternatives available for reducing or 

avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 7, concerning the environmental consequences of 

alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. 

Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives 

will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level 

of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 
 4.1-3 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS) sections that incorporate the conclusions related to the land-use and visual impacts of 

continued plant operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and replacement power 

alternatives. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The following review steps are suggested: 

1. Review the discussion of land-use and visual impacts in the GEIS to identify the information 

considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information 

identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the renewal term 

transmission line issues considered in the GEIS. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Land Use 

Onsite land use 1 SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal would be a small 

fraction of the nuclear power plant site and would involve only land 

that is controlled by the licensee.

Offsite land use 1 SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected by continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.

Offsite land use in 

transmission line 

right-of-ways 

(ROWs) 

1 SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with license renewal would continue 

with no change in land use restrictions. 

Visual Resources

Aesthetic impacts 1 SMALL. No important changes to the visual appearance of plant 

structures or transmission lines are expected from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal.

2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The following 

sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

• The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is 

aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

• Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

• Land-use requirements affecting the land use of the plant. 

3. Evaluate the significance of new information. 
 4.1-4 

4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 

information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions from 

the GEIS modified as necessary to account for significant new information. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential land-use and visual impacts of continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described 

in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.2-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.2 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of air quality and 

noise impacts from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. Air 

quality and noise impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of air quality and noise impacts in the GEIS, (2) review of 

the applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Projected air quality impacts from continued operations and refurbishment is a Category 1 issue in the 

GEIS and Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51. Air quality effects of transmission lines and 

noise impacts are also Category 1 issues. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 
 4.2-2 

• new information on the air quality impacts identified by the public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of air quality and noise impacts are based on the following 

regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(c), “Analysis.” The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives 

to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 

effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement, will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing 

or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 7, concerning the environmental consequences of 

alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. 

Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives 

will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level 

of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 
 4.2-3 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to air quality and noise impacts of continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Air Quality

Air quality impacts (all 

plants) 

1 SMALL. Air quality impacts from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be 

small at all plants. Emissions resulting from refurbishment 

activities at locations in or near air quality nonattainment or 

maintenance areas would be short-lived and would cease after 

these refurbishment activities are completed. Operating 

experience has shown that the scale of refurbishment activities 

has not resulted in exceedance of the de minimis thresholds for 

criteria pollutants, and best management practices including 

fugitive dust controls and the imposition of permit conditions in 

State and local air emissions permits would ensure conformance 

with applicable State or Tribal implementation plans. 

Emissions from emergency diesel generators and fire pumps and 

routine operations of boilers used for space heating would not be 

a concern, even for plants located in or adjacent to nonattainment 

areas. Impacts from cooling tower particulate emissions even 

under the worst-case situations have been small. 

Air quality effects of 

transmission lines 

1 SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is 

insignificant and does not contribute measurably to ambient 

levels of these gases.

Noise

Noise impacts 1 SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory guidelines 

for offsite receptors during continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of air quality and noise impacts in the GEIS to identify the information 

considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information 

identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the air quality and 

noise issues addressed in the GEIS. 

2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The following 

sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

• The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is 
 4.2-4 

aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

• Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

3. Evaluate the significance of new information. 

4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 

information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions from 

the GEIS modified as necessary to account for new and significant information. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential air quality impacts, effects of in-scope transmission lines, and noise 

impacts from continued plant operations and refurbishment. The information that should be included in 

the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.3-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of potential impacts of 

continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment associated with geology 

and soils. Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of geology and soils in the GEIS, (2) review of the 

applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on geology and soils identified by the public and other information sources

 
 4.3-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of geology and soil impacts are based on the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(c), “Analysis.” The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives 

to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 

effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement, will be concise, clear, and analytic, 

and written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement, will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing 

or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 7, concerning the environmental consequences of 

alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. 

Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives 

will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level 

of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 
 4.3-3 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to geology and soils impacts of continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of geology and soils impacts in the GEIS to identify the information 

considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information 

identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the geology and soils 

issue addressed in the GEIS. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Geologic Environment

Geology and 

soils 

1 SMALL. The effect of geologic and soil conditions on plant 

operations and the impact of continued operations and 

refurbishment activities on geology and soils would be small for all 

nuclear power plants and would not change appreciably during the 

license renewal term. 

2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The following 

sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

• The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is 

aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

• Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

3. Evaluate the significance of new information. 

4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 

information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions from 

the GEIS modified as necessary to account for new and significant information. 

 
 4.3-4 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential geology and soils impacts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described 

in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 

 4.4-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4 WATER RESOURCES 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis of surface water and 

groundwater impacts from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. 

Surface water and groundwater impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review the discussion of surface water and groundwater issues in the GEIS, 

(2) review the applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identify and address any new and significant 

information, and (4) prepare input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (General for all water resource issues)

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of surface water and groundwater impacts are based on the 

following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(c), “Analysis.” The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives 

to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 

effects. 
 4.4-2 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicant’s plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and 

withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on water 

availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related impacts on stream 

(aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be provided. The applicant shall 

also provide an assessment of the impacts of the withdrawal of water from the river on alluvial 

aquifers during low flow. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(C). If the applicant’s plant pumps more than 100 gallons (total onsite) of 

groundwater per minute, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on groundwater must 

be provided. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(D). If the applicant’s plant is located at an inland site and utilizes cooling 

ponds, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on groundwater quality must be provided. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(P). An applicant shall assess the impact of any documented inadvertent 

releases of radionuclides into groundwater. The applicant shall include in its assessment a 

description of any groundwater protection program used for the surveillance of piping and 

components containing radioactive liquids for which a pathway to groundwater may exist. The 

assessment must also include a description of any past inadvertent releases and the projected impact 

to the environment (e.g., aquifers, rivers, lakes, ponds, the ocean) during the license renewal term. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement, will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for reducing 

or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 7, concerning the environmental consequences of 

alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. 
 4.4-3 

Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives 

will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level 

of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

• 40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A, concerning procedures on floodplain management and wetlands 

protection 

• Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal agencies’ water laws and water 

rights 

• 40 CFR Part 122, concerning the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

conditions for discharges including stormwater discharges 

• 40 CFR Part 124, concerning the NPDES permit process 

• 40 CFR Part 125, concerning water-quality standards for the NPDES 

• 40 CFR Part 133, concerning treated effluents 

• 40 CFR Part 149, concerning possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in 

or above a sole source aquifer 

• 40 CFR Part 165, concerning the disposal and storage of pesticides 

• 40 CFR Part 403, concerning pretreatment of waste effluents 

• 40 CFR Part 423, concerning effluent limitations on existing and new point sources 

• 40 CFR Parts 700–716, concerning practices and procedures for managing toxic chemicals 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act (FWPCA), commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act, is not a substitute for and 

does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed 

action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the proposed 

action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental assessment of aquatic 

impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC should consider the assessment in its 

determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an overall benefit-cost 

balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the 
 4.4-4 

NRC (to the degree possible in conjunction with the permitting authority and other agencies having 

relevant expertise) should establish its own impact determination. 

In PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994), the 

United States Supreme Court interpreted the Clean Water Act as allowing States to impose 

conditions on certifications, such as limitations on a given project, insofar as necessary to enforce a 

designated use contained in the State's water quality standard. The Court held that these limitations 

do not have to be specifically tied to a discharge requirement.

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to surface water and groundwater impacts of continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review 

should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES (General for all water resource issues)

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of surface water and groundwater issues in the GEIS to identify the 

information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluating 

information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. Category 1 surface water and 

groundwater issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the following table. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Surface Water Resources

Surface-water use and 

quality (non-cooling-system 

impacts) 

1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be small if best 

management practices are employed to control soil erosion 

and spills. Surface water use associated with continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal would not increase significantly or would be 

reduced if refurbishment occurs during a plant outage. 

Altered current patterns at 

intake and discharge 

structures 

1 SMALL. Altered current patterns would be limited to the 

area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. 

These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power 

plants.

Altered salinity gradients 1 SMALL. Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to 

the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge 

structures. These impacts have been small at operating 

nuclear power plants.

Altered thermal stratification 

of lakes 

1 SMALL. Effects on thermal stratification would be limited 

to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge 

structures. These impacts have been small at operating 

nuclear power plants.

Scouring caused by 

discharged cooling water

1 SMALL. Scouring effects would be limited to the area in 

the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These 
 4.4-5 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants.

Discharge of metals in 

cooling system effluent 

1 SMALL. Discharges of metals have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants with coolingtower-based heat dissipation systems and have been 

satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. Discharges are 

monitored and controlled as part of the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process.

Discharge of biocides, 

sanitary wastes, and minor 

chemical spills 

1 SMALL. The effects of these discharges are regulated by 

State and Federal environmental agencies. Discharges are 

monitored and controlled as part of the NPDES permit 

process. These impacts have been small at operating 

nuclear power plants.

Surface water use conflicts 

(plants with once-through 

cooling systems) 

1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants with oncethrough heat dissipation systems.

Effects of dredging on 

surface water quality 

1 SMALL. Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in 

the vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to 

maintain barge shipping has not been found to be a problem 

for surface water quality. Dredging is performed under 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 

possibly, from other State or local agencies. 

Temperature effects on 

sediment transport capacity 

1 SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not 

expected to be a problem.

Groundwater Resources

Groundwater contamination 

and use (non-cooling-system 

impacts) 

1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with 

license renewal. Industrial practices involving the use of 

solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals, 

and/or the use of wastewater ponds or lagoons have the 

potential to contaminate site groundwater, soil, and subsoil. 

Contamination is subject to State or Environmental 

Protection Agency regulated cleanup and monitoring 

programs. The application of best management practices 

for handling any materials produced or used during these 

activities would reduce impacts.

Groundwater use conflicts 

(plants that withdraw less 

than 100 gallons per minute 

[gpm]) 

1 SMALL. Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not 

expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts. 

Groundwater quality 

degradation resulting from 

water withdrawals 

1 SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear 

power plants would not contribute significantly to 

groundwater quality degradation.

Groundwater quality 

degradation (plants with 

cooling ponds in salt 

marshes) 

1 SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could 

degrade groundwater quality. However, groundwater in 

salt marshes is naturally brackish and thus not potable. 

Consequently, the human use of such groundwater is 

limited to industrial purposes.
 4.4-6 

The Category 2 surface water and groundwater impact issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the 

following table. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Surface Water Resources

Surface water use conflicts 

(plants with cooling ponds or 

cooling towers using makeup 

water from a river) 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts could be of small or 

moderate significance, depending on makeup water 

requirements, water availability, and competing water 

demands.

Groundwater Resources

Groundwater use conflicts 

(plants that withdraw more 

than 100 gallons per minute 

[gpm]) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Plants that withdraw 

more than 100 gpm could cause groundwater use conflicts 

with nearby groundwater users. 

Groundwater use conflicts 

(plants with closed-cycle 

cooling systems that 

withdraw makeup water 

from a river) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Water use conflicts 

could result from water withdrawals from rivers during lowflow conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge. The 

significance of impacts would depend on makeup water 

requirements, water availability, and competing water 

demands.

Groundwater quality 

degradation (plants with 

cooling ponds at inland sites) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Inland sites with 

closed-cycle cooling ponds could degrade groundwater 

quality. The significance of the impact would depend on 

cooling pond water quality, site hydrogeologic conditions 

(including the interaction of surface water and groundwater), 

and the location, depth, and pump rate of water wells. 

Radionuclides released to 

groundwater 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Leaks of radioactive liquids from 

plant components and pipes have occurred at numerous 

plants. Groundwater protection programs have been 

established at all operating nuclear power plants to minimize 

the potential impact from any inadvertent releases. The 

magnitude of impacts would depend on site-specific 

characteristics.

2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The following 

sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

• The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is 

aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

• Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

• Identify relative sources of information used for evaluating impacts, including: 

- Studies and monitoring programs: Briefly summarize any studies or monitoring 

programs that provide site-specific data and can assist with understanding the 

environmental impacts. Include the location, dates, objectives, methods, and results 
 4.4-7 

applicable to this license renewal application, and what data or data summaries might 

be available for NRC review. 

If data are more than 5 years old, explain why the studies would or would not be 

relevant for assessing the effects of present and projected future plant operation over 

the term of license renewal. For example, show that both the potentially affected 

resources and the effect of the plant on them have remained and can be expected to 

remain unchanged over the term of license renewal. 

- Communications with and views of regulatory agencies. Document any 

communications with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA or other water quality 

permitting agencies) that are relevant to assessing impact and are not documented 

elsewhere in the environmental report. If relevant communications are documented 

elsewhere, refer the reader to the appropriate sections. 

- Other sources. Give in-text citations to sources of data and information used to 

assess impact and provide a list of references at the end of the chapter. 

3. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

Additional specific guidance follows for each surface water and groundwater issue identified as plantspecific (Category 2) in the GEIS. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential surface and groundwater impacts from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS 

is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 
 4.4-8 

40 CFR Part 6. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 6, “Procedures 

for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental Effects 

Abroad of EPA Actions.” 

40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, “EPA 

Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” 

40 CFR Part 124. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 124, 

“Procedures for Decisionmaking.” 

40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125, “Criteria 

and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” 

40 CFR Part 133. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 133, 

“Secondary Treatment Regulation.” 

40 CFR Part 149. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 149, “Sole 

Source Aquifers.” 

40 CFR Part 165. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 165, “Pesticide 

Management and Disposal.” 

40 CFR Part 403. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 403, “General 

Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution.” 

40 CFR Part 423. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 423, “Steam 

Electric Power Generating Point Source Category.” 

40 CFR Part 700. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 700, 

“General.” 

40 CFR Part 702. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 702, “General 

Practices and Procedures.” 

40 CFR Part 704. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 704, 

“Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.” 

40 CFR Part 707. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 707, “Chemical 

Imports and Exports.” 

40 CFR Part 710. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 710, 

“Compilation of the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory.” 
 4.4-9 

40 CFR Part 711. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 711, “TSCA 

Chemical Data Reporting Requirements.” 

40 CFR Part 712. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 712, “Chemical 

Information Rules.” 

40 CFR Part 716. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 716, “Health 

and Safety Data Reporting.” 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended. 33 USC 1251 et seq. (i.e., Clean Water 

Act). 

PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994). 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 

 4.4.1-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4.1 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER USE CONFLICTS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of impacts on surface 

water and groundwater use from continued plant operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. 

Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of surface water and groundwater use conflicts in the 

GEIS, (2) review of the applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new 

and significant information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement 

(SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on surface water and groundwater use identified by the public and other 

information sources
 4.4.1-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of surface water and groundwater-use are addressed in ESRP 

Section 4.4, Water Resources. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to surface water and groundwater-use impacts of continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The 

review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of surface water and groundwater-use issues in the GEIS to identify the 

information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluating 

information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Use the Review Procedures in ESRP Section 4.4, Water Resources, with the following additions: 

• a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant 

information 

• any new information included in the ER on the groundwater-use and quality issues known to 

the applicant and the public 

• any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impact 

• summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 

• Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal standards and regulations 

applicable to water quality and water use; determine if there are any State policies regarding 

hydraulic continuity 

• proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and water-use standards 

and regulations 

3. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 
 4.4.1-3 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential surface water and groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in 

the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.4, Water Resources. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 

 4.4.2-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 

4.4.2 GROUNDWATER USE CONFLICTS (PLANTS THAT WITHDRAW MORE THAN 

100 GPM)

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the potential 

groundwater-use conflicts at plants pumping more than 100 gpm for potable and service water and 

operational dewatering, as well as those using Ranney wells. Impacts are discussed in the Generic 

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

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater use conflicts in the GEIS, (2) review the 

applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on groundwater-use conflicts identified by the public and other information 

• sources 
 4.4.2-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater-use conflicts are addressed in ESRP Section 4.4, 

Water Resources. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of the potential for groundwater water-use conflicts with nearby groundwater 

users at plants pumping more than 100 gpm for potable and service water and operational 

dewatering in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Determine the seasonal groundwater pumpage needs for the plant. If any season has an average 

groundwater pumpage of greater than 100 gpm, then continue the analysis at Step 3. Otherwise, 

prepare a statement for the SEIS that describes the plant’s groundwater use and concludes that there 

are no impacts resulting from groundwater pumpage for potable and service water and operational 

dewatering. 

3. Determine the extent of the influence of the plant’s well(s) predicted by either standard analytic 

approaches or numerical models. Steady-state analytic approaches can be used with the maximum 

seasonal pumping rates. Numerical models can be used either with the maximum pumping rate to 

estimate steady-state drawdown or with the average seasonal pumping rates for a transient 

simulation of the drawdown. Model results should be validated with any piezometer observations. 

Possible impacts on predictions from heterogeneous aquifer parameters, particularly stratigraphy, 

should be considered. If the extent of the cone of depression caused by the plant’s well(s) extends 

beyond the site’s boundary, then continue the analysis. 

4. Determine the magnitude of the reduction in yield resulting from the plant’s pumpage predicted by 

numerical procedures. If the drawdown extends beyond the site boundary and into a zone 

influenced by other wells, then continue the analysis. 

5. Use the Review Procedures in ESRP Section 4.4, Water Resources, with the following additions: 

• descriptions of the site and local groundwater aquifers including geohydrologic 

characterization data 
 4.4.2-3 

• descriptions of the spatial and seasonal changes in water table elevation and pumpage rates 

for wells both inside and outside the site boundary 

• descriptions of any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit 

operational water-use impacts 

• descriptions of Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal agencies’ 

standards and regulations applicable to groundwater use 

• descriptions of proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and 

water-use standards and regulations. 

6. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on the groundwater-use and quality issues known to 

the applicant or the public 

• any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impact 

• summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 

• proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and water-use standards 

and regulations 

7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described 

in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
 4.4.2-4 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.4, Water Resources. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.4.3-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4.3 GROUNDWATER USE CONFLICTS (PLANTS WITH CLOSED-CYCLE COOLING 

SYSTEMS THAT WITHDRAW MAKEUP WATER FROM A RIVER)

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of groundwater-use 

conflicts resulting from surface-water withdrawals from a river during low-flow conditions. Impacts are 

discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

(NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater use conflicts in the GEIS, (2) review the 

applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on groundwater-use conflicts identified by the public and other information sources
 4.4.3-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater-use conflicts are addressed in ESRP Section 4.4, 

Water Resources. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion in the GEIS of potential groundwater water-use conflicts resulting from 

surface-water withdrawals from small water bodies during low-flow conditions that may affect 

aquifer recharge. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Determine whether the river used for makeup water supply is oversubscribed (i.e., the demand for 

water exceeds supply) during any season. Water-use permits often include specific restrictions on 

withdrawals during certain low-flow conditions. If the basin is oversubscribed, continue the 

analysis. 

3. Determine whether the river recharges the aquifer or the aquifer discharges into the river. If the 

aquifer consistently discharges to the river, then groundwater withdrawals would not be impacted by 

changes in river flow, whereas the river flows would be impacted by the groundwater withdrawals, 

although often not significantly. If the aquifer is consistently recharged by the river, then groundwater withdrawals would be impacted by changes in river flow, whereas the river flow would not be 

significantly impacted by the groundwater withdrawals. Often the direction of water transfer 

between rivers and their associated aquifers alternates back and forth as one moves downstream. 

