Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants

Appendices

Final Report

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG-1437, Volume 3

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.
Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for

License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants

Appendices

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: May 2013

Date Published: June 2013

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

 

NUREG-1437, Volume 3

Revision 1

 iii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Cover Sheet 

Responsible Agency: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation 

Title: Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants

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

For additional information or copies of this Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, contact: 

Division of License Renewal 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

Mail Stop O-11F1 

11555 Rockville Pike 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 1183 

Fax: (301) 415-2002 

Email: LRGEISUpdate@nrc.gov 

Abstract 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations allow for the renewal of commercial 

nuclear power plant operating licenses. To support the license renewal environmental review 

process, the NRC published the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 

of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) in 1996. The proposed action considered in the GEIS is the renewal 

of nuclear power plant operating licenses.

Since publication of the GEIS, approximately 40 plant sites (70 reactor units) have applied for 

license renewal and undergone environmental reviews, the results of which were published as 

supplements to the 1996 GEIS. This GEIS revision reviews and reevaluates the issues and 

findings of the 1996 GEIS. Lessons learned and knowledge gained during previous license 

renewal reviews provide a significant source of new information for this assessment. In 

addition, new research, findings, public comments, and other information were considered in 

evaluating the significance of impacts associated with license renewal.

The intent of the GEIS is to determine which issues would result in the same impact at all 

nuclear power plants and which issues could result in different levels of impact at different 

plants and thus require a plant-specific analysis for impact determinations. The GEIS revision 

identifies 78 environmental impact issues for consideration in license renewal environmental 

reviews, 59 of which have been determined to be generic to all plant sites. The GEIS also 

evaluates a full range of alternatives to the proposed action. For most impact areas, the 

proposed action would have impacts that would be similar to or less than impacts of the 

alternatives, in large part because most alternatives would require new power plant 

construction, whereas the proposed action would not.
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 iv 

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 

This NUREG contains information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 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 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Contents 

COVER SHEET/ABSTRACT .......................................................................................... iii 

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

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xv 

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xix 

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND CHEMICAL NOMENCLATURE ........................ xxvii 

ABBREVIATED POWER PLANT NAMES ...................................................................... xxxv 

UNITS OF MEASURES .................................................................................................. xxxvi 

CONVERSIONS ............................................................................................................. xxxix

SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... S-1 

 S.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................... S-3 

 S.2 Development of the Revised Generic Environmental Impact Statement ........ S-4 

 S.3 Impact Definitions and Categories .................................................................. S-6 

 S.4 Affected Environment ..................................................................................... S-7 

 S.5 Impacts from Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities 

 Associated with License Renewal .................................................................. S-8 

 S.6 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................. S-20 

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1-1 

 1.1 Purpose of the GEIS ....................................................................................... 1-2 

 1.2 Description of the Proposed Action ................................................................ 1-3 

 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................... 1-3 

 1.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Action ................................................................ 1-4 

 1.5 Analytical Approach Used in the GEIS ........................................................... 1-4 

 1.5.1 Objectives ....................................................................................... 1-4 

 1.5.2 Methodology ................................................................................... 1-5 

 1.5.2.1 Defining Environmental Issues ........................................ 1-5 

 1.5.2.2 Collecting Information ...................................................... 1-5 

 1.5.2.3 Determining Significance Levels for Issues ..................... 1-5 

 1.6 Scope of the GEIS Revision ........................................................................... 1-7 

 1.7 Decisions to Be Supported by the GEIS ......................................................... 1-7 

 1.7.1 Changes to Plant Cooling Systems ................................................ 1-9 

 1.7.2 Disposition of Spent Nuclear Fuel .................................................. 1-10 

 1.7.3 Emergency Preparedness .............................................................. 1-13 

 1.7.4 Safeguards and Security ................................................................ 1-15 
Contents 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 vi 