By comparing the piezometer data from the affected aquifer with the river stage height data, the 

direction of flow can be determined. If the aquifer does not consistently discharge into the river 

downstream from the makeup water withdrawal location, continue the analysis. 

4. Determine the magnitude of the reduction in groundwater yield resulting from the plant’s cooling 

tower makeup water withdrawal. Estimating the magnitude of the reduction of groundwater yield 

generally requires application of analytic or numerical models. Only those wells located in areas 

downstream from the makeup water diversion whose contributing area includes recharge from the 

river need be considered. Sensitivity analyses should be included on the parameters governing the 
 4.4.3-3 

exchange of water between the river and the aquifer. Based on the magnitude of the reduction in 

yield, the impact would be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. 

5. Use the Review Procedures in ESRP Section 4.4, Water Resources, with the following additions: 

• descriptions of the site, the affected river, and the local groundwater aquifers, including 

geohydrologic characterization data 

• the spatial and seasonal changes in water table elevation, surface withdrawals, groundwater 

withdrawals, stream stage height for the river, and the aquifer in hydraulic connection to the 

river 

• any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impacts 

• Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal standards and regulations 

applicable to groundwater and surface-water use 

• proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-use permits, standards, and 

regulations 

6. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on the groundwater-use and quality issues known to 

the applicant or the public 

• any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impact 

• summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 

• proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and water-use standards 

and regulations 

7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant operations during the 
 4.4.3-4 

license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described 

in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.4, Water Resources.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.4.4-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4.4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY DEGRADATION (PLANTS WITH COOLING PONDS AT 

INLAND SITES)

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the potential impact 

of groundwater quality degradation resulting from closed cycle cooling ponds at inland sites. Impacts are 

discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; 

NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater quality degradation in the GEIS, 

(2) review the applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and 

significant information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement 

(SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on groundwater quality degradation identified by the public and other information 

sources
 4.4.4-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater quality degradation are addressed in ESRP 

Section 4.4, Water Resources. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to groundwater quality degradation impacts of continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review 

should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of groundwater quality degradation resulting from closed-cycle cooling-pond 

sites leaking into aquifers beneath inland sites in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for 

evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Determine the evolving chemical composition of the cooling pond water. Closed-cycle cooling 

ponds have concentrations of total dissolved solids, heavy metals, and chlorinated organic 

compounds as a result of evaporation, contact with plant equipment, and water-treatment systems, 

respectively. These concentrations can evolve over time. The current chemical composition of the 

cooling water should be described, as well as the estimated chemical composition throughout the 

renewal term. 

3. Review monitoring data on the chemical composition of groundwater in the vadose zone and aquifer 

that would likely receive water infiltrating from the cooling pond, as well as groundwater unaffected 

by the cooling pond. If the ambient groundwater quality in the aquifer is better than the estimated 

quality of the cooling pond water during the license renewal term, then continue with the analysis. 

4. Review monitoring data on the infiltration from the cooling ponds to the water table. If the cooling 

ponds have no liners or the liners are not expected to remain impermeable throughout the license 

renewal term, then continue with the analysis. 

5. Describe the estimated infiltration rate from the ponds throughout the license renewal term. These 

estimates should be used as the boundary conditions for a groundwater flow and transport model. 

Vadose zone transport can be neglected if the water infiltrating beneath the cooling pond is assumed 

to immediately enter the aquifer. If the predicted groundwater plume associated with a conservative 

nonsorbing tracer is likely to enter the zone of influence of a well, then continue the analysis.

6. Describe the changes in water quality for each of the impacted wells. Both the timing and 

magnitude of water quality changes should be described. Because this analysis would require the 
 4.4.4-3 

application of groundwater flow and transport simulation models, describe the model calibration 

activities and any peer-review activities. Compare the predicted changes in groundwater quality to 

the uses for which the groundwater is needed to assess the magnitude of the impact. 

7. Use the Review Procedures in ESRP Section 4.4, Water Resources, with the following additions: 

• cooling pond characteristics (e.g., use of liners, use of impermeable materials, impermeable 

soils) that would retard/prevent infiltration into local aquifers 

• types and concentrations of impurities in the cooling pond water and chemistry of soils along 

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

groundwater 

• quality of water of local aquifers that could be affected by infiltration of cooling-pond water 

• Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal agencies’ groundwater 

quality requirements with emphasis on any changes to these requirements that have occurred 

during the plant’s initial license term and any anticipated changes to those requirements 

during the license renewal term 

• offsite groundwater users who could be affected by the degradation of aquifers; characterization should include locations and elevations of offsite wells, their pumping rates, and 

the water needs of groundwater users 

• the predicted cumulative effects of using closed cycle cooling ponds on groundwater quality. 

This description should include maps of the contamination plume. Information should be 

provided on groundwater contamination existing at the time of license renewal application 

and projected contamination during the license renewal term 

• the mitigation measures proposed to prevent or minimize groundwater quality degradation 

and the estimated impact of implementing these measures. Explain the reasons for not 

implementing any measures that were considered but rejected 

8. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on the groundwater quality degradation issues 

known to the applicant and the public 

• any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impact 

• summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 

• proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and water-use standards 

and regulations 
 4.4.4-4 

9. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential groundwater quality degradation from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS 

is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.4, Water Resources. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.4.5-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4.5 RADIONUCLIDES RELEASED TO GROUNDWATER 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the potential for 

radionuclides released to groundwater as a result of continued plant operations during the renewal term 

and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of radionuclides released to groundwater in the GEIS, 

(2) review the applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and 

significant information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement 

(SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on radionuclides released to groundwater identified by the public and other 

information sources
 4.4.5-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of radionuclides released to groundwater are addressed in ESRP 

Section 4.4, Water Resources. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to radionuclides released to groundwater impacts of continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The 

review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of the potential for radionuclides released to groundwater in the GEIS. This 

step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the 

staff. 

2. Use the Review Procedures in ESRP Section 4.4, Water Resources, with the following additions: For plants 

that have groundwater monitoring systems with wells, review and describe: 

• the locations of monitoring wells and water supply wells, including construction information 

such as depth, diameter, screened interval, and construction material 

• depths of wells and water table elevations 

• description of groundwater flow for each aquifer or hydrostratigraphic unit beneath the site 

• description of radionuclide concentrations across the site (e.g, tritium concentrations in 

pCi/L) 

• for plants that rely on a system other than a groundwater monitoring system composed of 

wells, describe the program used for preventing, detecting, and responding to inadvertent 

releases of radioactive materials into the groundwater 

• describe the plant’s groundwater protection program 

3. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on the radionuclides released to groundwater issues 

known to the applicant or the public 

• any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impact (best management practices) 
 4.4.5-3 

• summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 

• proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and water-use standards 

and regulations 

4. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts, if any 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts, if any 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential radionuclides released to groundwater from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS 

is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.4, Water Resources. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.5-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.5 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of ecological resource 

impacts from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are 

discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; 

NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of ecological resource impacts in the GEIS, (2) review of 

the applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Ecological impact assessment for license renewal is different from that for original licensing, which is 

predictive or prospective in that it assumes a proposed stressor and proceeds to estimate impacts. License 

renewal, which occurs after the plant has a history of operation, can combine both prospective assessment 

to predict impacts during the license renewal term and retrospective assessment to assess the observed 

effects of past operation. For example, ecological modeling could be used to predict future impacts (in 

either original licensing or license renewal), while empirical statistical analysis could be used to assess 

past impacts based on actual observations (in license renewal only). Suter (1993, Chapter 10) discusses 

the differences between prospective and retrospective assessment and appropriate techniques for their 

analysis. 
 4.5-2 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on ecological resources identified by the public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (General for all ecological resource issues) 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of ecological resource impacts are based on, but not limited to, the 

following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(c), “Analysis.” The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives 

to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 

effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(A). If the applicant’s plant utilizes cooling towers or cooling ponds and 

withdraws makeup water from a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on water 

availability and competing water demands, the flow of the river, and related impacts on stream 

(aquatic) and riparian (terrestrial) ecological communities must be provided. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B). If the applicant’s plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond 

heat dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act (CWA) 

316(b) determinations and, if necessary, a 316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or 

equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant cannot provide these 

documents, it shall assess the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources resulting 

from thermal changes and impingement and entrainment. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)((E). All license renewal applicants shall assess the impact of refurbishment, 

continued operations, and other license-renewal-related construction activities on important plant 

and animal habitats. Additionally, the applicant shall assess the impact of the proposed action on 

threatened or endangered species in accordance with Federal laws protecting wildlife, including but 
 4.5-3 

not limited to, the Endangered Species Act, and essential fish habitat in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement, will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing 

or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 7, concerning the environmental consequences of 

alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. 

Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives 

will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level 

of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

• 40 CFR Part 122, concerning NPDES permit conditions specified in the CWA 

• 40 CFR Part 423, concerning effluent guidelines and thermal standards 

• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1451 et seq.), requires that Federal actions, 

including licensing or permitting actions, be consistent with U.S. Department of Commerce 

(NOAA) approved State Coastal Management Plans, which protect resources in a state’s coastal 

zone. 

• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.), requires the identification of threatened and 

endangered species and critical habitats, and formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service. 

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668 et seq.) prohibits the taking, possessing, selling, 

purchasing, bartering, transporting, importing, or exporting of, the bald or golden eagle, dead or 

alive, or any part, nest, or egg without a permit. 
 4.5-4 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703, et seq.), concerning declaring that it is unlawful to take, 

import, export, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird. Feathers, or other parts of 

nests and eggs, and products made from migratory birds are also covered by the Act. “Take” is 

defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, or 

collecting. 

• Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 USC 1361, et seq.), concerning the protection of 

marine mammals 

• Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 USC 1401, et seq.), concerning 

dumping of dredged material into the ocean 

• Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), concerning the deposition of debris 

in navigable waters, or tributaries to such waters 

• The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (16 USC 1801 et 

seq.), established the Essential Fish Habitat provisions to identify and protect important habitats of 

federally managed marine and anadromous fish species and shellfish species 

• Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq., as amended), concerning restoration and maintenance of the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the CWA is not a substitute for 

and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and to consider mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce adverse impacts. If the 

applicant provides a current NPDES permit, CWA 316(b) determination, or State permits and 

supporting documentation acceptable to the EPA at the time of license-renewal application, the NRC 

would consider them in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts. When such 

assessments of impacts of impingement and entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages are 

not provided by the applicant, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and 

other agencies having relevant expertise) would conduct its own assessment. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to ecological resource impacts of continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 
 4.5-5 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES (General for all ecological resource issues)

For all ecological issues, the same general approach can identify the environmental consequences of 

license renewal and its alternatives. This approach generally follows the framework for ecological risk 

assessment (EPA 1998).

1. Review the discussion of ecological resource impacts in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis 

for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. Category 1 

terrestrial and aquatic resource issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the following table. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Terrestrial Resources

Exposure of terrestrial 

organisms to radionuclides 

1 SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal are expected to be well below exposure 

guidelines developed to protect these organisms. 

Cooling system impacts on 

terrestrial resources (plants 

with once-through cooling 

systems or cooling ponds) 

1 SMALL. No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or 

animals have been reported as a result of increased water 

temperatures, fogging, humidity, or reduced habitat 

quality. Due to the low concentrations of contaminants in 

cooling system effluents, uptake and accumulation of 

contaminants in the tissues of wildlife exposed to the 

contaminated water or aquatic food sources are not 

expected to be significant issues.

Cooling tower impacts on 

vegetation (plants with 

cooling towers) 

1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or 

increased humidity associated with cooling tower 

operation have the potential to affect adjacent vegetation, 

but these impacts have been small at operating nuclear 

power plants and are not expected to change over the 

license renewal term.

Bird collisions with plant 

structures and transmission 

lines 

1 SMALL. Bird collisions with cooling towers and other 

plant structures and transmission lines occur at rates that 

are unlikely to affect local or migratory populations and 

the rates are not expected to change. 

Transmission line right-ofway (ROW) management 

impacts on terrestrial 

resources 

1 SMALL. Continued ROW management during the 

license renewal term is expected to keep terrestrial 

communities in their current condition. Application of 

best management practices would reduce the potential for 

impacts.

Electromagnetic fields on 

flora and fauna (plants, 

agricultural crops, honeybees, 

wildlife, livestock) 

1 SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields 

on terrestrial flora and fauna have been identified. Such 

effects are not expected to be a problem during the license 

renewal term.

Aquatic Resources

Impingement and entrainment 

of aquatic organisms (plants 

with cooling towers) 

1 SMALL. Impingement and entrainment rates are lower at 

plants that use closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers 

because the rates and volumes of water withdrawal 

needed for makeup are minimized.
 4.5-6 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Entrainment of phytoplankton 

and zooplankton (all plants) 

1 SMALL. Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton 

has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear 

power plants and is not expected to be a problem during 

the license renewal term.

Thermal impacts on aquatic 

organisms (plants with cooling 

towers) 

1 SMALL. Thermal effects associated with plants that use 

cooling towers are expected to be small because of the 

reduced amount of heated discharge. 

Infrequently reported thermal 

impacts (all plants) 

1 SMALL. Continued operations during the license 

renewal term are expected to have small thermal impacts 

with respect to the following: 

- Cold shock has been satisfactorily mitigated at operating 

nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems, has 

not endangered fish populations or been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling 

towers or cooling ponds, and is not expected to be a 

problem. 

- Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to 

be a problem. 

- Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not 

expected to affect the larger geographical distribution of 

aquatic organisms. 

- Premature emergence has been found to be a localized 

effect at some operating nuclear power plants but has 

not been a problem and is not expected to be a problem. 

- Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been 

satisfactorily mitigated at the single nuclear power plant 

with a once-through cooling system where previously it 

was a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or 

cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem.

Effects of cooling water 

discharge on dissolved 

oxygen, gas supersaturation, 

and eutrophication 

1 SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small 

number of operating nuclear power plants with oncethrough cooling systems but has been mitigated. Low 

dissolved oxygen was a concern at one nuclear power 

plant with a once-through cooling system but has been 

mitigated. Eutrophication (nutrient loading) and resulting 

effects on chemical and biological oxygen demands have 

not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power 

plants.

Effects of nonradiological 

contaminants on aquatic 

organisms 

1 SMALL. Best management practices and discharge 

limitations of NPDES permits are expected to minimize 

the potential for impacts to aquatic resources during 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with 

license renewal. Accumulation of metal contaminants has 

been a concern at a few nuclear power plants but has been 

satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy 

condenser tubes with those of another metal. 

Exposure of aquatic organisms 

to radionuclides 

1 SMALL. Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to be 

well below exposure guidelines developed to protect these 

aquatic organisms.
 4.5-7 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Effects of dredging on aquatic 

organisms 

1 SMALL. Dredging at nuclear power plants is expected to 

occur infrequently, would be of relatively short duration, 

and would affect relatively small areas. Dredging is 

performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and possibly, from other State or local 

agencies.

Effects on aquatic resources 

(non-cooling-system impacts) 

1 SMALL. Licensee application of appropriate mitigation 

measures is expected to result in no more than small 

changes to aquatic communities from their current 

condition. 

Impacts of transmission line 

ROW management on aquatic 

resources 

1 SMALL. Licensee application of best management 

practices to ROW maintenance is expected to result in no 

more than small impacts to aquatic resources. 

Losses from predation, 

parasitism, and disease among 

organisms exposed to 

sublethal stresses 

1 SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be 

a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not 

expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

The Category 2 terrestrial and aquatic resources and special status species and habitats impact issues 

identified in the GEIS are listed in the following table. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Terrestrial Resources

Effects on terrestrial resources 

(non-cooling system impacts) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Impacts resulting 

from continued operations and refurbishment associated 

with license renewal may affect terrestrial communities. 

Application of best management practices would reduce 

the potential for impacts. The magnitude of impacts 

would depend on the nature of the activity, the status of 

the resources that could be affected, and the effectiveness 

of mitigation.

Water use conflicts with 

terrestrial resources (plants 

with cooling ponds or cooling 

towers using makeup water 

from a river) 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on terrestrial 

resources in riparian communities affected by water use 

conflicts could be of moderate significance. 

Aquatic Resources

Impingement and entrainment 

of aquatic organisms (plants 

with once-through cooling 

systems or cooling ponds) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impacts of 

impingement and entrainment are small at many plants, 

but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with 

once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems, 

depending on cooling system withdrawal rates and 

volumes and the aquatic resources at the site. 

Thermal impacts on aquatic 

organisms (plants with oncethrough cooling systems or 

cooling ponds) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Most of the effects 

associated with thermal discharges are localized and are 

not expected to affect overall stability of populations or 

resources. The magnitude of impacts, however, would 

depend on site-specific thermal plume characteristics and 

the nature of aquatic resources in the area. 
 4.5-8 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Water use conflicts with 

aquatic resources (plants with 

cooling ponds or cooling 

towers using makeup water 

from a river) 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on aquatic resources 

in stream communities affected by water use conflicts 

could be of moderate significance in some situations. 

Special Status Species and Habitats

Threatened, endangered, and 

protected species and essential 

fish habitat 

2 The magnitude of impacts on threatened, endangered, and 

protected species, critical habitat, and essential fish 

habitat would depend on the occurrence of listed species 

and habitats and the effects of power plant systems on 

them. Consultation with appropriate agencies would be 

needed to determine whether special status species or 

habitats are present and whether they would be adversely 

affected by continued operations and refurbishment 

associated with license renewal.

2. Identify the relevant sources of information, which include: 

• Studies and monitoring programs: Briefly summarize any studies that provide site-specific 

data and can help understand environmental impacts. Include the location, dates, objectives, 

the biological entities or attributes chosen for study, methods, and results applicable to this 

license renewal application, and what data or data summaries might be available for Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) review. 

If data are more than 5 years old, explain why the studies would or would not be relevant for 

assessing the effects of present and projected future plant operation over the term of license 

renewal. For example, show that both the potentially affected resources and the effect of the 

plant on them have remained and can be expected to remain unchanged over the term of 

license renewal. 

• Communications with and views of regulatory agencies: Document any communications 

with regulatory agencies (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency or other water quality 

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish and wildlife agencies) that are relevant to assessing 

impacts and are not documented elsewhere in the environmental report. If relevant 

communications are documented elsewhere, refer the reader to the appropriate sections. 

Discuss the major points of view concerning environmental impacts of license renewal and an 

analysis of significant problems and objections raised by other Federal, State, and local 

agencies; affected Indian Tribes; and other interested stakeholders. 

• Other sources: Give in-text citations to sources of data and information used to assess 

impacts and provide a literature cited section. 

3. Identify specific biological resources and their attributes used for assessing impact. Because 

biological systems are complicated, only a subset of resources can be addressed. 

• Identify potentially affected resource entities: Describe the potentially affected resources in 

terms of representative species, functional group of species (e.g., insectivores), communities, 
 4.5-9 

an ecosystem (e.g., oak-hickory forest), a specific valued habitat (e.g., wet meadows, 

submerged aquatic vegetation), unique places, or other entities of concern. 

Additional guidance on identifying important species to be evaluated can be found in 

“U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy; Notice of Final Policy.”3

 Contact Federal, 

State, and regional government agencies with jurisdiction over biological resources to assist 

with the identification of important species and habitats. 

• Identify attributes of those resources potentially at risk: Identify the attributes of the 

resources of concern that are important to protect and potentially at risk (U.S. EPA 1998). If 

potentially adverse effects on a species, habitat, or other ecological resource are identified, 

the resource should be assessed concerning local, regional, and national social, economic, and 

ecological value. 

Biodiversity, which comprises the variation between and among biological entities and 

includes components of genetic, species, habitat, local ecosystem and regional ecosystem 

diversity, is an important biological attribute to consider (CEQ 1993).

4. Show the relationships (as in a causal link) between plant operation and the resource attributes. 

Lack of change in a resource attribute may not indicate lack of an adverse effect if plant operations 

have no link to resource levels. Relationships can be examined by identifying the pathways through 

which they act and expressing them as a risk hypotheses. 

If any adverse impacts are identified, describe mitigation measures that have been used to reduce the 

adverse impacts during the initial license term or that are expected to be used during the license 

renewal term and their expected effects. Briefly explain the rationale for not implementing any 

measures that were considered but rejected.

5. Assess and characterize impact. For each ecological issue, multiple natural populations or entities 

may be affected, and each population may have multiple measurable and susceptible attributes. The 

effects of power plant operation on any ecological attribute may be direct or indirect, and the 

assessment approach can be prospective or retrospective. With such complexity, examining a single 

line of evidence may not be sufficient to assess impact. In such cases, the reviewer should examine 

several lines of evidence involving several populations when data allow. 

Present in the SEIS a narrative explanation of the conceptual model for the analysis that includes the 

justification for selection of representative entities or their attributes, the hypothetical mechanism 

through which continued plant operation may act upon them, the approaches used to assess impact, 

and possible outcomes. If using multiple lines of evidence, explain in narrative the qualitative or 

quantitative method for combining them to make an overall assessment of impact. A typical 

 

3

 The notice (46 FR 7644, January 23, 1981) establishes guidance for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel involved in 

making recommendations to protect or conserve fish and wildlife resources. Guidance is provided on the definition and 

identification of “evaluation species,” evaluation of direct and indirect effects of a project on the evaluation species, on the 

levels of mitigation and on the various methods for accomplishing mitigation when adverse effects are identified. The types 

of species that should be considered are discussed in the notice at pages 7662 and 7663. In this environmental standard 

review plan, the terms “important species” and “evaluation species” are used interchangeably. 
 4.5-10 

approach for accomplishing this in ecological risk assessment is to consider weight of evidence 

(e.g., Menzie et al. 1996, EPA 1998). 

6. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the applicant 

and the public 

7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to ecological resource impacts from continued plant operations during the license 

renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the 

review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

40 CFR Part 122. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 122, “EPA 

Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.” 

40 CFR Part 123. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 123, “State 

Program Requirements.” 

46 FR 7644. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy. 1981.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended. 16 USC 668 et seq. 
 4.5-11 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1993. Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations into 

Environmental Impact Analysis under the National Environmental Quality Act. CEQ, Executive Office 

of the President, Washington, D.C. 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA). 16 USC 1451 et seq. 

Endangered Species Act. 16 USC 1531 et seq. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 (Clean Water Act). 33 USC 1251, et seq. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958. 16 USC 661 et seq. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

Suter, G.W. 1993. “Chapter 10: Retrospective Risk Assessment.” Pp. 311–364. In G.W. Suter, II (ed.). 

Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. 

EPA/630/R-95/002. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.5.1-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 

4.5.1 WATER USE CONFLICTS WITH ECOLOGICAL (TERRESTRIAL OR AQUATIC) 

RESOURCES (PLANTS WITH COOLING PONDS OR COOLING TOWERS USING 

MAKEUP WATER FROM A RIVER) 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of impacts of surface 

water use conflicts on ecological (terrestrial or aquatic) resources from continued plant operations during 

the license renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 

1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of ecological resource impacts in the GEIS, (2) review of 

the applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). This 

ESRP section applies to plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 
 4.5.1-2 

• new information on surface water use conflicts on ecological resources identified by the public and 

other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of impacts of surface water use conflicts on ecological resources 

are addressed in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts of surface water use conflicts on ecological resources from 

continued plant operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the 

proposed action. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of surface water use conflicts on ecological resources in the GEIS to identify 

the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for 

evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described in 

ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources, with the following additions: 

• no additional surface water conflict information is needed for plants using once-through 

cooling systems or not specifically using cooling towers or cooling ponds 

• discussion of riparian impacts can be included in the discussion of terrestrial resources, and 

discussion of instream impacts can be included in the discussion of aquatic resources 

3. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the applicant 

and the public 

4. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 
 4.5.1-3 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to ecological resource impacts from continued plant operations during the license 

renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the 

review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPY 

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.5.2-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 

4.5.2 EFFECTS ON TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES (NON-COOLING-SYSTEM IMPACTS) 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of effects on 

terrestrial resources from continued plant operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. 

Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of impacts of continued plant operations and 

refurbishment on terrestrial ecosystems in the GEIS, (2) review of the applicant’s environmental report 

(ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant information, and (4) preparing input to the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on terrestrial ecosystems identified by the public and other information sources 
 4.5.2-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment on 

terrestrial ecosystems are addressed in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts of continued plant operations during the license renewal term 

and refurbishment on terrestrial ecosystems. This section should consider the impacts of alternatives to 

the proposed action. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

For all ecological issues, the same general approach can identify the environmental consequences of 

license renewal and its alternatives. This approach generally follows the framework for ecological risk 

assessment (EPA 1998).

1. Review the discussion of impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment on terrestrial 

ecosystems in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described in 

ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources, with the following additions: 

• Describe any activities associated with continued plant operations and refurbishment 

associated with license renewal that would involve disturbing any terrestrial habitat. If no 

area would be disturbed, note that fact and no further discussion of the issue is needed. Areas 

to be disturbed should be described in Chapter 3 of the SEIS concerning (1) the amount of 

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

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

information and analysis for this issue overlaps the information and analysis for assessing 

impacts on threatened and endangered species. 

• In addition, if any license renewal activity would disturb any plant or wildlife habitat, 

describe any land that would be disturbed during transport and delivery of equipment, 

structures, or components; storage of materials; or construction associated with 

refurbishment. If any temporary or permanent structures would be built, provide a map of the 

site that includes the proposed location of these structures. If any road or bridge 

modifications would occur as a result of transport, describe potential effects to the terrestrial 

environment. 

 
 4.5.2-3 

3. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the applicant 

or the public 

4. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to ecological resource impacts from continued plant operations during the license 

renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the 

review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.5.3-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.5.3 IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT OF AQUATIC ORGANISMS (PLANTS WITH 

ONCE-THROUGH COOLING SYSTEMS OR COOLING PONDS) 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of impingement and 

entrainment impacts on aquatic organisms for plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds 

from continued plant operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of impingement and entrainment impacts on aquatic 

organisms in the GEIS, (2) review of the applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and 

addressing any new and significant information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

The impacts from cooling water intake are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit system. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the location, 

design, construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake structure reflect the best technology 

available for minimizing environmental impacts. Responsibility for making this determination rests with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or with its designees.

 
 4.5.3-2 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms identified by the public and 

other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms are 

addressed in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms from 

continued plant operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the 

proposed action. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

1. Review the discussion of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms in the GEIS. This step 

establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described in 

ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources, with the following additions: 

• The reviewer should obtain additional information about the plant’s cooling water system 

design and operating procedures from the applicant’s environmental report and other ESRP 

sections that describe components of the cooling system and the hydrodynamics and physical 

impacts of the intake. The following data or information may be needed to assess the 

impingement and entrainment impacts of aquatic organisms: 

- a copy of the plant’s current NPDES permit and a 316(b) demonstration acceptable to 

the EPA or State permitting agency

- a description of any proposed changes or refurbishment to the plant-cooling-system 

intake
 4.5.3-3 

- studies or monitoring programs of impingement and entrainment, including 

information on when and where conducted and by whom, the objective (why 

conducted), the biological entities or attributes chosen for study, methods and results 

(how conducted), and data summaries available for NRC review 

- information on the potential for altered hydrodynamic characteristics that are induced 

by inlet system operation (e.g., altered circulation patterns) and may affect attraction, 

impingement, and entrainment of aquatic biota and determine the extent and seasonal 

variation of any such alterations 

- information on the potential for the recirculation of heated effluent from the plant 

discharge system. If recirculation is predicted, the reviewer would need information 

to assess the impacts to impingement and entrainment. 

3. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on impingement and entrainment issues known to 

the applicant and the public 

4. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

• summarizes the permitting documents 

• states that a NPDES permit and 316(b) determination are current and available 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS 

is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
 4.5.3-4 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.5.4-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.5.4 THERMAL IMPACTS ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS (PLANTS WITH ONCE-THROUGH 

COOLING SYSTEMS OR COOLING PONDS)

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of thermal impacts on 

aquatic organisms for plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds from continued plant 

operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the Generic 

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

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review the discussion of thermal impacts on aquatic organisms in the GEIS, 

(2) review the applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identify and address any new and significant 

information, and (4) prepare input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

The impacts from cooling water discharges are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit system. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that discharge 

system operation must ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of 

shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving water body. Responsibility for making this 

determination rests with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or with its designees. 

Discharge system impacts on aquatic biota may result from the effects of thermal alterations to the 

receiving water body. Major alterations are usually confined to a limited discharge area (the mixing 

zone), whereas lesser alterations may extend over a larger portion of the receiving water body. Adverse 

effects on biota that are transported through, migrate through, or are attracted to the mixing zone may be
 4.5.4-2 

acute or chronic, and impacts may be reflected as changes in the populations of “important” species and 

in the structure and function of the ecosystem. 

This thermal effects section represents a combination of issues in the GEIS. Thermal effects on natural 

species and communities have different manifestations that may overlap and grade into each other 

depending on thermal history of the receptor; the life stages, species, communities, or habitats exposed; 

environmental factors; refugia; temperatures, durations, and pattern of acclimation or acclimatization and 

of temperature alterations; inter alia. As a result, the source and exact form of thermal effects can be hard 

to differentiate in actual field studies. For example, if a field study indicates exclusion of an ecological 

resource in an area influenced by a thermal plume, the investigators would have difficulty determining if 

the mechanism is habitat change, migration of individuals away from the increased temperature (and to 

what fate), chronic effects including changes in timing of life history events, acute mortality, or any 

combination of these. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on thermal impacts on aquatic organisms identified by the public and other 

information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of thermal impacts on aquatic organisms are addressed in ESRP 

Section 4.5, Ecological Resources. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts of thermal impacts on aquatic organisms from continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The 

review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

1. Review the discussion of thermal impacts on aquatic organisms in the GEIS. This step establishes 

the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 
 4.5.4-3 

2. Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described in 

ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources, with the following additions: 

• The reviewer should obtain additional information about the plant’s cooling water system 

design and operating procedures from the applicant’s environmental report and other ESRP 

sections that describe components of the cooling system and the hydrodynamics and physical 

impacts of the effluent. The following data or information may be needed to assess thermal 

impacts: 

- a copy of the plant’s current NPDES permit 

- a copy of the plant’s current 316(a) variance (if required, according to Section 316(a) 

of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or CWA [33 U.S.C. 1326(a)]) 

- a description of any proposed changes to the plant-cooling-system discharge 

- studies or monitoring programs of thermal effects entrainment, including information 

on when and where conducted and by whom, the objective (why conducted), the 

biological entities or attributes chosen for study, methods and results (how 

conducted) applicable to this license renewal application, and what data or data 

summaries might be available for NRC review 

- the temperature duration-mortality relationship and susceptibility of local species to 

heat shock 

- a description of applicable State and Federal effluent guidelines (40 CFR Part 423) 

and the thermal standards or limitations applicable to the water body to which the 

discharge is made (including maximum permissible temperature, maximum 

permissible temperature increase, mixing zones, and maximum rates of increase and 

decrease) and whether and to what extent these standards or limitations have been 

approved by the EPA in accordance with the CWA 

• Additional information may also be needed on the specific nature of the thermal stress, such 

as: 

- maximum sustained temperatures for each season that are consistent with 

maintaining local ecological systems 

- temperature effects data for local species or their surrogates 

- thermal requirements of downstream aquatic life where upstream warming would 

adversely affect downstream temperature requirements 

- areal extent of the plume 

- physical factors that might concentrate biota in the plume

• Briefly summarize any site-specific thermal effluent studies, monitoring programs, or thermal 

effects or mortality studies and include locations, dates, objectives, methods, and results 

applicable to this license renewal application, and what data or data summaries might be 

available for NRC review. Provide estimates of numbers by taxa of fish and shellfish 

affected by and susceptible to the thermal effluent on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. 
 4.5.4-4 

Provide areal or volumetric estimates of thermally affected fish and shellfish habitat. Provide 

full documentation of analytical or modeling techniques used to assess effects. Give 

perspective to these effects in terms of such concepts as the commercial, recreational, and 

ecosystem services they would have provided. 

• If aquatic resources have been monitored, provide an analysis of temporal and geographic 

trends in the data that might indicate whether fish and shellfish populations have increased, 

decreased, or remained stable during the initial term of operation. Show any relationships 

between patterns of thermal effects and trends in potentially affected populations. Because 

entrainment, impingement, and thermal impacts all affect field populations simultaneously, 

provide, if possible, a single discussion of the effects of these stressors on trends in field data 

rather than having separate discussions for these three stressors individually. 

3. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on thermal discharge issues known to the applicant 

and the public 

4. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

• summarizes the permitting documents 

• states that a NPDES permit and 316(a) variance (if required) or equivalent State permits and 

supporting documentation are current and available 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to impacts of thermal impacts on aquatic organisms from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS 

is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
 4.5.4-5 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.5.5-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.5.5 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES AND HABITATS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of impacts to 

threatened, endangered, and protected species (and critical habitats, if required) and essential fish habitat 

from continued plant operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review the discussion of threatened, endangered, and protected species and 

essential fish habitat in the GEIS, (2) review the applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identify and 

address any new and significant information, and (4) prepare input to the supplemental environmental 

impact statement (SEIS). 

Threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat includes those species and 

habitats that are Federally protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act (MSA). These Federal acts put requirements on Federal agencies such as the NRC. State-protected 

species and habitats are discussed in Chapter 3 of the GEIS (and as required in a site-specific 

supplemental environmental impact statement [SEIS]), but not specifically in Chapter 4 because 

protection of these species and habitats is under the jurisdiction of the State agencies, which do not put 

requirements on NRC. Chapter 3 of the SEIS should describe the threatened, endangered, and protected 

species and essential fish habitat while this section of the SEIS should discuss the corresponding 

environmental consequences and impacts.
 4.5.5-2 

The ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), referred to collectively as the “Services.” Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA states 

that each Federal agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary (Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of 

Commerce), insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat. Marine and anadromous species are generally the responsibility of NMFS, and all other 

species and habitats the responsibility of USFWS. While the analyses of environmental impact under 

NEPA and NRC’s regulations in the SEIS would include an assignment of NRC impact levels of 

SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE for each issue, the assessment of endangered species under ESA must 

include a determination of “jeopardy” or “no jeopardy” for the species itself and “adverse modification” 

or “no adverse modification” for designated critical habitat based on a careful analysis of the best 

available scientific and commercial data. Guidance for conducting consultations with the Services can be 

found in The Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS 1998). Note that an SEIS for license 

renewal can have separate consultations with the two Services for different species. 

The MSA mandates emphasize wetlands, anadromous fish habitat, and habitat of other Federallymanaged marine and estuarine species. The essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation process is very 

similar to the Section 7 consultation process for endangered species. Guidance for conducting EFH 

consultations with NMFS can be found in Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance, Version 1.1

(NMFS 2004). Similar to ESA, while the analyses of environmental impact under National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC’s regulations in the SEIS would include an assignment of 

NRC impact levels of SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE for each issue, the EFH assessment under 

MSA must include a determination of either “adverse impact” or “no adverse impact” to EFH. Adverse 

effect is any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of essential fish habitat. Adverse effects may 

include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss 

of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if 

such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Withdrawal of water for power plant 

cooling, even with return after passing through the cooling water system, is generally considered to 

decrease the quantity of both fish habitat and prey species. A finding of adverse impact should be 

qualified in terms of its magnitude relative to the stock or population of interest as “minimal,” “less than 

substantial,” or “substantial.” 

Designated EFH may overlap with the habitat (including critical habitat) of species listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. In such cases, an assessment can be prepared that integrates the biological 

assessment under ESA and the EFH assessment under MSA. In addition, an integrated consultation 

process can be conducted with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Special status species and habitats are reported in three parts of the SEIS. They should be described as 

part of the affected environment in Chapter 3. This description can include life history summaries in 

which the level of detail is appropriate for the level of analysis that would follow. They should also be 

included among the ecological entities that are assessed in Chapter 4. Communications with the Services 

regarding either listed species or EFH should be included in an appendix to the SEIS. If the geographic 

range of either species listed for Federal protection or essential fish habitat include the plant site, then the 

biological assessment and EFH assessment should also be included in that appendix. Compared to the 
 4.5.5-3 

information in the main body of the SEIS, the assessments should focus sharply on the species or habitat 

and relevant information needed to support the assessment. 

NRC conducts ESA and MSA consultations with USFWS and NMFS. Endangered or threatened species, 

critical habitats, and essential fish habitat should all be assessed in the SEIS. In addition, if endangered or 

threatened species or their critical habitats occur in the vicinity of the nuclear plant site, a biological 

assessment should be prepared and included as an appendix in the SEIS. Similarly, if EFH occurs in the 

vicinity of the nuclear plant site, an EFH assessment should be prepared and included as an appendix in 

the SEIS. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on impacts on threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish 

habitat identified by the public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish 

habitat are addressed in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts on threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential 

fish habitat from continued plant operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and 

alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the ESA and MSA review process are as follows: 

IIIa. Review Procedures for ESA 

1. Review the discussion of threatened, endangered, and protected species in the GEIS. This step 

establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described in 

ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources, with the following additions: 
 4.5.5-4 

• Identify potential environmental effects from continued operations during the renewal term 

that might impact threatened or endangered species or critical habitat. 

• Initiate informal consultation: 

- Initiate informal consultation with the USFWS and, as applicable, NMFS to 

determine the likelihood of adverse effects on listed, candidate, and proposed 

threatened or endangered species or critical habitats. The NRC would provide the 

USFWS and NMFS with a description of nuclear plant operations during the renewal 

term, a description of any listed, candidate, and proposed threatened or endangered 

species or critical habitats that it knows to exist on or in the vicinity of the power 

plant site, and a description of the manner in which operations during the renewal 

term is anticipated to impact listed, candidate, and proposed threatened or endangered 

species or critical habitats. 

A detailed description of the procedural requirements for consultation under the ESA, 

including definitions of listed, candidate, and proposed threatened and endangered 

species and critical habitats, jeopardy, adverse modification, etc., are found in 

Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting 

Section 7 Consultations and Conferences (USFWS 1998). This document also 

contains guidelines for procuring an incidental take permit. 

- Initiate a biological assessment if one is requested by the USFWS or NMFS as a 

prerequisite to making a finding in the informal consultation. A biological 

assessment is required if listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitats 

are present in environment affected by the proposed action. It is optional only if 

proposed threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are involved. 

The biological assessment should address listed and proposed threatened or 

endangered species and critical habitats that are likely to be affected. The content of 

biological assessments prepared pursuant to the ESA is at the discretion of the NRC, 

although recommended contents may be found in 50 CFR 402.12, “Interagency 

Cooperation—Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; Biological 

Assessments.” 