 1.7.5 Need for Power ............................................................................... 1-15 

 1.7.6 Seismicity and Flooding .................................................................. 1-16 

 1.8 Implementation of the Rule ............................................................................. 1-16 

 1.8.1 General Requirements ................................................................... 1-16 

 1.8.2 Applicant’s Environmental Report .................................................. 1-17 

 1.8.3 NRC’s SEIS .................................................................................... 1-17 

 1.8.4 Public Scoping and Public Comments ............................................ 1-18 

 1.8.5 NRC’s Draft SEIS ........................................................................... 1-18 

 1.8.6 NRC’s Final SEIS ........................................................................... 1-18 

 1.9 Public Comments on the Draft GEIS .............................................................. 1-19 

 1.10 Changes from the Draft GEIS ......................................................................... 1-34 

 1.10.1 General Overview Rule-Related Changes ..................................... 1-34 

 1.10.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ......................... 1-36 

 1.10.3 Miscellaneous Revisions and Editorial Changes ............................ 1-36 

 1.11 Lessons Learned ............................................................................................ 1-37 

 1.12 New Organization of the GEIS ........................................................................ 1-37 

 1.13 References ..................................................................................................... 1-38 

2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................................... 2-1 

 2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................. 2-2 

 2.1.1 Plant Operations during the License Renewal Term ...................... 2-2 

 2.1.2 Refurbishment and Other Activities Associated with License 

 Renewal .......................................................................................... 2-4 

 2.1.3 Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and 

 Decommissioning after the License Renewal Term ....................... 2-4 

 2.1.4 Impacts of the Proposed Action ...................................................... 2-6 

 2.2 No-Action Alternative ...................................................................................... 2-17 

 2.3 Replacement Power Alternatives .................................................................... 2-18 

 2.3.1 Fossil Fuel Alternatives .................................................................. 2-20 

 2.3.2 New Nuclear Power Plant Alternatives ........................................... 2-21 

 2.3.3 Renewable Energy Alternatives ..................................................... 2-21 

 2.3.3.1 Hydroelectric Energy ........................................................ 2-23 

 2.3.3.2 Geothermal Energy .......................................................... 2-24 

 2.3.3.3 Wind Energy .................................................................... 2-25 

 2.3.3.4 Biomass Energy ............................................................... 2-26 

 2.3.3.5 Solar Power ..................................................................... 2-28 

 2.3.3.6 Ocean Wave and Current Energy .................................... 2-30 

 2.3.4 Non-Generation Alternatives .......................................................... 2-30 

 2.3.4.1 Purchased Power ............................................................. 2-30 

 2.3.4.2 Conservation and Energy Efficiency Measures ............... 2-32 
Contents 

 vii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................. 2-33 

 2.5 References ..................................................................................................... 2-40 

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................... 3-1 

 3.1 Description of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities and Operations ....................... 3-1 

 3.1.1 External Appearance and Settings ................................................. 3-1 

 3.1.2 Nuclear Reactor Systems ............................................................... 3-4 

 3.1.3 Cooling Water Systems .................................................................. 3-12 

 3.1.4 Radioactive Waste Management Systems ..................................... 3-18 

 3.1.4.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste ................................................ 3-18 

 3.1.4.2 Gaseous Radioactive Waste ............................................ 3-19 

 3.1.4.3 Solid Radioactive Waste .................................................. 3-20 

 3.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Management Systems ................................ 3-21 

 3.1.6 Utility and Transportation Infrastructure ......................................... 3-22 

 3.1.6.1 Electricity .......................................................................... 3-22 

 3.1.6.2 Fuel .................................................................................. 3-23 

 3.1.6.3 Water ............................................................................... 3-23 

 3.1.6.4 Transportation Systems ................................................... 3-23 

 3.1.6.5 Power Transmission Systems .......................................... 3-24 

 3.1.7 Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Maintenance ........................ 3-25 