• Initiate formal consultation 

- Initiate formal consultation with the USFWS and NMFS, as applicable, to determine 

if operations during the renewal term are likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of a listed species (jeopardy) or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat (adverse 

modification). The USFWS and/or NMFS would render a biological opinion of 

jeopardy/no jeopardy and adverse modification/no adverse modification and issue an 

incidental take statement as warranted. The USFWS and/or NMFS would also 

provide a list of reasonable and prudent alternatives (e.g., alternative design and/or 

placement of structures, alternative schedules, or alternative operational procedures, 

habitat improvement, etc.) for avoiding jeopardy or adverse modification, and 

minimizing incidental take. Alternatively, the USFWS and/or NMFS may provide a 
 4.5.5-5 

statement that no reasonable and prudent alternatives exist, along with an 

explanation. 

If the USFWS and/or NMFS renders an opinion of no jeopardy and no adverse 

modification, then prepare a statement for the SEIS that (1) summarizes the 

information that has been reviewed, the analyses that have been conducted, and the 

basis for the decision rendered by the USFWS and/or NMFS, and (2) concludes that 

operations during the renewal term would not jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 

If the USFWS and/or NMFS renders an opinion of jeopardy and/or adverse 

modification, prepare a statement for the SEIS that (1) summarizes the information 

that has been reviewed, the analyses that have been conducted, and the basis for the 

decision rendered by the USFWS and/or NMFS, (2) includes a list of reasonable and 

prudent alternatives for avoiding jeopardy and/or adverse modification, or provides a 

statement that no reasonable and prudent alternatives exist, (3) includes a statement 

regarding the magnitude of anticipated incidental take and a list of reasonable and 

prudent alternatives for avoiding or reducing incidental take, and, if needed, 

procurement of an incidental take permit under sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) 

of the ESA, and (4) concludes that operations during the renewal term would 

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat. 

3. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on threatened, endangered, and protected species and 

essential fish habitat issues known to the applicant and the public 

4. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes the 

information that has been reviewed, the analyses that have been conducted, and the basis for 

the opinion rendered by the USFWS. This section of the SEIS should present: 

- a list of adverse impacts to listed, candidate, and proposed threatened or endangered 

species or critical habitats from continued operations during the renewal term and 

refurbishment 

- a list of the impacts for which there are reasonable and prudent alternatives to limit 

adverse effects and the associated alternatives 

- the applicant’s commitments to limit these impacts 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 
 4.5.5-6 

IIIb. Review Procedures for MSA 

Procedures for EFH assessments are very similar to those for threatened and endangered species and can 

often be performed simultaneously. Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of essential fish habitat in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for 

evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. They should include 

results of requests to the NMFS for EFH in the project area. 

2. Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described in 

ESRP Section 4.5, Ecological Resources, with the following additions: 

• Identify potential environmental effects related to operations during the renewal term that 

might adversely affect EFH. Describe EFH that might be affected by continued plant 

operation. Include EFH and the species for which it is designated among the biological 

entities to be analyzed for each aquatic issue. EFH regulations “further clarify EFH by 

defining ‘waters’ to include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and 

biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by 

fish where appropriate; ‘substrate’ to include sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the 

waters, and associated biological communities; ‘necessary’ to mean the habitat required to 

support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem; 

and ‘spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity’ to cover a species’ full life cycle” 

(NMFS 2004). 

• Initiate abbreviated consultation with the NMFS: 

- Initiate abbreviated consultation with the NMFS to determine the likelihood of 

adverse effects on EFH. The NRC would provide NMFS with a description of 

operations during the renewal term, a description of any EFH or presence of EFH 

species that it knows to exist on or in the vicinity of the site, and a description of the 

manner in which operations during the renewal term is anticipated to impact EFH. A 

detailed description of the procedural requirements for consultation, including 

definitions, is found in Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance, Version 1.1

(NMFS 2004). 

- Initiate an EFH assessment, if one is requested by the NMFS as a prerequisite to 

making a finding in the informal consultation. An EFH assessment is required if 

EFH may be present in the area to be affected by the action. 

The assessment should include: the results of an onsite inspection; the views of 

recognized experts on the habitat or species effects; a literature review; an analysis of 

alternatives to the proposed action; and any other relevant information. 

EFH assessments must include: 

- a description of the proposed action 
 4.5.5-7 

- an analysis of the effects, including cumulative effects, of the action on EFH, 

the managed species, and associated species by life history stage 

- the NRC’s views regarding the effects of the action on EFH 

- proposed mitigation, if applicable 

• Initiate expanded consultation with the NMFS 

- Initiate expanded consultation with the NMFS to determine if operations during the 

renewal term are likely to adversely affect EFH. The Service would render a written 

finding of adverse effects or no adverse effects and Conservation Recommendations 

as warranted. The MSA mandates that a federal action agency (NRC) must respond 

to NMFS’s proposed EFH Conservation Recommendations in writing within 30 days. 

NRC’s response must either include a description of measures proposed by the 

agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH or 

else explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the 

scientific rationale for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of 

the proposed action and the measures needed to offset such effects. If an agency 

decision is inconsistent with a NMFS Conservation Recommendation, the NMFS 

Director may request a meeting with the Commission to further discuss the project. 

EFH Assessments must include references to: 

- an EFH that may be found in water bodies that may be affected by plant 

operation 

- license renewal activities and modifications to plant operation that may 

adversely affect EFH 

- letters and communications with the NMFS and any resulting NMFS 

memoranda (include any letters in the appendix to the ER) 

3. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on impingement, entrainment, and thermal discharge 

issues known to the applicant and the public 

4. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes the 

information that has been reviewed, the analyses that have been conducted, and the basis for 

the opinion rendered by the NMFS. This section of the SEIS should present: 

- a list of adverse impacts to EFH from continued operations during the renewal term 

and refurbishment 

- a list of the impacts for which there are Conservation Recommendations to limit 

adverse effects 
 4.5.5-8 

- the applicant’s commitments to limit these impacts 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to impacts of continued plant operations during the license renewal term and 

refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review 

procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used to evaluate conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, “Interagency 

Cooperation Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended.” 

Coastal Zone Management Act. 16 USC 1451 et seq. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1993. Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations into 

Environmental Impact Analysis under the National Environmental Quality Act. CEQ, Executive Office 

of the President, Washington, D.C. 

Endangered Species Act. 16 USC 1531 et seq. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (also known as Clean Water Act). 33 USC 1251 et seq. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 16 USC 1801 et seq. 

Menzie, C.A., et al. (10 other authors). 1996. “Special Report of the Massachusetts Weight-of-Evidence 

Workgroup: A Weight of Evidence Approach for Evaluating Ecological Risks.” Human and Ecological 

Risk Assessment 2(2):277–304. 

 
 4.5.5-9 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance, 

Version 1.1. Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Suter, G.W. 1993. Chapter 10: Retrospective Risk Assessment. Pp. 311–364. In G.W. Suter, II (ed.). 

Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1973. Water Quality Criteria, 1972. EPA-R3-73-033, 

Ecological Research Series. Committee on Water Quality Criteria, National Academy of Sciences and 

National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. 

EPA/630/R-95/002. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook 

(Washington, D.C.): Procedures for Conducting Section 7 Consultations and Conferences (Final). 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.6-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.6 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of potential impacts on 

historic and cultural resources during the renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of historic and cultural resources in the GEIS, (2) review 

of the applicant’s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 

et seq.), requires that Federal agencies take into account the effects of the agency’s undertaking on 

properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and, prior to 

approval of an undertaking, to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable 

opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The issuance of a renewed operating license for a nuclear 

power plant is an undertaking that could possibly affect either known or currently undiscovered historic 

properties. 

An assessment of impact for license renewal differs from that of original licensing. In many cases, 

nuclear power plant sites were not investigated prior to plant construction. Even though the NHPA 

became law in 1966, the enacting regulations located at 36 CFR Part 800 were not available until 1979. 

By this point, many of the operating reactors today were constructed and operating. Therefore, most 

applicants are not aware of the occurrence or status of historic and cultural resources on their site. 
 4.6-2 

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c) “Use of the NEPA process for section 106 purposes,” the NRC 

coordinates its Section 106 responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 

license renewal reviews. The NRC may use the NEPA process to comply with Section 106 in lieu of the 

procedures set forth in Sections 800.3 through 800.6 provided all consulting parties (ACHP, State 

Historic Preservation Officer [SHPO], Tribal Historic Preservation Officer [THPO], American Indian 

Tribes, the public, and other interested stakeholders) have been notified in advance and it meets the 

standards of 36 CFR 800.8(c). The NRC will consult with the appropriate SHPO/THPO for each plantspecific license renewal review. Through early coordination all issues will be identified. 

The area(s) within which historic and cultural resources should be identified is referred to as the Area of 

Potential Effect(s) (APE), defined at 36 CFR 800.16(d) as the geographic area or areas within which an 

undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of important cultural 

resources, if any such resources exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking 

and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking (36 CFR 800.16(d)). For 

NRC reviews, the APE is defined as the area at the power plant site and its immediate environs that may 

be impacted by post-license renewal land-disturbing operations or projected refurbishment activities. The 

APE may extend beyond the immediate environs in those instances where post- license-renewal landdisturbing operations or projected refurbishment activities specifically related to license renewal may 

potentially have an effect on known or proposed historic sites. This determination is made irrespective of 

ownership or control of the lands of interest.

The purpose of the historic and cultural resources assessment is to ensure that such resources that are 

considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are not adversely affected by proposed activities related to 

renewal term operations. If adverse effects cannot be avoided, mitigation must be developed in 

consultation with the appropriate SHPO/THPO and other interested parties. Historic and cultural 

resources may include prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, historic properties, districts, and 

landscapes, as well as traditional cultural properties that may have significance for American Indian 

Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information identified by the public and other information sources 

• a map that identifies the APE and a site disturbance map 

• applicant’s cultural resource protection procedures or Cultural Resource Management Plans 

• previous cultural resources investigations that have identified historic and cultural resources, along 

with site-specific locations for those resources that are either located in or near the APE 
 4.6-3 

• information related to past evaluations for eligibility for the NRHP (36 CFR 60), and associated 

consultations with the SHPO, local preservation officials, or American Indian Tribal officials 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of historic and cultural resources impacts during the renewal term are 

based on the relevant requirements of the following: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(c), “Analysis.” The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives 

to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 

effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K). All applicants shall identify any potentially affected historic or 

archaeological properties and assess whether any of these properties will be affected by future plant 

operations and any planned refurbishment activities in accordance with the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement, will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing 

or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 7, concerning the environmental consequences of 

alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. 

Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives 

will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level 
 4.6-4 

of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). 

• 36 CFR Part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” specifically 36 CFR 800.8(c), “Use of the 

NEPA Process for Section 106 Purposes” 

• 36 CFR Part 63, containing guidance by which historic properties are evaluated and determined 

eligible for listing on the NRHP 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts on historic and cultural resources from continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The 

review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

To analyze the impact of plant operations during the renewal term on historic and cultural resources, 

review the information collected and discussed in Section 3.7 of the ESRP and complete the following 

steps: 

1. Review the discussion of the impacts of plant operations during the renewal term on historic and 

cultural resources in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. 

This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, 

and the staff. Category 2 historic and cultural resource issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the 

following table. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Historic and Cultural Resources

Historic and 

cultural 

resources 

2 Continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal 

are expected to have no more than small impacts on historic and cultural 

resources located onsite and in the transmission line ROW because most 

impacts could be mitigated by avoiding those resources. The National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires the Federal agency to 

consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and 

appropriate Native American Tribes to determine the potential effects 

on historic properties and mitigation, if necessary.
 4.6-5 

2. Analyze the historic and cultural resources impacts associated with continued plant operations 

during the renewal term and refurbishment, as follows: 

• Determine the direct and indirect impacts that could result from continued plant operations 

and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal, e.g., building new waste storage 

facilities, new parking areas, new access roads to existing transmission lines, or new transmission lines. 

• Review any issues related to historic and cultural resources identified during the public 

scoping period. 

• Identify historic and cultural resources through consultation with the SHPO/THPO and by 

reviewing any archaeological investigations or building surveys conducted within the APE 

(power plant site) and the immediate environs. 

• Review the site disturbance map (developed by a qualified archaeologist) that indicates areas 

of heavy disturbance and areas of high potential for undiscovered historic and cultural 

resources. 

• Review any correspondence from the SHPO/THPO, any American Indian Tribes, or local 

preservation officials regarding any archaeological investigations or building surveys 

conducted on the applicant’s site. 

• If significant resources are located within the APE, review any procedures or integrated 

cultural resources management plans instituted by the applicant to protect the historic and 

cultural resources identified on the site or within the in-scope transmission line right-of-way. 

Also, verify that the applicant has developed these procedures and plans in consultation with 

the appropriate SHPO, local preservation official, or American Indian Tribes. 

• Evaluate the historic significance of historic and cultural resources by applying the NRHP 

criteria. Also, apply criteria for historic and cultural resources within the APE that have not 

been previously evaluated for NRHP eligibility. 

• Through consultation with American Indian Tribes, identify any traditional cultural 

properties. 

3. Evaluate the effects of continued operations and refurbishment to historic and cultural resources. If 

historic and cultural resources are found to be in or near APE, the assessment of effects can be 

conducted using criteria for effect and adverse effect contained in 36 CFR 800.5, “Assessment of 

Adverse Effects.” Assessments of effects should involve consultation with the SHPO/THPO, local 

historic preservation officials, and American Indian Tribal members, as necessary, to ensure that all 

potential values are identified for specific resources. The assessment would result in one of the 

following conclusions: 

• No effect; the proposed license-renewal-term operations activities would not affect any 

known significant historic and cultural resources. 

• No adverse effect; the activities would affect one or more historic or cultural resources, but 

the effect would not significantly alter the historic character of the resource(s). 
 4.6-6 

• Adverse effect; the proposed activities would result in harm to the qualities that make one or 

more historic or cultural resource significant. 

4. If an adverse effect would result from continued plant operations during the license renewal term 

and refurbishment, the applicant, in consultation with the NRC, SHPO, American Indian Tribes, and 

other interested parties should identify strategies to avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts to 

significant historic and cultural resources. 

5. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on historic and cultural issues known to the 

applicant, the public, and other consulting parties 

• all correspondence initiated by the applicant to the SHPO, American Indian Tribes, or local 

preservation officials 

• a map that identifies the APE and power plant property boundary 

• a map that documents the level of past ground disturbance in the APE 

• cultural resource protection procedures or Cultural Resource Management Plans 

• previous cultural resources investigations that have identified historic and cultural resources, 

along with site-specific locations for those resources that are either located in or near the APE 

information related to past evaluations for eligibility for the NRHP (36 CFR 60), and 

associated consultations with the SHPO, local preservation officials, or American Indian 

Tribal officials 

6. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes the 

information that has been reviewed, and the analyses that have been conducted 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• discusses new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the information in the assessment would be governed by the extent and significance of the effects of operations during the renewal term on historic and cultural resources. The 

reviewer should verify that sufficient information is available to meet the relevant requirements and that 

the SEIS includes the information described under the review procedures. 
 4.6-7 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

36 CFR Part 60. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Properties, Part 60, 

“National Register of Historic Places.” 

36 CFR Part 63. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Properties, Part 63, 

“Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.” 

36 CFR Part 800. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Properties, Part 800, 

“Protection of Historic Properties.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. (16 USC 470 et seq.). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.7-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.7 SOCIOECONOMICS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) guides the review of socioeconomic impacts of 

continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Socioeconomic impacts of 

continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment are evaluated in the Generic 

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

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes: (1) review of potential socioeconomic impacts of continued plant operations and 

refurbishment addressed in the GEIS, (2) evaluation of new information for significance, and 

(3) preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on socioeconomic factors identified by the public and other information sources
 4.7-2 

I. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of continued nuclear power plant 

operations during the operating license renewal term and refurbishment are based on the following 

regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(c), “Analysis.” The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives 

to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 

effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff will 

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

environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d). The draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary analysis that 

considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 7, concerning the environmental consequences of 

alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. 

Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives 

will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level 

of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 
 4.7-3 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to socioeconomic impacts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the socioeconomic review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of potential socioeconomic impacts of continued plant operations during the 

operating license renewal term in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating any new 

and significant socioeconomic information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

Category 1 socioeconomic issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the following table. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Socioeconomics

Employment and 

income, recreation and 

tourism 

1 SMALL. Although most nuclear power plants have large 

numbers of employees with higher than average wages and 

salaries, impacts to employment, income, recreation, and tourism 

from continued operations and refurbishment associated with 

license renewal are expected to be small. 

Tax revenues 1 SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local 

jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in 

lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on energy production. The 

amount of tax revenue paid during the license renewal term as a 

result of continued operations and refurbishment associated with 

license renewal is not expected to change. 

Community services 

and education 

1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal to local 

community and educational services would be small. With little 

or no change in employment at the licensee’s plant, value of the 

power plant, payments on energy production, and PILOT 

payments expected during the license renewal term, community 

and educational services would not be affected by continued 

power plant operations.

Population and housing 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal to regional 

population and housing availability and value would be small. 

With little or no change in employment at the licensee’s plant 

expected during the license renewal term, population and housing 

availability and values would not be affected by continued power 

plant operations. 

Transportation 1 SMALL. Changes resulting from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal to traffic volumes 

would be small.
 4.7-4 

2. Determine whether there is any new socioeconomic information that should be evaluated. The 

following sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

• The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is 

aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information. Is the process adequate 

to ensure a reasonable likelihood that the applicant would be aware of new information? 

• Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the operating license 

renewal application. Compare the socioeconomic information presented by the public with 

information considered in the GEIS. Does the information postdate the analysis leading to 

the GEIS? 

• Environmental quality standards and regulations. Have the applicable environmental quality 

standards and regulations changed since the analysis leading to the GEIS? If so, would these 

changes affect the NRC license renewal environmental review? 

3. Evaluate the significance of new socioeconomic information. 

4. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on socioeconomic issues known to the applicant and 

the public 

5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes the analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes the 

information that has been reviewed, and the analyses that may have been conducted 

• describes measures to mitigate any adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The amount of information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to reach 

a conclusion related to the potential impacts of continued plant operations on socioeconomic conditions in 

the region around the nuclear plant site during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 
 4.7-5 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used to evaluate conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.8-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.8 HUMAN HEALTH 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of the 

human-health impacts from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and 

refurbishment. Human health impacts are evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes: (1) review of human health impacts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term and refurbishment in the GEIS, (2) evaluation of new information for significance, 

and (3) preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s environmental report (ER) 

• the GEIS 

• new information on human health impacts identified by the public and other information sources 
 4.8-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of human-health impacts are based on the relevant requirements of 

the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(c), “Analysis.” The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives 

to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 

effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(G). If the applicant's plant uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal or discharges 

into a river, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on public health from thermophilic 

organisms in the affected water must be provided. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H). If the applicant’s transmission lines that were constructed for the 

specific purpose of connecting the plant to the transmission system do not meet the 

recommendations of the National Electric Safety Code for preventing electric shock from induced 

currents, an assessment of the impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from the 

transmission lines must be provided. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71, concerning the draft environmental impact statement, will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing 

or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A, para. 7, concerning the environmental consequences of 

alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. 

Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives 
 4.8-3 

will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons the alternatives were eliminated. The level of 

information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to human health impacts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of potential human health impacts from continued plant operations during the 

operating license renewal term in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating any new 

and significant human health information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

Category 1 and uncategorized human health impact issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the 

following table. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Human Health

Radiation exposures 

to the public 

1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are 

expected to continue at current levels, and would be well below 

regulatory limits.

Radiation exposures 

to plant workers 

1 SMALL. Occupational doses from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be 

within the range of doses experienced during the current license 

term, and would continue to be well below regulatory limits.

Human health impact 

from chemicals 

1 SMALL. Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting from 

continued operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal are expected to be minimized by the licensee 

implementing good industrial hygiene practices as required by 

permits and Federal and State regulations. Chemical releases to 

the environment and the potential for impacts to the public are 

expected to be minimized by adherence to discharge limitations 

of NPDES and other permits.

Microbiological 

hazards to plant 

workers 

1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be 

controlled by continued application of accepted industrial 

hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures as required by 

permits and Federal and State regulations. 
 4.8-4 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Chronic effects of 

electromagnetic fields 

(EMFs) 

N/A Uncertain impact. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered 

consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. 

EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic 

chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects 

cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. 

Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no 

generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. 

Physical occupational 

hazards 

1 SMALL. Occupational safety and health hazards are generic to 

all types of electrical generating stations, including nuclear power 

plants, and are of small significance if the workers adhere to 

safety standards and use protective equipment as required by 

Federal and State Regulations.

The Category 2 human health impact issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the following table. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Human Health

Microbiological 

hazards to the public 

(plants with cooling 

ponds or canals or 

cooling towers that 

discharge to a river) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These organisms are not 

expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly 

at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals, or that discharge 

into rivers. Impacts would depend on site-specific 

characteristics. 

Electric shock 

hazards 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Electrical shock potential is 

of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in 

adherence with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). 

Without a review of conformance with NESC criteria of each 

nuclear plant’s in-scope transmission lines, it is not possible to 

determine the significance of the electrical shock potential.

2. Determine whether there is any new human health impact information that should be evaluated. The 

following sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

• The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information on the human health impacts of operating license renewal of which it 

is aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering 

new information and evaluating the significance of any new information. Is the process 

adequate to ensure a reasonable likelihood that the applicant would be aware of new 

information? 

• Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the operating license 

renewal application. Compare the human health information presented by the public with 

information considered in the GEIS. Does the information post date the analysis leading to 

the GEIS? 
 4.8-5 

• Part 20 standards and regulations. Have the applicable standards and regulations changed 

since the analysis leading to the GEIS? If so, do these changes affect the NRC evaluation of 

applications for license renewal? 

3. Evaluate the significance of new human health impact information. 

4. Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

• the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on human health impact issues known to the 

applicant and the public 

5. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes the 

information that has been reviewed, and the analyses that have been conducted 

• describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach a conclusion related to the potential human health impacts from continued plant operations and 

refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review 

procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1996. Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease 

OutbreaksCUnited States, 1993-1994. M.H. Kramer, B.L. Herwaldt, G.F. Craun, R.L. Calderon, 

D.D. Juranek. Source: MMWR 45(SS-1): 1–33. April 12. 
 4.8-6 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 2007. The National Electrical Safety Code 

(NESC). C2-2007. New York. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.8.1-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.8.1 MICROBIOLOGICAL HAZARDS TO THE PUBLIC 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of the 

human-health impacts associated with microbiological hazards to the public associated with heated-water 

discharges from the plant’s cooling system during the renewal term. This issue is identified as a Category 

2 issue in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; 

NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes: (1) review of the impacts to human health from thermophilic microorganisms 

discussion in the GEIS, (2) evaluation of new information for significance, and (3) preparation of input to 

the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Microorganisms that are associated with cooling towers and thermal discharges can have negative 

impacts on human health. The presence and numbers of these organisms can be increased by the addition 

of heat; thus they are called thermophilic organisms. These microorganisms include the enteric pathogens 

Salmonella sp. and Shigella sp. as well as Pseudomonas aeriginosa and thermophilic fungi. They also 

include the bacteria Legionella sp., which causes Legionnaires’ disease, and free-living amoebae of the 

genera Naegleria and Acanthamoeba. Exposure to these microorganisms, or in some cases the 

endotoxins or exotoxins produced by the organisms, can cause illness or death. 

Maximum contaminant levels of various microorganisms, including Legionella, in public drinking water 

systems are regulated by 40 CFR 141.70. However, there are no regulations that could be tied to 

microorganisms that are associated with cooling towers or thermal discharges. Other than the need to 
 4.8.1-2 

assess the impact of thermophilic microorganisms on license renewal, there are no acceptance criteria 

associated with microbial organisms that may exist in the cooling system and that could affect human 

health. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s environmental report (ER) 

• the GEIS 

• new information on impacts to human health from thermophilic microorganisms identified by the 

public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of human health impacts from thermophilic microorganisms are 

addressed in ESRP Section 4.8, Human Health. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to human health impacts from thermophilic microorganisms associated 

with continued plant operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the 

proposed action. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of potential impacts to human health from thermophilic microorganisms 

associated with continued plant operations during the operating license renewal term in the GEIS. 

This step establishes the basis for evaluating any new and significant socioeconomic information 

identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

2. Review the plant cooling system. If the plant cooling system uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal, or 

discharges to a river, then continue the analysis at Step 3. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the 

SEIS that describes the plant cooling system; states that the cooling system discharges to an ocean, a 

large lake, or other body of water; and concludes that there would not be a detrimental impact from 

the thermal discharges on the concentration levels of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms. 
 4.8.1-3 

• a description of the location of the thermal discharges for the plant’s cooling system (i.e., a 

cooling pond, lake, canal) and a characterization of the water body receiving discharges from 

the cooling system, e.g., a large lake or ocean (from the ER) 

• the temperature increase expected for the aquatic environment that is subject to the plant’s 

thermal discharges (from the ER) 

• the results of any analyses that have been made for the presence of deleterious thermophilic 

microorganisms. These include the enteric pathogens Salmonella sp. and Shigella sp., as well 

as Pseudomonas aeriginosa and thermophilic fungi. In addition, analyses for the presence of 

unusually high concentrations of the normally present Legionella sp. (Legionnaires’ disease 

bacteria) and the free-living amoebae of the genera Naegleria and Acanthamoeba should be 

cited (from the ER) 

• a list of the outbreaks of waterborne diseases in the United States during the previous 

10 years in the vicinity of the plant. This list is published regularly by the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 1996) 

• an evaluation of available data concerning the occurrence and concentrations of any of the 

deleterious thermophilic microorganisms listed above in the vicinity of the plant and a 

determination of whether any of them are present under conditions and in locations that might 

be harmful to members of the public. If such an evaluation exists, it may be obtained from 

the applicant or from the State Public Health Department in the State in which the plant is 

located 

3. Consult with the State Public Health Department and review any records associated with waterborne 

disease outbreaks in the region. If the State Public Health Department is concerned about such 

outbreaks or the potential for such outbreaks, then continue the analysis at Step 4. Otherwise, 

prepare a statement for the SEIS describing the plant cooling system that: 

• outlines the process leading to the determination that there have been no or few waterborne 

disease outbreaks in the region 

• provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating their basis for not 

being concerned about the potential for an impact to the public health from microbiological 

organisms associated with the cooling system 

• concludes that it appears unlikely that thermal discharges from the plant would increase the 

number of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms to levels that could cause a public health 

problem 

4. If the State advises that tests should be conducted for concentration of N. fowleri (or other 

deleterious thermophilic microorganisms) in the receiving waters, the licensee should consider 

performing the tests when the facility has been operating at a power level typical of the level 

anticipated during the license renewal term for at least a month to ensure a steady state population 

during the sampling. Samples should be taken at locations of potential public use. An evaluation of 

the data should be performed and a determination made of the magnitude of potential impacts of 

N. fowleri (or other deleterious thermophilic microorganisms) on public health during the license 
 4.8.1-4 

renewal term. If the potential for an impact is determined, then continue the analysis at Step 5. If 

the State does not advise that tests be conducted, but they still have a concern related to the presence 

of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms, then continue the analysis at Step 5 without the testing. 

Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that 

• describes the results of the tests that were performed 

• provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating their basis for not 

being concerned about the potential for an impact to the public health from microbiological 

organisms associated with the cooling system as a result of the tests that were performed 

• concludes that it appears unlikely that thermal discharges from the plant would increase the 

number of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms to levels that could cause a public health 

problem 

5. Request that the applicant consider mitigative measures to minimize the potential impacts if the 

results of the consultation with the State Public Health Department and/or the review of records 

associated with waterborne disease outbreaks in the region show any cause for concern regarding 

public health concerns related to deleterious thermophilic microorganisms. Mitigative measures may 

include: 

• setting up and executing a monitoring program for deleterious thermophilic microorganisms 

• limiting public access to areas affected by the plant’s thermal discharges (such as prohibiting 

public swimming in the mixing zone of the river) 

6. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that 

• describes the plant cooling system 

• summarizes the information related to any waterborne disease outbreaks in the region 

• provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating any concerns 

regarding the potential for an impact to the public health from microbiological organisms 

associated with the cooling system 

• identifies and describes the mitigative measures considered and committed to by the applicant 

• concludes that the impacts of microbiological organisms associated with the cooling system 

are SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE within the context of the analysis in the GEIS, 

considering the mitigative measures committed to by the applicant 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach a conclusion related to the potential impacts on human health from microbiological organisms 

associated with the plant’s cooling system. The information that should be included in the SEIS is 

described in the review procedures. 
 4.8.1-5 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.8, Human Health. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.8.2-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.8.2 ELECTRIC SHOCK HAZARDS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the electric shock 

hazards from transmission-line-induced currents. This issue is identified as a Category 2 issue in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes: (1) review of the impacts to human health from electric shock from in-scope 

transmission-line-induced currents in the GEIS, (2) evaluation of new information for significance, and 

(3) preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

The scope should include determining if transmission lines constructed for the purpose of connecting the 

plant to the transmission system meet the recommendations of the National Electrical Safety Code 

(NESC) for preventing electric shock from induced currents. If not, the scope includes assessing the 

impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from the transmission lines. The scope also 

includes preparation of input to the SEIS. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
 4.8.2-2 

• the applicant’s environmental report (ER) 

• the GEIS 

• new information on impacts to human health from electric shock from transmission-line-induced 

currents identified by the public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of electric shock from transmission-line-induced currents are 

addressed in ESRP Section 4.8, Human Health, with the following addition: 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H), concerning assessing impacts of transmission systems not meeting 

NESC criteria 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulation identified above are as 

follows: 

• NESC (IEEE 2007) provides guidance concerning shock hazards 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to human health impacts from electric shock from transmission-lineinduced currents associated with continued plant operations during the license renewal term, 

refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also address any new and 

significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of the issues associated with electric shock hazards from induced 

transmission line currents in the GEIS. 

2. Review the route of the in-scope transmission lines. 

3. Review the applicant’s analysis demonstrating that the transmission lines continue to meet NESC 

clearance standards to which they were built. 

• The following data or information may be needed to assess human health impacts from 

electric shock from transmission-line-induced currents: 

- a description of the in-scope transmission lines 
 4.8.2-3 

- verification of initial transmission line conformance with NESC criteria (NESC 

edition to which the lines were built or a later edition) 

- a description of a transmission line management program, if any, including continued 

compliance with NESC electrical shock provisions 

- plans to bring lines into conformance with NESC criteria if not already in 

compliance. Consider basic electrical design parameters, including transmission 

design voltage or voltages, line capacity, conductor type and configuration, spacing 

between phases, minimum conductor clearances to ground, maximum predicted 

electric field strength(s) at 1 meter above ground, the predicted electric field 

strength(s) at the edge of the right-of-way in kilovolts per meter (kV/m), and the 

design bases for these values (from the ER) 

- (if NESC clearance standards cannot be demonstrated) a transmission line survey 

identifying sites or areas that do not meet the standards and that may not meet the 

standards following anticipated changes in transmission-line operations or changes in 

land use in the right-of-way 

• If the applicant does not state that in-scope transmission lines meet electrical shock hazard of the 

NESC code or the applicant’s demonstration is not adequate, then continue the review at Step 4. 

Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that 

- describes the route of the in-scope transmission lines 

- describes the line (voltage, capacity, conductor configuration, minimum conductorto-ground clearance, and maximum predicted electrical field strengths 1 meter above 

ground, etc.) 

- provides the basis for the staff evaluation 

- concludes that the system meets the criteria of the NESC 

4. Identify any sites or areas where the transmission lines fail to meet the NESC clearance standards. 

These areas should be shown on maps, photographs, or drawings to be included in the SEIS. 

5. Identify measures that could be taken to meet the standards in the areas where the transmission lines 

fail to meet the NESC standards. Determine which measures the applicant plans or proposes to 

undertake, if any, and whether those measures would result in transmission lines meeting the 

standards. 

6. Identify and evaluate mitigation measures for those areas where the transmission lines would not 

meet NESC standards. 

 
 4.8.2-4 

7. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

• describes the route of the in-scope transmission lines 

• describes the line (voltage, capacity, conductor configuration, minimum conductor-to-ground 

clearance, and maximum predicted electrical field strengths 1 meter above ground, etc.) and 

potential shock hazard from the transmission lines 

• identifies sites or areas where NESC standards would not be met and explains why the 

standards are not appropriate to the situation or why the applicant would not make 

modifications to meet standards 

• describes measures to mitigate potential impacts in those areas 

• provides the significance level of the environmental impacts 

• describes new and significant information, if any 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach a conclusion related to the potential electric shock from transmission-line-induced currents. The 

information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.8, Human Health. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.9-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.9 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

On February 11, 1994, the President signed Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” which directs all Federal 

agencies to develop strategies for considering environmental justice in their programs, policies, and 

activities. Environmental justice is described in the Executive Order as “identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” On December 10, 1997, 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued “Environmental Justice Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act.” The Council developed this guidance to, “further assist Federal 

agencies with their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures.” 

On August 24, 2004, the Commission issued a “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental 

Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions” (69 FR 52040), which states, “the 

Commission is committed to the general goals set forth in E.O. 12898, and strives to meet those goals as 

part of its NEPA review process.” The following guidance is consistent with this policy statement. 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance on conducting environmental justice 

reviews for proposed actions requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of NRC’s 

compliance with NEPA. This issue is identified as a Category 2 issue in the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, 

Revision 1). The scope includes: (1) review of the impacts to minority and low-income populations in the 
 4.9-2 

applicant’s environmental report (ER) and GEIS, (2) evaluation of new information for significance, and 

(3) preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Guidelines for specific information requirements for environmental justice determinations are described 

in NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 2: “Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental 

Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues” (NRC 2009). This office instruction is revised 

periodically. For current guidance, obtain the latest revision. 

The scope should include an analysis of the potential effects from continued power plant operations 

during the renewal term and refurbishment associated with license renewal on minority and low-income 

populations. This review should be of sufficient detail to permit the determination of whether these 

effects are likely to be disproportionately high and adverse to minority and low-income populations. 

The staff should consider the demographic composition of the affected area to determine the location of 

minority and low-income populations and whether they may be affected by the proposed action. The staff 

then needs to determine if human health or environmental effects would have a disproportionately high 

and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the applicant’s ER 

• the GEIS 

• new information on environmental justice identified by the public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The acceptance criteria for environmental justice impacts are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following: 

• Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) provides guidance concerning Federal actions to address 

environmental justice in minority and low-income populations. 

• “Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and 

Licensing Actions,” (69 FR 52040) affirms that the NRC is committed to the general goals of 

Executive Order 12898 and states that the NRC strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA 

review process for licensing actions. 
 4.9-3 

• 10 CFR 51.45(c), “Analysis.” The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives 

to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental 

effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

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

accordance with 10 CFR 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(N). Applicants shall provide information on the general demographic 

composition of minority and low-income populations and communities (by race and ethnicity) 

residing in the immediate vicinity of the plant that could be affected by the renewal of the plant’s 

operating license, including any planned refurbishment activities, and ongoing and future plant 

operations. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement, will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for reducing 

or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A (7), concerning the environmental consequences of 

alternatives, including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. 

Alternatives eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives 

will be confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level 

of information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B to Subpart A, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant,” Table B-1, “Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 
 4.9-4 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

• Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance for addressing environmental justice, 

“Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act,” December 10, 

1997 (CEQ 1997) 

• Guidelines for specific information requirements for environmental justice determinations are 

described in NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 2, “Procedural Guidance for Preparing 

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues.” NRR Office Instruction LIC203 is revised periodically. Obtain a copy of the latest revision for current guidance. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to environmental justice impacts from continued plant operations during 

the license renewal term, refurbishment associated with license renewal, and alternatives to the proposed 

action. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The review procedure should be as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of potential environmental justice impacts from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating any new 

and significant socioeconomic information identified by the applicant, the public, and NRC staff. 

Category 2 environmental justice impact issue and finding is provided in the following table. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Environmental Justice

Minority and lowincome populations 2 Impacts to minority and low-income populations and subsistence 

consumption resulting from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal will be addressed 

in plant-specific reviews. See NRC Policy Statement on the 

Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory 

and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040; August 24, 2004). 

2. Identify minority and low-income populations within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the nuclear 

plant. For each census block group within this area, minority and low-income populations are 

identified when (1) the minority or low-income population of an impacted area exceeds 50 percent 

or (2) the minority or low-income population percentage of the impacted area is meaningfully 

greater than the minority or low-income population percentage in the general population or other 

appropriate unit of geographic analysis (e.g., 50-mile radius geographic area or county). All block 

groups with minority and low-income percentages higher than the geographic area should be 

identified on 50-mile radius maps. 
 4.9-5 

3. Identify environmental justice issues and unique characteristics of minority and low-income 

populations/communities during the scoping process: 

• Determine geographic distribution by race, ethnicity, and poverty, as well as delineation of 

Tribal lands. Identify any unique characteristics of minority and low-income populations and 

the “special character” of communities located near the nuclear plant. 

• In calculating the minority populations, individual(s) who are members of the following 

population groups are considered minority individuals: 

- Race (Not Hispanic or Latino): 

Black or African American 

American Indian or Alaska Native 

Asian 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 

Some other race 

Two or more races 

- Ethnicity: 

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 

• Low-income population is defined as individuals or families living below the poverty level as 

defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (e.g., the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population 

Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty). 

• Sources of information for determining geographic distribution and location of minority 

populations: 

- EJView online geographic information system (GIS) tool offered by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

- Local governments 

- State agencies 

- Local universities 

4. Determine whether license renewal would have any human health and environmental effects on 

minority or low-income populations or whether there are other environmental justice concerns. 

• Potential human health and environmental effects are determined through NRC’s NEPA 

review process: 

- Impacts that could potentially affect or cause concern to minority and low-income 

populations are evaluated for other environmental resource areas (e.g., air and water 

quality, socioeconomics, and cultural resources) during the license renewal 

environmental review. Any potential effects and/or concerns should be summarized 

in the environmental justice section of the SEIS. 

- In considering human health and environmental impacts to minority and low-income 

populations, different patterns of consumption of natural resources should also be 

considered (i.e., differences in rates and/or pattern of fish, vegetable, water, and/or 

wildlife consumption reflective of the unique characteristics of minority and low-
 4.9-6 

income populations and the “special character” of communities located near the 

nuclear plant) (see Section 4-4 of Executive Order 12898, “Subsistence Consumption 

of Fish and Wildlife”). 