 3.2 Land Use and Visual Resources .................................................................... 3-26 

 3.2.1 Land Use ........................................................................................ 3-26 

 3.2.2 Visual Resources ............................................................................ 3-29 

 3.3 Meteorology, Air Quality, and Noise ............................................................... 3-30 

 3.3.1 Meteorology and Climatology ......................................................... 3-30 

 3.3.2 Air Quality ....................................................................................... 3-35 

 3.3.3 Noise .............................................................................................. 3-48 

 3.4 Geologic Environment .................................................................................... 3-49 

 3.5 Water Resources ............................................................................................ 3-52 

 3.5.1 Surface Water Resources .............................................................. 3-55 

 3.5.1.1 Surface Water Use ........................................................... 3-55 

 3.5.1.2 Surface Water Quality ...................................................... 3-57 

 3.5.1.3 Hydrologic Changes and Flooding ................................... 3-60 

 3.5.2 Groundwater Resources ................................................................. 3-62 

 3.6 Ecological Resources ..................................................................................... 3-63 

 3.6.1 Terrestrial Resources ..................................................................... 3-63 

 3.6.1.1 Upland Vegetation and Habitats ...................................... 3-63 

 3.6.1.2 Floodplain and Wetland Vegetation and Habitats ............ 3-65 

 3.6.1.3 Wildlife ............................................................................. 3-66 

 3.6.2 Aquatic Resources ......................................................................... 3-68 
Contents 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 viii 

 3.6.2.1 Description of Aquatic Resources near Nuclear 

 Power Plants .................................................................... 3-68 

 3.6.2.2 Overview of the Effects of Existing Nuclear Plant 

 Operations on Aquatic Resources ................................... 3-74 

 3.6.3 Special Status Species and Habitats .............................................. 3-76 

 3.6.3.1 Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered, and Protected 

 Species ............................................................................ 3-78 

 3.6.3.2 Aquatic Threatened, Endangered, and Protected 

 Species, Marine Mammals, and Essential Fish 

 Habitat .............................................................................. 3-79 

 3.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 3-83 

 3.7.1 National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA ................................ 3-83 

 3.7.2 Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................... 3-85 

 3.8 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................. 3-86 

 3.8.1 Power Plant Employment and Expenditures .................................. 3-87 

 3.8.2 Regional Economic Characteristics ................................................ 3-88 

 3.8.2.1 Rural Economies .............................................................. 3-88 

 3.8.2.2 Semi-Urban Economies ................................................... 3-91 

 3.8.3 Demographic Characteristics ......................................................... 3-93 

 3.8.4 Housing and Community Services ................................................. 3-94 

 3.8.5 Tax Revenues ................................................................................ 3-95 

 3.8.6 Local Transportation ....................................................................... 3-96 

 3.9 Human Health ................................................................................................. 3-97 

 3.9.1 Radiological Exposure and Risk ..................................................... 3-97 

 3.9.1.1 Regulatory Requirements ................................................ 3-97 

 3.9.1.2 Occupational Radiological Exposures ............................. 3-101 

 3.9.1.3 Public Radiological Exposures ......................................... 3-120 

 3.9.1.4 Risk Estimates from Radiation Exposure ......................... 3-135 

 3.9.1.5 Conclusion ....................................................................... 3-136 

 3.9.2 Chemical Hazards .......................................................................... 3-136 

 3.9.3 Microbiological Hazards ................................................................. 3-138 

 3.9.3.1 Background Information on Microorganisms of 

 Concern ........................................................................... 3-139 

 3.9.3.2 Studies of Microorganisms in Cooling Towers ................. 3-140 

 3.9.3.3 Microbiological Hazards to Plant Workers ....................... 3-141 

 3.9.3.4 Microbiological Hazards to the Public .............................. 3-142 

 3.9.4 Electromagnetic Fields ................................................................... 3-143 

 3.9.5 Other Hazards ................................................................................ 3-144 

 3.9.5.1 Occupational Hazards ...................................................... 3-144 

 3.9.5.2 Shock Hazard .................................................................. 3-145 

 3.10 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................... 3-148 
Contents 

 ix NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

 3.11 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention ................................................ 3-151 

 3.11.1 Radioactive Waste .......................................................................... 3-151 

 3.11.1.1 Low-Level Radioactive Waste .......................................... 3-151 

 3.11.1.2 Spent Nuclear Fuel .......................................................... 3-154 

 3.11.2 Hazardous Waste ........................................................................... 3-158 

 3.11.3 Mixed Waste ................................................................................... 3-159 

 3.11.4 Nonradioactive, Nonhazardous Waste ........................................... 3-159 

 3.11.5 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization ................................ 3-160 