Consider whether there are any means or pathways for minority or low-income 

populations to be disproportionately affected by license renewal-related activities. 

Examine the potential impacts to special pathway receptors (e.g., American Indian, 

Hispanic, and others living a traditional lifestyle pattern of subsistence). For 

example, special pathway impacts take into account levels of contaminants in native 

vegetation, crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals in the 

vicinity of nuclear plant sites. 

- Sources of information include: 

- Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), annual 

radiological environmental operating reports 

- State radiological monitoring programs 

5. Determine whether there are disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority and low-income populations. 

• Consider the following questions: 

- Would the impact(s) be greater for minority and low-income populations than the 

general population? 

- Are there any unique effects experienced by minority and low-income populations 

that would not be experienced by the general population? 

• After identifying human health and environmental impacts that could disproportionately 

affect minority and low-income populations, it is necessary to determine if the effect(s) 

would be high and adverse. Another way of stating this: 

- Would the effect(s) on minority and low-income populations be significant, 

unacceptable, or above generally accepted norms such as regulatory limits or State 

and local statutes and ordinances? Each human health and environmental impact, 

and where appropriate, the cumulative and multiple effects of the impact(s), should 

be reviewed for significance. 

• To the extent practicable, mitigation measures should reflect the needs and preferences of the 

affected minority or low-income populations and communities. 

6. Make a determination regarding impacts to minority and low-income populations and document the 

conclusion in the SEIS. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The extent of information and the depth of analysis conducted for the SEIS would be governed by the 

significance and magnitude of the potential effects from continued operation of the nuclear power plant 

during the renewal term and related refurbishment activities on minority and low-income populations. 
 4.9-7 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The review plan guidance described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in conformance with the 

Commission’s environmental protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 and the “Policy Statement on the 

Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions.” 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

69 FR 52040. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Policy Statement on the Treatment of 

Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions. 2004. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C. December 10. Available URL: 

http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf. 

Executive Order 12898. 1994. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and LowIncome Populations. 59 FR 7629. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental 

Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. LIC-203, Revision 2. Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation. ADAMS Accession Number ML080840323. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.10-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 

4.10 WASTE MANAGEMENT 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of waste management 

activities at nuclear power plants during the license renewal term and refurbishment. 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of waste management during the license renewal term in 

the GEIS, (2) identification and evaluation of any new information, and (3) preparation of input to the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

• any new information included in the ER on waste management and pollution prevention at the plant 

• the GEIS
 4.10-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of waste management during the license renewal term are based on 

the relevant requirements of the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning independent evaluation and responsibility for the reliability of 

information used in the draft SEIS 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4), concerning NRC staff’s obligation to consider significant new information 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the renewal term waste management is discussed in the following 

paragraph: 

The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified by the 

supporting information in the GEIS, for issues designated as Category 1 or resolved Category 2 

information developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and any significant 

new information. The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of sections of the SEIS 

that incorporate the conclusions in the GEIS related to solid waste management during the license 

renewal term, as appropriate, and addresses significant new information, if any. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of waste management during the license renewal term in the GEIS to identify 

the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for 

evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. The table on the 

following page lists the renewal term waste management issues considered in the GEIS. 

2. Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The following 

sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

• the applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is 

aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

• records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, continue with the analysis. 

Otherwise, prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, stating 

the conclusion that there is no new information, and adopting the conclusions from the GEIS. 
 4.10-3 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Waste Management

Low-level waste 

storage and disposal 

1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in 

place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure 

that the radiological impacts to the environment would remain 

small during the license renewal term.

Onsite storage of 

spent nuclear fuel 

1 SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from 

an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated 

onsite during the license renewal term with small environmental 

effects through dry or pool storage at all plants. 

Offsite radiological 

impacts of spent 

nuclear fuel and highlevel waste disposal 

N/A UNCERTAIN IMPACT. The generic conclusion on offsite 

radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste is 

not being finalized pending the completion of a generic 

environmental impact statement on waste confidence.*

Mixed-waste storage 

and disposal 

1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the 

facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling 

and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic 

materials for the public and the environment at all plants. 

License renewal would not increase the small, continuing risk to 

human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all 

plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental 

impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any 

individual plant at licensed sites are small.

Nonradioactive waste 

storage and disposal 

1 SMALL. No changes to systems that generate nonradioactive 

waste are anticipated during the license renewal term. Facilities 

and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling, 

storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure to toxic 

materials for the public and the environment at all plants. 

* As a result of the decision of United States Court of Appeals in New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471 (D.C. Cir. 2012), the NRC 

cannot rely upon its waste confidence decision and rule until it has taken those actions that will address the deficiencies 

identified by the D.C. Circuit. Although the waste confidence decision and rule did not assess the impacts associated with 

disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste in a repository, it did reflect the Commission’s confidence, at the time, in 

the technical feasibility of a repository and when that repository could have been expected to become available. Without the 

analysis in the waste confidence decision and rule regarding the technical feasibility and availability of a repository, the NRC 

cannot assess how long the spent fuel will need to be stored onsite. 

3. Evaluate the significance of new information. 

4. Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 

information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions from 

the GEIS modified as necessary to account for significant new information. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to waste management and pollution prevention during the license renewal term. The 

information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 
 4.10-4 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

 
 4.10-5 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.11.1-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.11 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

4.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of introductory 

paragraphs for the portion of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that describes 

environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term. 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of the uranium fuel cycle in the GEIS, (2) identification 

and evaluation of new information related to the uranium fuel cycle, (3) preparation of input to the SEIS 

that presents the analyses related to those Category 1 issues. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

on environmental issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term 

• new information on the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term known to the applicant 

• new and potentially significant information on the uranium fuel cycle identified by the public 
 4.11.1-2 

• a list of environmental issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term for which 

there is significant new information 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of the uranium fuel cycle are based on the relevant requirements of 

the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(b) concerning environmental considerations in the applicant’s ER 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d) concerning discussion of compliance with applicable environmental quality 

standards and requirements in the applicant’s ER 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) concerning analyses required in ERs submitted at the license renewal stage 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning an independent evaluation of the assessment and the reliability of 

information used in the assessment 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d) concerning compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements that 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal agencies 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) concerning consideration of significant new information 

Technical Rationale

The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified by the supporting 

information in the GEIS, for issues designated as Category 1 (with the exception of offsite radiological 

impacts—collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste) or resolved 

Category 2, information developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and any 

significant new information in an EIS prepared at the license renewal stage. The review conducted under 

this ESRP leads to preparation of sections of the SEIS that incorporate the conclusions from the GEIS 

related to the uranium fuel cycle and address significant new information, if any. 
 4.11.1-3 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of the issue in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the 

conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the uranium fuel cycle issues that were 

addressed in the GEIS for which generic conclusions were reached. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Uranium Fuel Cycle

Offsite radiological 

impacts – individual 

impacts from other than 

the disposal of spent fuel 

and high-level waste 

1 SMALL. The impacts to the public from radiological exposures 

have been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of this 

part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts to individuals 

from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases, including radon-222 

and technetium-99, would remain at or below the NRC’s 

regulatory limits.

Offsite radiological 

impacts – collective 

impacts from other than 

the disposal of spent fuel 

and high-level waste 

1 There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to the 

general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of 

estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not 

be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and operated 

to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. The 

Commission concludes that the collective impacts are acceptable. 

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be 

sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, 

that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 

should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has 

not assigned a single level of significance for the collective 

impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this issue is considered 

Category 1.

Nonradiological impacts 

of the uranium fuel cycle 

1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 

resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant 

would be small.

Transportation 1 SMALL. The impacts of transporting materials to and from 

uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the 

environment are expected to be small.

2. Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following sources 

of information should be included in the search for new information: 

• the applicant’s ER. When reviewing, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered 

• records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application 

• environmental quality standards and regulations 

If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, then continue with Step 3. 
 4.11.1-4 

3. Evaluate the significance of new information. If new information is significant, prepare a concise 

statement(s) of the issues raised by significant new information and provide these statements to the 

Project Manager (PM) for review and disposition. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach conclusions on issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term. The information 

that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

10 CFR Part 54. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of 

Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.11.2-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF REPLACEMENT POWER ALTERNATIVE 

FUEL CYCLES 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the environmental 

impacts of replacement power alternative fuel cycles during the renewal term. 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of potential impacts of replacement power alternative fuel 

cycles in the GEIS, (2) identification and evaluation of new information related to potential impacts of 

replacement power alternative fuel cycles, (3) preparation of input to the SEIS that presents the analyses 

related to those Category 1 issues. 

Data and Information Needs

The reviewer for this ESRP may obtain the following information from the Environmental Project 

Manager: 

• organizational structure of the SEIS 

• list of environmental impacts associated with replacement power alternative fuel cycles that have 

been determined to be inapplicable to the applicant’s plant and the reason for each determination

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of environmental impacts are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following regulations: 
 4.11.2-2 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c), concerning the content of environmental reports (ERs) and required analyses 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that is 

concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language 

• 10 CFR 51.71, concerning preparation of draft EIS at the license renewal stage 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning preparation of a final EIS at the license renewal stage 

• 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, concerning the Commission’s findings on the scope and 

magnitude of environmental impacts renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant 

Technical Rationale

The GEIS does not contain any conclusions regarding the environmental impact or acceptability of 

alternatives to license renewal. Accordingly, the NRC must conduct an analysis of reasonable 

alternatives to license renewal in plant-specific environmental reviews. A reasonable alternative must be 

commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s operating 

license or expected to become commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the 

expiration of the reactor’s operating license. This ESRP examines the potential environmental impacts 

associated with the replacement power alternative fuel cycles. If a renewed license were denied, then the 

plant generally would be decommissioned earlier than if the license were renewed, and other electricgenerating sources would be pursued if power were still needed. 

Analysis of replacement power alternative fuel cycles does not involve the determination of whether any 

power is needed or should be generated. The decision to generate power and the determination of how 

much power is needed are at the discretion of State and utility officials. 

The potential environmental impacts evaluated include land use, ecology, aesthetics, water quality, air 

quality, waste management, human health, socioeconomics, and historic and cultural resources. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

To analyze the environmental impact of replacement power alternative fuel cycles, the reviewer should 

complete the following steps: 

1. Review the discussion of potential environmental impacts of replacement power alternative fuel 

cycles in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step 

establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, and the 

staff. 

2. Obtain information for evaluation. The following sources of information should be included in the 

search for information: 
 4.11.2-3 

• the applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information regarding the environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is 

aware. In reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

• records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

3. Determine, from the scope of environmental impacts of replacement power alternative fuel cycles, 

those that are minor and those that are likely to be sufficiently important to require detailed analysis. 

If, based on this analysis, the reviewer determines that there would be more than minor impacts, 

proceed to Step 4. Otherwise, if the reviewer determines that there would be no environmental 

impacts or that the impacts would be minor, develop a statement to this effect. 

3. Analyze the environmental impacts associated with replacement power alternative fuel cycles, as 

follows: 

• Identify and calculate the likely environmental impacts of required replacement power 

alternative fuel cycles including conservation and purchased or imported power, based on the 

GEIS, the applicant’s ER, and the integrated resource plans for the area(s) or region(s) 

currently or (if different) likely to be served by the plant. Assume appropriate mitigation 

measures (for example emission control technologies and best management practices) for 

each replacement power alternative. 

• Describe the impacts in sufficient detail so that reviewers may compare the adverse and 

beneficial impacts of the alternatives with those of renewing the operating license. Impact 

analyses should consider land use, water quality, air quality, ecological resources, human 

health, social and economic systems, waste management, aesthetics, and cultural resources. 

The impacts analyses should include direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. For each 

alternative, the analysis should identify and, to the extent possible, quantify, unavoidable 

adverse impacts, irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments, and tradeoffs between 

short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment. To the extent possible, each 

alternative should be analyzed on a nuclear power plant site- or region-specific basis. Each 

impact should be analyzed in proportion to its significance. 

Data provided in the applicant’s ER are adequate if they describe: 

• the degree to which the local environmental resources would be affected by use of 

replacement power alternatives. These data are in agreement with data obtained from other 

sources, when available. 

• the significance or potential significance of such environmental impacts. SMALL impacts 

result when no discernible change in environmental resources occurs as a result of using 

replacement power alternatives. MODERATE impacts result when there is a discernible 

change. LARGE impacts occur when there is substantial disruption of environmental 

resources. 
 4.11.2-4 

• any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environmental concerns 

Supplemental data obtained from other individuals and organizations may be useful in 

determining the completeness of the applicant’s identification of housing impacts. 

5. Consider and evaluate potential mitigation measures or alternatives that might reduce or eliminate 

the adverse impacts or the disproportionate distribution of the impacts in those cases where the 

impacts are MODERATE or LARGE. These may have been considered in the applicant’s ER. 

6. Based on the results of the assessments listed above, prepare the following for the SEIS: 

• a summary statement (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) about the degree to which 

environmental resources are expected to receive impacts from replacement power 

alternatives, together with the significance of these impacts 

• a discussion of the reasoning (e.g., based on locations and changes in population, local 

government revenue base, ecological impacts on other nearby plant sites or transmission 

corridors) behind the estimated degree of impact 

• a discussion of any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce 

environmental concerns 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of 

the effects of replacement power alternative fuel cycles. The reviewer should verify that sufficient 

information is available to meet the relevant requirements. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.11.3-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.11.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FROM THE TERMINATION OF NUCLEAR 

PLANT OPERATIONS AND DECOMMISSIONING 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of environmental 

changes and impacts from the termination of nuclear plant operations and decommissioning and 

preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of the termination of nuclear plant operations and 

decommissioning and the potential changes in the environmental impacts resulting from continued 

operation, (2) identification and evaluation of new information (if any) related to potential changes in 

environmental impacts from the termination of plant operations and decommissioning resulting from 

continued operation during the renewal term for significance, and (3) preparation of input to the SEIS 

presenting the analyses related to those Category 1 issues. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

on environmental issues related to changes in decommissioning impacts resulting from continued 

operation during the renewal term 
 4.11.3-2 

• new information on the environmental issues related to changes in decommissioning impacts 

resulting from continued operation during the renewal term known to the applicant 

• new and potentially significant information on the changes in environmental impacts of 

decommissioning resulting from operation during the renewal term identified by the public 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of changes in environmental impacts of decommissioning resulting 

from continued operation during the renewal term are based on the relevant requirements of the following 

regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c), concerning the content of environmental reports (ERs) and required analyses 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning independent evaluation of the assessment and the reliability of 

information used in the assessment 

• 10 CFR 51.71, concerning compliance with environmental-quality standards and requirements that 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal agencies 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning consideration of significant new information 

• 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, concerning Commission’s findings on the scope and magnitude 

of environmental impacts renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating potential changes in the environmental impacts from the 

termination of plant operations and decommissioning resulting from continued operation is discussed in 

the following paragraph: 

The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified by the 

supporting information in the GEIS, for issues designated as Category 1 and any significant new 

information in an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared at the license renewal stage. The 

review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of sections related to changes in 

environmental impacts from the termination of plant operations and decommissioning resulting from 

continued operation during the renewal term, as appropriate, and address significant new information, 

if any. 
 4.11.3-3 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of the issue in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the 

conclusions reached. The step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the termination of plant operations and 

decommissioning issues that were addressed in the GEIS for which generic conclusions were 

reached: 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning

Termination of plant 

operations and 

decommissioning 

1 SMALL. License renewal is expected to have a negligible effect 

on the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning 

on all resources.

2. Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following sources 

of information should be included in the search for new information: 

• the applicant’s ER. When reviewing, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered 

• records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application 

• environmental quality standards and regulations 

• If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, then continue with Step 3 

3. Evaluate the significance of new information. If new information is significant, prepare a concise 

statement(s) of the issues raised by significant new information and provide these statements to the 

Project Manager (PM) for review and disposition. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach conclusions on issues related to the potential changes to environmental impacts from the 

termination of plant operations and decommissioning resulting from continued operation during the 

renewal term. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

 
 4.11.3-4 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). (42 USC 4321 et seq.). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.12-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of 

cumulative impacts. Issues assessed here were identified as plant-specific (Category 2) in the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 

1, 2, and 3, Revision 1) and in Table B-1 of Appendix B, Subpart A to 10 CFR 51. 

The scope for each individual section includes (1) review of the cumulative impacts issue in the GEIS, 

(2) evaluation of the data and analysis in the applicant’s ER, (3) analysis and evaluation of the data, if 

appropriate, and (4) preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Cumulative impacts is a Category 2 issue and requires a plant-specific analysis (see 10 CFR 

51.53(c)(3)(ii)(O)). A cumulative impact is defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 

in 40 CFR 1508.7 as an “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” Actions to be considered in 

cumulative impact analyses include new and continuing activities, such as activities associated with 

license renewal (e.g., continued reactor operations and refurbishment), that are conducted, regulated, or 

approved by a Federal agency. The cumulative impacts analysis takes into account all actions, however 

minor, since impacts from individually minor actions may be significant when considered collectively 

over time. The goal of the analysis is to identify potentially significant impacts to improve decisions and 

move toward more sustainable development (CEQ 1997). 
 4.13-2 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of cumulative impacts in the GEIS to identify the information considered and 

the conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by 

the applicant, the public, and the staff. The Category 2 issue identified in the GEIS is listed in the 

following table. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Cumulative Impacts 

Issue Category Finding 

Cumulative 

impacts 

2 Cumulative impacts of continued operations and refurbishment 

associated with license renewal must be considered on a plant-specific 

basis. Impacts would depend on regional resource characteristics, the 

resource-specific impacts of license renewal, and the cumulative 

significance of other factors affecting the resource. 

2. The analysis of cumulative impacts should focus on the resources that could be affected by the 

incremental impacts of continued plant operations. These resource areas include: 

• Air Quality and Noise 

• Geology and Soils 

• Water Resources 

• Ecological Resources 

• Historic and Cultural Resources 

• Socioeconomics 

• Human Health 

• Environmental Justice 

• Waste Management 

• Global Climate Change 

3. For each resource area, establish the following: 

• The geographic scope (i.e., regions of influence). The regions of influence encompass the 

areas of affect and the distances at which impacts associated with license renewal may occur. 

Geographic boundaries may vary by the resource area being evaluated and the distances over 

which an impact may occur (e.g., the evaluation of impacts on air quality may have a greater 

regional extent than that of impacts on cultural resources). 

• The time frame for the analysis. The time frame incorporates the sum of the effects of 

renewal in combination with past, present, and future actions, since impacts may accumulate 
 4.12-3 

or develop over time. The reasonably foreseeable time frame for future actions evaluated is 

20 years (based on the typical license renewal term) from the time the license renewal is 

granted. 

• The potential impacting factors of each past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future action 

or activity. Both the license renewal and other actions (related and nonrelated, including 

trends such as global climate change) would generate factors that could contribute to 

cumulative impacts. The impacts of activities associated with the proposed action (license 

renewal) should be discussed for each resource area listed above. 

4. Identify resource areas (e.g., water and aquatic resources) where the contributions of ongoing 

actions within a region are regulated and monitored through a permitting process (e.g., NPDES) 

under State or Federal authority. In these cases, it may be assumed that cumulative impacts are 

managed as long as these actions (facilities) are in compliance with their respective permits. 

5. Analyze cumulative environmental impacts, as follows: 

• Identify and calculate the likely cumulative environmental impacts for the area(s) or region(s) 

currently or likely to be affected by power plant operations and/or refurbishment activities 

associated with license renewal. 

• Describe the impacts in sufficient detail so that reviewers may compare the cumulative 

impacts with those of renewing the operating license. The impacts analyses should include 

direct and indirect effects . A direct effect is an effect that is caused by the action and occurs 

at the same time and place. An indirect effect is caused by the action and is later in time or 

farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable. Impacts should be analyzed in 

proportion to its significance. 

Data provided in the applicant’s ER are adequate if they describe: 

• the degree to which the local environmental resources would be affected. These data are in 

agreement with data obtained from other sources, when available. 

• the significance or potential significance of such cumulative environmental impacts. 

• any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environmental concerns 

Supplemental data obtained from other individuals and organizations may be useful in 

determining the completeness of the applicant’s identification of cumulative impacts. 

6. Based on the results of the assessments listed above, prepare the following for the SEIS: 

• a summary statement (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) about the degree to which 

environmental resources are expected to experience cumulative impacts 
 4.12-4 

• a discussion of the reasoning (e.g., based on locations and changes in population, local 

government revenue base, ecological impacts on other nearby plant sites) behind the 

estimated degree of cumulative impact 

• a discussion of any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce 

environmental concerns 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach conclusions on potential cumulative impact caused by the added contribution from continued 

operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment impacts associated with license renewal. 

The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C. January. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA 

Review of NEPA Documents, EPA 315-R-99-002, Washington, D.C. May. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 4.13-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.13 REFERENCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the listing of references cited in 

Chapter 4 of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following regulation: 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning preparation of a draft EIS that is concise, clear, analytical, and written 

in plain language 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The environmental project manager (EPM) should contact reviewers for ESRPs 4.1 through 4.12 and 

compile a list of references cited in the SEIS sections that the reviewers have prepared. The citations 

should be checked for completeness and accuracy and prepared for inclusion in the SEIS. 

 
 4.13-2 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare the SEIS section that lists references 

cited in the SEIS sections covering environmental impacts. The completed reference list constitutes the 

findings for this ESRP. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 5.0-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of introductory 

paragraphs for the portion of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that describes 

environmental impacts of postulated plant accidents during the license renewal term. 

The scope of this plan is the development of paragraphs that introduce the material from the reviews 

conducted under ESRPs 5.1 and 5.2. It includes the description of the environmental issues associated 

with postulated accidents discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are consistent with 

the intent of the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c), concerning the content of environmental reports (ERs) and required analyses 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) that is 

concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language 

• 10 CFR 51.71, concerning preparation of a DEIS at the license renewal stage 
 5.0-2 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning preparation of a final environmental impact statement (EIS) at the 

license renewal stage

• 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, concerning findings on environmental issues for 

license renewal of nuclear power plants 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant’s description of the potential environmental impacts 

of postulated accidents during the renewal term is discussed in the following paragraph: 

The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified by the 

supporting information in the GEIS, for issues that are designated as Category 1 or resolved Category 

2, information developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and any significant 

new information in an EIS prepared at the license renewal stage. The review conducted under this 

ESRP leads to preparation of introductory paragraphs that orient the reader concerning the relevance 

of the material to the overall organization and goals of the SEIS and add clarity to the presentation. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared is informational in nature, and no specific analysis of data is required. 

The environmental issue associated with operation during the renewal term that was considered in the 

GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue is listed in the following table. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Postulated Accidents

Design-basis accidents 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental 

impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance for all 

plants.

Generic conclusions relative to impacts were reached for those issues that are appropriate for all plants, or 

for some issues for specific classes of plants. These conclusions were that (1) a single level of 

significance could be assigned to the impact and (2) plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be 

sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. The generic analysis of severe accidents analysis 

described in the GEIS applies to all plants. It concludes that the probability-weighted consequences of 

atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and 

economic impacts of severe accidents are of small significance. In the absence of new and significant 

information, these issues may be addressed in the SEIS without additional plant-specific analysis. 

Environmental issues considered in the GEIS for which these conclusions could not be reached for all 

plants, or for specific classes of plants, are Category 2 issues. The Category 2 issue related to postulated 

accidents is listed in the following table.
 5.0-3 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Postulated Accidents

Severe accidents 2 SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric 

releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to 

groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe 

accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to 

mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that 

have not considered such alternatives.

Not all plants have performed analyses of the measures that could mitigate the consequences of severe 

accidents. Consequently, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents are a Category 2 issue for plants that 

have not performed a plant-specific evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives and submitted 

that evaluation to the Commission for review. A plant-specific analysis is required for this issue. 

If there is new and significant information related to the environmental impacts associated with postulated 

accidents identified by the applicant, members of the public, or the staff during the environmental review, 

the reviewer for this ESRP should prepare a table that directs readers to the SEIS sections dealing with the 

issues. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare introductory paragraphs for the SEIS. 

The paragraph(s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of 

information covered by ESRPs 5.1 and 5.2. The paragraph(s) should list the types of information to be 

presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be presented later in the 

SEIS. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 5.1-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

5.1 POSTULATED PLANT ACCIDENTS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of environmental 

impacts of postulated plant accidents during the license renewal term and preparation of input to the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). These issues are discussed in Section 4.9.1.2 of 

the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the GEIS discussion of postulated accidents, (2) identification and 

evaluation of new information related to environmental impacts of postulated accidents during the 

renewal term for significance, (3) preparation of input to the SEIS that dispositions the Category 1 issue, 

and (4) preparation of input to the SEIS that introduces the discussion of the Category 2 issue. 

Impacts of design-basis accidents (DBAs) during the renewal term is a Category 1 issue, and the impacts 

of severe accidents is a Category 2 issue. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases 

to groundwater and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. 

However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not 

considered such alternatives. A plant-specific review of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents is 

required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) if the NRC staff has not previously considered severe accident 

mitigation alternatives for the applicant’s plant in an environmental impact statement (EIS), SEIS, or 

environmental assessment. If a SAMA review has been conducted, then only new and significant 

information should be evaluated in accordance with ESRP 5.2.
 5.1-2 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential 

impacts. The following data or information may be needed: 

• a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

on environmental issues related to postulated accidents during the renewal term 

• new information on environmental impacts of postulated plant accidents during the renewal term 

known to the applicant 

• new and potentially significant information on environmental impacts of postulated plant accidents 

during the license renewal term identified by the public 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of postulated plant accidents during the renewal term are based on 

the relevant requirements of the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(b), concerning environmental considerations in the applicant’s ER 

• 10 CFR 51.45(d), concerning discussion of compliance with applicable environmental quality 

standards and requirements in the applicant’s ER 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii), concerning analyses required in ERs submitted at the license renewal stage 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning an independent evaluation of the assessment and the reliability of 

information used in the assessment 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning content requirements that apply to analyses in draft environmental 

impact statements at the license renewal stage 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4), concerning contents of SEIS and consideration of significant new information 

• 10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, concerning findings on environmental issues for license renewal 

of nuclear power plants. 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant’s description of postulated plant accidents during the 

renewal term is discussed in the following paragraph:
 5.1-3 

The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified by the 

supporting information in the GEIS, for issues designated as Category 1 or resolved Category 2, 

information developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and any significant 

new information in an EIS prepared at the license renewal stage. The review conducted under this 

ESRP leads to preparation of sections of the SEIS that incorporate the conclusions from the GEIS 

related to postulated plant accidents during the renewal term, as appropriate, and address significant 

new information, if any. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

1. Review the discussion of the issue in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the 

conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the postulated plant accidents issue that 

was addressed in the GEIS for which generic conclusions were reached. 

Table B-1. Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Postulated Accidents

Design-basis accidents 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental 

impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance for all 

plants.

Severe accidents 2 SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric 

releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to 

groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe 

accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to 

mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that 

have not considered such alternatives.

2. Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following sources 

of information should be included in the search for new information: 

• The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. In 

reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information related to environmental impacts of postulated accidents and evaluating the 

significance of any new information discovered. 

• Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

• Environmental standards and regulations. Have the applicable environmental quality 

standards and regulations changed since the analysis leading to the GEIS? If so, do the 

changes affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal? 
 5.1-4 

If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, then continue with Step 3. 

Otherwise, prepare the section for SEIS describing the search for new information, stating the 

conclusion that there is none, and adopting conclusions from the GEIS. 

3. Evaluate the significance of new information. 

4. Prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 

information found, and presenting results of evaluation of significance. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach a conclusion related to the environmental impacts of postulated accidents during the renewal term. 

The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. In accordance 

with the Commission’s direction in the SRM for SECY-12-0063—Final Rule, when reiterating the 

conclusion of the GEIS in the evaluation findings, the following entire phrase shall be included in the 

text: “...the probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL.” 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, “Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a 

Nuclear Power Plant.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2012. Staff Requirements, SRM-SECY-12-0063 – Final Rule: 

Revisions to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses (10 CFR 

Part 51; RIN 3150–AI42). December 6, 2012. ADAMS Accession No. M121206A. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 5.2-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

5.2 SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of the 

severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs). This issue was identified as a Category 2 issue in the 

Generic Environmental Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1), and in Table B-1 of Appendix B, Subpart A to 10 CFR 51. An 

applicant for license renewal is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) to consider alternatives to mitigate 

severe accidents at the plant if the staff has not previously considered severe accident mitigation 

alternatives for the applicant’s plant in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or related supplement or 

in an environmental assessment for the plant. 

The scope includes an analysis of SAMAs and the preparation of an appropriate statement for the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The analysis of SAMAs includes the identification 

and evaluation of alternatives that reduce the radiological risk from a severe accident by preventing 

substantial core damage (i.e., preventing a severe accident) or by limiting releases from containment in 

the event that substantial core damage occurs (i.e., mitigating the impacts of a severe accident). The 

purpose of the review is to ensure that plant and procedure changes with the potential for improved severe 

accident safety performance are identified and evaluated. 
 5.2-2 

Data and Information Needs

The type of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plant-specific 

factors. The following data or information should be obtained: 

• a list of leading contributors to (1) core-damage frequency (e.g., from dominant severe accident 

sequences or initiating events), and (2) dose consequences (e.g., from each release class and 

associated source term) (from the environmental report [ER]) 

• the methodology, process, and rationale used by the applicant to identify, screen, and select 

alternatives (from the ER) 

• the estimated cost, risk reduction, and dollar benefits for the selected SAMAs and the assumptions 

used to make these estimates (from the ER) 

• a description and list of any alternatives that have been or would be implemented to reduce the risk 

of a severe accident, or that would be further evaluated by the applicant for possible future 

implementation (from the ER) 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the analysis and evaluation of SAMAs are based on the relevant requirements of 

the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L), concerning the need to consider alternatives to mitigate severe accidents 

for the applicant’s plant if SAMAs were not previously considered 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning permitting an independent evaluation of the assessment and the 

reliability of information used in the assessment 

• 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, concerning findings on environmental issues for 

license renewal of nuclear power plants 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

• Interim Policy Statement, “Power Plants—Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations under 

NEPA” (NRC 1980), provides guidance concerning the early consideration of either additional 

features or other actions that would prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents. 

• “Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants” 

(NRC 1985) provides guidance for dealing with severe accident issues and vulnerabilities for 

operating reactors. 
 5.2-3 

• Policy Statement, “Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants” (NRC 1986) provides 

safety goals for nuclear power plants. 

• NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook (NRC 1997b), provides 

guidance concerning the value impact methodology. 

• NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC 2004) states the policy for the preparation and the contents of regulatory 

analyses, including estimation of values and impacts for alternatives and the “dollars per personrem” conversion factors. 

• NUREG/CR-6349 (Mubayi et al. 1995) provides information on dollars per person-rem conversion 

factor for offsite damage costs. 

• Generic Letter 88-20 (NRC 1988) provides guidance on the performance of an individual plant 

examination at operating plants for severe accident vulnerabilities. 

• Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 3 (NRC 1990a) provides guidance on accident prevention and 

mitigation features identified in the Containment Performance Improvement Program that may be 

valid for consideration in the review of SAMAs. 

• Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4 (NRC 1991) provides guidance on conducting an individual 

plant examination for externally initiated events. 

• Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear 

Power Plant License Renewal Applications (NRC 2013a) provides guidance on preparation of ERs 

associated with license renewal. 

• Regulatory Guides 1.174 (NRC 2002b) and 1.200 (NRC 2007) provide guidance on general 

concepts in use and evaluation of probabilistic risk assessments for risk-informed decisions. 

In addition to the above, the reviewer should be familiar with NEI 05-01, “SAMA Analysis Guidance 

Document,” which is the nuclear industry’s guidance document describing how to perform the SAMA 

analysis and describes the information that should be included in the SAMA analysis portion of the ER. 

The following acceptance criterion is used: 

• Completeness and reasonableness concerning (1) the identification of SAMAs applicable to the 

plant under consideration, (2) the estimation of core damage frequency reduction and averted 

person-rem for each SAMA, (3) the estimation of cost for each SAMA, (4) the screening criteria to 

identify SAMAs for further consideration, and (5) the final disposition of promising SAMAs. 
 5.2-4 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant’s SAMAs is discussed in the following paragraphs: 

The SEIS should include an analysis of the SAMAs for the applicant’s plant if they have not 

previously been considered in an EIS or related supplement or in an environmental assessment. The 

purpose is to review and evaluate plant design alternatives and procedural changes that could significantly reduce the radiological risk from a severe accident by preventing substantial core damage (i.e., 

preventing a severe accident) or by limiting releases from containment in the event that substantial 

core damage occurs (i.e., mitigating the impacts of a severe accident). 

In 1980, the NRC published an interim policy statement (Interim Policy Statement, “Nuclear Power 

Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969” [NRC 1980]) 

that stated that it was the intent of the Commission for the staff to take steps to identify additional 

cases that might warrant early consideration of either additional features or other actions that would 

prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents. 

In 1985, the NRC published a policy statement (“Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents 

Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants,” August 9, 1985 [NRC 1985]). It concluded that 

existing plants posed no undue risk to public health and safety and that there is no present basis for 

immediate action on generic rulemaking or other regulatory changes for these plants because of 

severe-accident risk. However, the policy statement indicated that “the Commission plans to 

formulate an approach for a systematic safety examination of existing plants to determine whether 

particular accident vulnerabilities are present and what cost-effective changes are desirable to ensure 

that there is no undue risk to public health and safety.” 

A 1989 court decision (Limerick Ecology Action vs. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 [3rd Cir. 1989]) stated that 

the “Action of NRC in addressing SAMDAs (prior term for SAMAs) through policy statements, not 

rule making, did not satisfy NEPA, where policy statements did not represent requisite careful 

consideration of environmental consequences, excluded consideration of design alternatives without 

making any conclusions about effectiveness of any particular alternative, and issues were not generic 

in that impact of SAMDAs on environment would differ with a particular plant’s design, construction 

and locations.” NRC considers the evaluation of SAMAs in the environmental impact review that is 

performed as part of every application for a license renewal if SAMAs have not been considered for 

the plant. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for conducting the review are as follows: 

1. Determine if the staff previously considered SAMAs for the applicant’s plant in an EIS or related 

supplement or in an environmental assessment. If not, then continue the analysis at Step 2. 

Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that describes the SAMA analysis and identifies the 

location of the analysis. 
 5.2-5 

2. Become familiar with analyses, the process, and design alternatives considered in previous studies, 

including the following: 

• Limerick (NRC 1989a) 

• NRC Containment Performance Improvement Program (NRC 1989b and 1990b) 

• Comanche Peak (NRC 1989c) 

• Watts Bar (NRC 1995) 

• System 80+ (NRC 1997c) 

• ABWR (NRC 1997d) 

• GEIS for License Renewal and plant-specific supplements 

3. Evaluate the applicant’s methods for establishing the risk profile for the plant, including the core 

damage frequency, population dose risk, and offsite economic cost risk for both internal and external 

events. This review should consider the evolution and peer reviews of the Level 1 (core damage 

frequency) and Level 2 (containment performance) probabilistic risk assessment models and the 

process used to extend the analysis to an assessment of offsite consequences. The scope of the 

review includes the major inputs to the MACCS2 offsite consequence code (NRC 1998), including 

plant-specific inputs related to core inventory, meteorology, population, evacuation, and economic 

impacts. 

4. Evaluate the applicant’s methods for identifying the potential mitigation alternatives. If the 

applicant used an alternative methodology to a probabilistic risk assessment approach to assess 

potential SAMAs, the staff evaluation should be appropriately modified. For example, seismic 

margins analysis does not produce a CDF (i.e., it is a qualitative analysis) and is predicated on the 

ability to evaluate the seismic durability of equipment required to safely shut the plant down. The 

results of this kind of analysis do not directly lend themselves to the frequency-based SAMA 

analysis. Alternative cost-benefit approaches are appropriate when a margins method has been used 

to screen external events. 

• Determine if this set of potential alternatives represents a reasonable range of preventive and 

mitigation alternatives. 

• Verify that the applicant’s list of potential SAMAs includes a reasonable range of applicable 

SAMAs derived from consideration of previous analyses and based on insights from the 

Level 1 and Level 2 portions of the applicant’s probabilistic risk assessment or individual 

plant examination/individual plant examination of external events. 

5. Evaluate the applicant’s basis for estimating the degree to which various alternatives would reduce 

risk (expressed as a reduction in core-damage frequency or in terms of person-rem averted). NRC 

staff may make bounding assumptions or adjustments to the applicant’s analysis to determine the 

magnitude of the potential risk reduction for each SAMA. 
 5.2-6 

6. Evaluate whether the applicant’s cost estimates for each SAMA are reasonable, and compare the 

cost estimates with estimates developed elsewhere (e.g., using previous SAMA evaluations or using 

accepted cost-estimation tools). 

7. Evaluate the cost-benefit comparison to determine if it is consistent with the cost-benefit balance 

criteria and methodology given in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b) and NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, 

(NRC 2004), and further analyze any SAMAs with estimated implementation costs within a factor 

of 2 to 5 of the estimated dollar benefits to ensure that a sufficient margin is present to account for 

uncertainties in assumptions used to determine the cost and benefit estimates. 

8. Subject any SAMAs that remain following the screening given above to further probabilistic and 

deterministic considerations, including a qualitative assessment of the following: 

• the impact of additional benefits that could accrue for the SAMA if it would be effective in 

reducing risk from certain external events, as well as internal events 

• the effects of improvements already made at the plant 

• any operational disadvantage associated with the potential SAMA 

9. Prepare a statement for the SEIS that describes the applicant’s analysis and details the staff’s review 

process. Any mitigation should be described along with the estimated costs and benefits. The risk 

reduction for the facility should be provided. The statement for the SEIS should identify and 

describe the mitigation measures considered and committed to by the applicant. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach a conclusion related to the applicant’s SAMA analysis. The information that should be included in 

the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

Limerick Ecology Action vs. NRC 869 F. 2D 719 [3rd Cir. 1989]. 

Mubayi, V., V. Sailor, and G. Anandalingam. 1995. Cost-Benefit Considerations in Regulatory Analysis. 

NUREG/CR-6349. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 
 5.2-7 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321 et seq. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2005. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis 

Guidance Document. NEI 05-01, Rev. A. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1980. Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 45 FR 40101. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. “Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents 

Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants.” 50 FR 32138, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1986. Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power 

Plants: Policy Statement; Republication. 51 FR 30028. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. “Individual Plant Examination for Severe Accident 

Vulnerabilities.” Generic Letter 88-20. Washington, D.C. November 23. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1989a. Letter from U.S. NRC to G.A. Hunger, Jr. 