 3.12 References ..................................................................................................... 3-160 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS .................... 4-1

 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4-1

 4.1.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action .................. 4-2

 4.1.2 Environmental Consequences of Continued Operations and 

 Refurbishment Activities during the License Renewal Term .......... 4-3

 4.1.3 Environmental Consequences of the No-Action Alternative ........... 4-4

 4.1.4 Environmental Consequences of Replacement 

 Power Alternatives .......................................................................... 4-4

 4.1.5 Environmental Consequences of Terminating Nuclear 

 Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning ............................. 4-5

 4.2 Land Use and Visual Resources .................................................................... 4-6

 4.2.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

 Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...................... 4-6

 4.2.1.1 Land Use .......................................................................... 4-6

 4.2.1.2 Visual Resources ............................................................. 4-9

 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

 Action.............................................................................................. 4-10

 4.2.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives ............................................... 4-11

 4.2.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives ................................................. 4-11

 4.2.2.3 Renewable Alternatives ................................................... 4-11

 4.3 Air Quality and Noise ...................................................................................... 4-13

 4.3.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

 Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...................... 4-13

 4.3.1.1 Air Quality ........................................................................ 4-14

 4.3.1.2 Noise ................................................................................ 4-19

 4.3.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the 

 Proposed Action ............................................................................. 4-20

 4.3.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives ............................................... 4-20

 4.3.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives ................................................. 4-21

 4.3.2.3 Renewable Alternatives ................................................... 4-26
Contents 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 x 

 4.4 Geologic Environment .................................................................................... 4-29

 4.4.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

 Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...................... 4-29

 4.4.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

 Action.............................................................................................. 4-30

 4.4.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives ............................................... 4-31

 4.4.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives ................................................. 4-31

 4.4.2.3 Renewable Alternatives ................................................... 4-31

 4.5 Water Resources ............................................................................................ 4-32

 4.5.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

 Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...................... 4-32

 4.5.1.1 Surface Water Resources ................................................ 4-32 

 4.5.1.2 Groundwater Resources .................................................. 4-44

 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

 Action.............................................................................................. 4-54

 4.5.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives ............................................... 4-55

 4.5.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives ................................................. 4-56

 4.5.2.3 Renewable Alternatives ................................................... 4-56

 4.6 Ecological Resources ..................................................................................... 4-57

 4.6.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

 Continued Operations and Refurbishment ..................................... 4-57

 4.6.1.1 Terrestrial Resources ....................................................... 4-58

 4.6.1.2 Aquatic Resources ........................................................... 4-84

 4.6.1.3 Special Status Species and Habitats ............................... 4-115

 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

 Action.............................................................................................. 4-119

 4.6.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives ............................................... 4-119

 4.6.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives ................................................. 4-120

 4.6.2.3 Renewable Alternatives ................................................... 4-121

 4.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 4-122

 4.7.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

 Continued Operations and Refurbishment ..................................... 4-122

 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

 Action.............................................................................................. 4-124

 4.7.2.1 Fossil Fuel Alternatives .................................................... 4-124

 4.7.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives ................................................. 4-125 

 4.7.2.3 Renewable Alternatives ................................................... 4-125

 4.8 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................. 4-126

 4.8.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

 Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...................... 4-126

 4.8.1.1 Employment and Income, Recreation, and Tourism ........ 4-127
Contents 

 xi NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

 4.8.1.2 Tax Revenues .................................................................. 4-128

 4.8.1.3 Community Services and Education ................................ 4-129

 4.8.1.4 Population and Housing ................................................... 4-130

 4.8.1.5 Transportation .................................................................. 4-131

 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

 Action.............................................................................................. 4-132

 4.8.2.1 Fossil Fuel Alternatives .................................................... 4-133

 4.8.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives ................................................. 4-133