(Philadelphia Electric Company), “Subject: Supplement to the Final Environmental StatementCLimerick 

Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3. Supplement to NUREG-0974.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1989b. Mark I Containment Performance Improvement 

Program. SECY-89-017. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990a. “Completion of Containment Performance 

Improvement Program and Forwarding Insights for Use in the Individual Plant Examination for Severe 

Accident Vulnerabilities.” Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 3, July 6, 1990, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990b. Recommendations of Containment Performance 

Improvement Program for Plants with Mark II, Mark III, Ice Condenser, and Dry Containments. SECY90-120. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. “Individual Plant Examination of External Events 

(IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities - 10 CFR 50.54(f).” Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, 

June 28, 1991, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Suppl. 1. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Individual Plant Examination Program: 

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance. NUREG-1560. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184. Washington, D.C. 
 5.2-8 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997c. Final Environmental Assessment by the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Certification of the System 80+ Standard Nuclear Plant 

Design. NUREG-1462. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997d. Final Environmental Assessment by the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to the Certification of the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor 

Design. NUREG-1503. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1998. Code Manual for MACCS2, User’s Guide. 

NUREG/CR-6613. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Perspectives Gained From the Individual Plant 

Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Program. NUREG-1742. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis. Regulatory 

Guide 1.174, Rev. 1. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission. NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. An Approach for Determining the Technical 

Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific 

Changes to the Licensing Basis. Regulatory Guide 1.200, Rev. 1. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013a. Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear 

Power Plant License Renewal Applications. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1. 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013b. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 5.3-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

5.3 REFERENCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for listing references in this chapter 

of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following regulation: 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that is 

concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

• The reviewer should contact reviewers for ESRPs 5.0 through 5.2 and compile a list of references 

cited in the SEIS sections that the reviewers have prepared. The citations should be checked for 

completeness and accuracy and prepared for inclusion in the SEIS.

 
 5.3-2 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare the SEIS section that lists references 

cited in the SEIS sections covering changes in the environmental impacts of postulated accidents during 

the license renewal term. The completed reference list constitutes the findings for this ESRP. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 6.0-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO LICENSE RENEWAL 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of introductory 

paragraphs for the portion of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that describes the 

environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives to license renewal during the renewal term. 

The scope introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 6.1 through 6.3. It includes 

descriptions of the reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) discussed in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1) and identification of alternatives eliminated from detailed study. 

Data and Information Needs

The reviewer for this ESRP requires the following information: 

• list of reasonable alternatives considered by the applicant and state authorities 

• list of environmental issues associated with continued plant operations during the renewal term and 

refurbishment 

• list of alternatives eliminated from detailed study 
 6.0-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are consistent with 

the intent of the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3). Alternatives to the proposed action. The discussion of alternatives shall be 

sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in developing and exploring, pursuant to 

Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, “appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any 

proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 

To the extent practicable, the environmental impacts of license renewal and the replacement power 

alternatives should be presented in comparative form. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). ...the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of 

alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii). The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing 

adverse impacts, as required by Section 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal issues in 

Appendix B to subpart A of this part. No such consideration is required for Category 1 issues in 

Appendix B to subpart A of this part. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing 

or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR 51.103(a)(2) Identify all alternatives considered by the Commission in reaching the 

decision, state that these alternatives were included in the range of alternatives discussed in the 

environmental impact statement, and specify the alternative or alternatives which were considered to 

be environmentally preferable. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51, concerning format for presentation of material 

in environmental impact statements 

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(5), “Alternatives Including the Proposed Action.” Identify the 

environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form.10 CFR 51, 
 6.0-3 

Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, including the proposed 

actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives eliminated from detailed study 

will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be confined to a brief statement of the 

reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of information for each alternative 

considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for sound decisionmaking. 

Technical Rationale

Introductory paragraphs should provide the reader with a clear understanding of the alternatives 

considered and those alternatives considered for detailed analysis. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Examine the applicant’s ER and consider the range of reasonable alternatives. Alternatives considered 

are (1) build new generating capacity, (2) purchase the power from outside the system, (3) reduce power 

requirements through demand reduction, and (4) the no-action alternative. The reviewer should identify 

the criteria used in evaluating the reasonableness of the alternatives and explain which alternatives would 

not be considered for detailed analysis and why. A reasonable alternative must be commercially viable 

on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s operating license or expected to 

become commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s 

operating license. The reviewer should identify the alternatives that would be carried forward for 

comparison with renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant. The reviewer should discuss 

the extent to which these alternatives have been considered by State authorities (e.g., public service 

commissions and environmental, natural resource, or energy agencies). 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare introductory paragraphs for the SEIS. 

The paragraph(s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of 

information covered by ESRP 6.1 through 6.3. The paragraph(s) should list the types of information to be 

presented and describe their relationships to information presented in the SEIS. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 
 6.0-4 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 6.1-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

6.1 THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of 

potential impacts of the no-action alternative. The potential impacts of the no-action alternative have 

been evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

(GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope of the review directed by this plan includes (1) review of the discussion of potential impacts of 

the no-action alternative in the GEIS, (2) identification and evaluation of new information related to 

potential impacts of the no-action alternative for significance, and (3) preparation of input to the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The reviewer for this ESRP may require the following information: 

• list of environmental issues associated with the termination of nuclear power plant operations

 
 6.1-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of environmental impacts of the no-action alternative are based on the 

relevant requirements of the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3), “Alternatives to the Proposed Action.” The discussion of alternatives shall be 

sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in developing and exploring, pursuant to 

Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, “appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any 

proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 

To the extent practicable, the environmental impacts of license renewal and the replacement power 

alternatives should be presented in comparative form. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2). ...the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of 

alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d). The draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary analysis that 

considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51, concerning format for presentation of material 

in environmental impact statements 

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51–4, “Purpose of and Need for Action.” The 

alternative of no action will be discussed. 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the description of the no action alternative is discussed in the 

following paragraphs: 

This ESRP examines the potential environmental impacts associated with not renewing the operating 

license of a nuclear power plant (i.e., the no-action alternative). 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart 

A of Part 51–4, “Purpose of and Need for Action,” explicitly requires an analysis of the no-action 

alternative. If the operating license is not renewed, then the plant would cease operations at or before 

the end of the current operating license, and other electric-generating sources would be pursued if 

power were still needed. 
 6.1-3 

The no-action alternative does not involve the determination of whether any power is needed or 

should be generated. The decision to generate power and the determination of how much power is 

needed are at the discretion of State and utility officials. 

Not renewing the license may lead to the selection of other electric-generating sources to meet energy 

demands as determined by appropriate state and utility officials, conservation measures, decisions to 

import power, or a combination of these different outcomes. Additionally, not renewing the operating 

license could lead to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear power plant and its associated 

impacts; these impacts are addressed separately in the Final Generic Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG-0586. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

To analyze the environmental impacts of the no-action alternative, the reviewer should complete the 

following steps: 

1. Review the discussion of potential environmental impacts of the no-action alternative and the other 

alternatives in Chapter 4 of the GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions 

reached. This step establishes the basis for the evaluation of information identified by the applicant, 

the public, and the staff. 

2. Determine if there is new information that should be evaluated. The following sources of 

information should be considered: 

• The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. In 

reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

• Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

3. Determine, from the scope of environmental impacts of the no-action alternative, those that are 

minor and those that are likely to be sufficiently important to require detailed analysis. 

If, based on this analysis, the reviewer determines that there would be more than minor impacts, 

proceed to Step 4. Otherwise, if the reviewer determines that there would be no environmental 

impacts or that the impacts would be minor, develop a statement to this effect. 

4. Analyze the environmental impacts associated with the no-action alternative, as follows: 

• Identify and evaluate the likely environmental impacts of terminating nuclear plant operations 

using plant-specific data. 

• Include in the analysis of impacts on environmental resource areas in the SEIS. Direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts should be considered. 
 6.1-4 

Data provided in the applicant’s ER include: 

• the degree to which the local environmental resources would be affected by the termination 

of plant operations 

• the significance or potential significance of environmental impacts. SMALL impacts result 

when no discernible change in environmental resources occurs as a result of reactor 

shutdown. MODERATE impacts result when there is a discernible change. LARGE impacts 

occur when there is substantial impact to environmental resources 

• any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environmental concerns. 

Supplemental data may be useful in determining the completeness of the applicant’s 

assessment of impacts 

5. Consider and evaluate potential mitigation measures or alternatives that might reduce or eliminate 

the adverse impacts or the disproportionate distribution of the impacts in those cases where the 

impacts are MODERATE or LARGE. These may have been considered in the applicant’s ER. 

6. Based on the results of the assessments listed above, prepare the following for the SEIS: 

• a summary statement (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) about the degree to which 

environmental resources are expected to receive impacts from the no-action alternative, 

together with the significance of these impacts 

• a discussion of the rationale or basis for conclusions supporting the degree of impact 

• a discussion of any mitigative measures that would or could reduce adverse environmental 

impacts 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of 

the effects of the no-action alternative. The reviewer should verify that sufficient information is available 

to meet the relevant requirements. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. REFERENCES 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 
 6.1-5 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Impact Statement on 

Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2. NUREG-0586. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 6.2-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

6.2 REPLACEMENT POWER ALTERNATIVES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of 

potential impacts of replacement power alternatives. The potential impacts of replacement power 

alternatives have been evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1). 

The scope of this ESRP includes (1) review of replacement power alternative discussions in the GEIS, 

(2) identification and evaluation of new information about replacement power alternatives for 

significance, and (3) preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The reviewer for this ESRP may require the following information: 

• list of reasonable replacement power alternatives considered by the applicant and State authorities 

• list of environmental issues associated with continued plant operations during the renewal term and 

refurbishment 

• list of replacement power alternatives eliminated from detailed study 
 6.2-2 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of environmental impacts are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3), “Alternatives to the Proposed Action.” The discussion of alternatives shall be 

sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in developing and exploring, pursuant to 

Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, “appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any 

proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 

To the extent practicable, the environmental impacts of license renewal and the replacement power 

alternatives should be presented in comparative form. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) ...the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts of 

alternatives and any other matters discussed in 10 CFR 51.45. 

• 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii) The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing adverse 

impacts, as required by Section 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal issues in Appendix B to 

subpart A of this part. No such consideration is required for Category 1 issues in Appendix B to 

subpart A of this part. 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b). The draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear, and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics....The format provided in Section 1(a) of 

Appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d). The draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary analysis that 

considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c), concerning the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear 

power plant. Under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental 

impact statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG-1437, “Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

• 10 CFR 51.103(a)(2). Identify all alternatives considered by the Commission in reaching the 

decision, state that these alternatives were included in the range of alternatives discussed in the 

environmental impact statement, and specify the alternative or alternatives which were considered to 

be environmentally preferable. 

• 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51, concerning format for presentation of material 

in environmental impact statements. 

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(5), “Alternatives Including the Proposed Action.” Identify the 

environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form. 
 6.2-3 

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, including 

the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives eliminated from 

detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be confined to a brief 

statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of information for each 

alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for sound decisionmaking. 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant’s description of the potential replacement power 

alternatives to license renewal is discussed in the following paragraphs: 

The GEIS does not contain any conclusions regarding the environmental impact or acceptability of 

alternatives to license renewal. Accordingly, the NRC must conduct an analysis of reasonable 

alternatives to license renewal in plant-specific environmental reviews. A reasonable alternative must 

be commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior to the expiration of the reactor’s 

operating license or expected to become commercially viable on a utility scale and operational prior 

to the expiration of the reactor’s operating license. This ESRP examines the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the replacement power alternatives. 

Analysis of replacement power alternatives does not involve the determination of whether any power 

is needed or should be generated. The decision to generate power and the determination of how much 

power is needed are at the discretion of State and utility officials. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

To analyze the environmental impact of replacement power alternatives, the reviewer should complete the 

following steps: 

1. Review the discussion of potential environmental impacts of replacement power alternatives in 

Chapter 4 of the GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step 

establishes the basis for the evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, and the 

staff. 

2. Obtain information for evaluation. The following sources of information should be considered: 

• The applicant’s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. In 

reviewing the applicant’s ER, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

• Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

3. Determine, from the scope of environmental impacts of replacement power alternatives, those that 

are minor and those that are likely to be sufficiently important to require detailed analysis. If, based 

on this analysis, the reviewer determines that there would be more than minor impacts, proceed to 
 6.2-4 

Step 4. Otherwise, if the reviewer determines that there would be no environmental impacts or that 

the impacts would be minor, develop a statement to this effect. 

4. Analyze the environmental impacts associated with replacement power alternatives, as follows: 

• Identify and calculate the likely environmental impacts of required replacement power 

alternatives including conservation and purchased or imported power, based on Chapter 4 of 

the GEIS, the applicant’s ER, and the integrated resource plans for the area(s) or region(s) 

currently or (if different) likely to be served by the plant. Assume appropriate mitigation 

measures (e.g., emission control technologies and best management practices) for each 

replacement power alternative. 

• Describe the environmental impacts in sufficient detail so that other environmental reviewers 

may evaluate the impacts of the replacement power alternatives with those of renewing the 

operating license. The analysis should consider the impacts on environmental resource areas 

in the SEIS. The analyses should include direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. For each 

replacement power alternative, the analysis should identify and, to the extent possible, 

quantify, unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments, 

and tradeoffs between short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment. To the 

extent possible, each alternative should be analyzed on a nuclear power plant site- or regionspecific basis. 

Data provided in the applicant’s ER include: 

• the degree to which the local environmental resources would be affected by the construction 

and operation of replacement power alternatives 

• the significance or potential significance of environmental impacts. SMALL impacts result 

when no discernible change in environmental resources occurs as a result of constructing and 

operating replacement power alternatives. MODERATE impacts result when there is a 

discernible change. LARGE impacts occur when there is substantial impact to environmental 

resources. 

• any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environmental concerns 

Supplemental data obtained from other individuals and organizations may be useful in 

determining the completeness of the applicant’s assessment of impacts. 

5. Consider and evaluate potential mitigation measures or alternatives that might reduce or eliminate 

the adverse impacts or the disproportionate distribution of the impacts in those cases where the 

impacts are MODERATE or LARGE. These may have been considered in the applicant’s ER. 

6. Based on the results of the assessments listed above, prepare the following for the SEIS: 

• a summary statement (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) about the degree to which 

environmental resources are expected to receive impacts from replacement power 

alternatives, together with the significance of these impacts 

• a discussion of the rationale or basis for conclusions supporting the degree of impact 
 6.2-5 

• a discussion of any mitigative measures that would or could reduce environmental impacts 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of 

the effects of replacement power alternatives. The reviewer should verify that sufficient information is 

available to meet the relevant requirements. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 6.3-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

6.3 REFERENCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the listing references cited in this 

chapter of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following regulation: 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that is 

concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The environmental project manager (EPM) should contact reviewers for ESRPs 6.0 through 6.2 and 

compile a list of references cited in the SEIS sections that the reviewers have prepared. The citations 

should be checked for completeness and accuracy and prepared for inclusion in the SEIS. 

 
 6.3-2 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare the SEIS section that lists references 

cited in the SEIS sections covering environmental impacts of continued plant operations and 

refurbishment. The completed reference list constitutes the findings for this ESRP. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission’s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

 7.0-1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance on preparing this chapter of the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that integrates the conclusions for issues designated 

Category 1 or resolved Category 2 in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants (GEIS; NUREG-1437, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1), information developed for 

those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and significant new information. The chapter must 

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

option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 

The scope includes (1) review of the impact analyses prepared for the SEIS, (2) evaluation of the 

cumulative impacts associated with continued plant operations during the license renewal term and 

refurbishment, (3) review of the discussions of the environmental impacts of alternatives, (4) comparison 

of the environmental impacts of license renewal with the environmental impacts of the alternatives, and 

(5) preparation of input to the SEIS. 

The SEIS input should (1) identify adverse environmental impacts that are unavoidable, (2) identify 

commitments of resources that are irreversible and irretrievable, and (3) discuss the effects of short-term 

use on maintenance and long-term productivity of the environment. 
 7.0-2 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• the discussion of environmental impacts of license renewal in the GEIS 

• the discussion of plant-specific environmental impacts of license renewal in the applicant’s 

environmental report (ER) 

• the summary of environmental impact analyses conducted for the SEIS 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the summary and conclusions are based on the relevant 

requirements of the following regulations: 

• 10 CFR 51.70(a), concerning preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) 

• 10 CFR 51.70(b), concerning a concise, clear, analytic EIS written in plain language 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning including a preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the 

environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the 

proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects 

• 10 CFR 51.71(d), concerning including a preliminary recommendation by the NRC staff respecting 

the proposed action reached after considering the environmental effects of the proposed action and 

reasonable alternatives 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4), concerning preparation of a final EIS 

• 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4), concerning including the NRC staff recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the license renewal action that integrates the conclusions, as amplified by the 

supporting information in the generic EIS, for issues designated Category 1 or resolved Category 2, 

information developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and any significant 

new information. 

Technical Rationale

The SEIS must include NRC staff recommendations regarding the environmental acceptability of the 

proposed action. In making these recommendations, the staff is required to integrate the conclusions from 

the GEIS, plant-specific impact analyses, and any significant new information. This ESRP summarizes 

the environmental impacts of the proposed action, comparison of the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action with the impact of the alternatives, and the staff recommendations. 
 7.0-3 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The environmental project manager (EPM) is responsible for the preparation of the SEIS summary and 

conclusions section. The summary and conclusions section should be sufficiently complete that a person 

reading this section would understand: 

• the purpose of and need for the proposed action 

• the NEPA process and NRC’s environmental review leading to the preparation of the SEIS 

• the environmental impacts of renewing the operating license 

• the environmental impacts of alternatives to renewing the operating license 

• staff conclusions and recommendations 

Suggested steps for the preparation of the summary and conclusions chapter of the SEIS are as follows: 

1. Prepare introductory paragraphs for the Summary and Conclusions chapter. 

2. Prepare a table that summarizes the findings of the environmental impacts presented in the SEIS. 

The summary and conclusions table should list of the environmental impacts of license renewal and 

alternatives to license renewal (including no-action) and state the level of significance of each 

impact. This table should be organized by area of environmental concern. 

3. The EPM should also consider the list of unavoidable adverse impacts and the list of irreversible and 

irretrievable resource commitments, and draw conclusions related to effects of short-term 

commitments on maintenance and long-term productivity of the environment. The final lists of 

unavoidable adverse impacts and irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments and a 

discussion of the effects of short-term use on maintenance and long-term productivity of the 

environment should also be included in the SEIS. 

4. Prepare input to the SEIS summary and conclusions chapter. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The EPM prepares the SEIS section that presents (1) the overall summary of the environmental impacts of 

license renewal and alternatives to license renewal (including no-action), and (2) the staff 

recommendations regarding license renewal. The overall summary should be presented in tabular form. 

The contents of the table are described in the Review Procedures section. The staff recommendation 

should be stated in terms consistent with the wording of 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4). 

 
 7.0-4 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission’s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, “Environmental Protection 

Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 



UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

--------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
 

 

NUREG-1555, 

Supplement 1, Rev. 1

Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews

for Nuclear Power Plants