 4.8.2.3 Renewable Alternatives ................................................... 4-134

 4.9 Human Health ................................................................................................. 4-135

 4.9.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

 Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...................... 4-135

 4.9.1.1 Environmental Consequences of Normal Operating 

 Conditions ........................................................................ 4-135

 4.9.1.2 Environmental Consequences of Postulated 

 Accidents ......................................................................... 4-158

 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

 Action.............................................................................................. 4-162

 4.9.2.1 Fossil Energy Alternatives ............................................... 4-163

 4.9.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives ................................................. 4-164

 4.9.2.3 Renewable Alternatives ................................................... 4-165

 4.10 Environmental Justice ..................................................................................... 4-167

 4.10.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

 Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...................... 4-167

 4.10.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

 Action.............................................................................................. 4-169

 4.11 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention ................................................ 4-170

 4.11.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action— 

 Continued Operations and Refurbishment Activities ...................... 4-170

 4.11.1.1 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage and Disposal ...... 4-171

 4.11.1.2 Onsite Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel ............................. 4-172

 4.11.1.3 Offsite Radiological Impacts of Spent Nuclear Fuel 

 and High-Level Waste Disposal ....................................... 4-175

 4.11.1.4 Mixed Waste Storage and Disposal ................................. 4-178

 4.11.1.5 Nonradioactive Waste Storage and Disposal .................. 4-179

 4.11.2 Environmental Consequences of Alternatives to the Proposed 

 Action.............................................................................................. 4-179

 4.11.2.1 Fossil Fuel Alternatives .................................................... 4-180

 4.11.2.2 New Nuclear Alternatives ................................................. 4-180

 4.11.2.3 Renewable Alternatives ................................................... 4-181

 4.12 Impacts Common to All Alternatives ............................................................... 4-182
Contents 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xii 

 4.12.1 Environmental Consequences of Fuel Cycles ................................ 4-183

 4.12.1.1 Uranium Fuel Cycle ......................................................... 4-183

 4.12.1.2 Replacement Power Alternative Fuel Cycles ................... 4-197

 4.12.2 Environmental Consequences of Terminating Power 

 Plant Operations and Decommissioning ........................................ 4-200

 4.12.2.1 Termination of Operations and Decommissioning 

 of Existing Nuclear Power Plants ..................................... 4-201

 4.12.2.2 Termination of Power Plant Operations and 

 Decommissioning of Replacement Power Plants ............ 4-224

 4.12.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ......................... 4-229

 4.12.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................ 4-229

 4.12.3.2 Climate Change Impacts .................................................. 4-237

 4.13 Cumulative Impacts of the Proposed Action ................................................... 4-243

 4.13.1 Air Quality ....................................................................................... 4-245

 4.13.2 Noise .............................................................................................. 4-245

 4.13.3 Geology and Soils .......................................................................... 4-245

 4.13.4 Surface Water Resources .............................................................. 4-245

 4.13.5 Groundwater Resources ................................................................. 4-246

 4.13.6 Ecological Resources ..................................................................... 4-246

 4.13.7 Historic and Cultural Resources ..................................................... 4-247

 4.13.8 Socioeconomics ............................................................................. 4-247

 4.13.9 Human Health ................................................................................. 4-248

 4.13.10 Environmental Justice .................................................................... 4-248

 4.13.11 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention ............................... 4-248

 4.13.12 Global Climate Change .................................................................. 4-249

 4.14 Resource Commitments Associated with the Proposed Action ...................... 4-249

 4.14.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts ................................ 4-249

 4.14.2 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and 

 Long-Term Productivity .................................................................. 4-251

 4.14.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............... 4-252

 4.15 References ..................................................................................................... 4-254

5 LIST OF PREPARES ................................................................................................ 5-1 

6 DISTRIBUTION LIST ................................................................................................ 6-1 

7 GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 7-1 
Contents 

 xiii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

APPENDIX A COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .......... A-1 

APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND FINDINGS IN 

 THIS GEIS REVISION TO THE ISSUES AND FINDINGS IN TABLE 

 B-1 OF 10 CFR PART 51 ........................................................................ B-1 

APPENDIX C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGS 

OF DOMESTIC NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ........................................ C-1

APPENDIX D TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR GEIS ANALYSES .................................... D-1 

APPENDIX E ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS .............. E-1 

APPENDIX F LAWS, REGUATIONS, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS ....................... F-1 

 xv NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Figures

3.1-1 Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Plants in the United States ................. 3-5 

3.1-2 Pressurized Water Reactor .............................................................................. 3-11 

3.1-3 Boiling Water Reactor ...................................................................................... 3-12 

3.1-4 Schematic Diagrams of Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Systems ...................... 3-16 

3.3-1 Distribution of Tornado Strikes with Intensities of F2 or More over the 

 Contiguous United States by One Degree of Latitude and Longitude 

 Boxes ............................................................................................................... 3-33 

3.3-2 Expected Maximum Tornado Wind Speed with a Probability of One in 

 100,000 of Occurring over the Contiguous United States by Two Degrees 

 of Latitude and Longitude Boxes ..................................................................... 3-34 

3.3-3 Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated 

 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, as of 

 August 30, 2011............................................................................................... 3-38 

3.3-4 Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated PM10 

 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 ..................... 3-39 

3.3-5 Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated PM2.5 

 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 ..................... 3-40 

3.3-6 Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated SO2 

 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 ..................... 3-41 

3.3-7 Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated NO2 

 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 ..................... 3-42 

3.3-8 Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated 

 CO Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 ............... 3-43 

3.3-9 Locations of Operating Nuclear Plants Relative to EPA-Designated 

 Pb Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, as of August 30, 2011 ................ 3-44 
Figures 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xvi 

3.9-1 Average, Median, and Extreme Values of the Annual Collective Dose per 

 Reactor from 1992 to 2005 .............................................................................. 3-107 

3.9-2 Collective Dose Distribution for All Commercial U.S. Reactors by Dose 

 Range for 2001 through 2005 .......................................................................... 3-120 

3.11-1 Typical Dry Cask Storage Systems ................................................................. 3-156 

3.11-2 Locations of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations Licensed 

 by the NRC ...................................................................................................... 3-157 

D.2-1 Average Annual Maximum Temperatures over the Continental 

 United States ................................................................................................... D-3

D.2-2 Average Annual Minimum Temperatures over the Continental 

 United States ................................................................................................... D-4

D.2-3 Average Annual Precipitation over the Continental United States ................... D-5

D.2-4 Percent of Average Monthly Precipitation over the Past 5 Years vs. the 

 Past 30 Years .................................................................................................. D-6

D.5-1 Level I Ecoregions of the United States ........................................................... D-14

D.10-1 Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Coal Power Plant with 

 GE Gasifier without CO2 Capture .......................................................................... D-45

D.10-2 IGCC Coal Power Plant with GE Gasifier with CO2 Capture ........................... D-46

D.10-3 IGCC Coal Power Plant with Shell Gasifier without CO2 Capture ................... D-47

D.10-4 IGCC Coal Power Plant with Shell Gasifier with CO2 Capture ........................ D-48

D.10-5 IGCC Coal Power Plant with Conoco-Phillips Gasifier without CO2 

 Capture ............................................................................................................ D-49

D.10-6 IGCC Coal Power Plant with Conoco-Phillips Gasifier with CO2 Capture ....... D-50

D.10-7 Subcritical Pulverized Coal Power Plant without CO2 Capture ........................ D-51

D.10-8 Subcritical Pulverized Coal Power Plant with CO2 Capture ............................. D-52 
Figures 

 xvii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

D.10-9 Supercritical Pulverized Coal Power Plant without CO2 Capture .................... D-53

D.10-10 Supercritical Pulverized Coal Power Plant with CO2 Capture ......................... D-54

D.10-11 Natural Gas IGCC Power Plant without CO2 Capture ..................................... D-55

D.10-12 Natural Gas IGCC Power Plant with CO2 Capture .......................................... D-56

D.10-13 Geothermal Hydrothermal Flashed Steam Power Plant Schematic ................ D-57

D.10-14 Geothermal Hydrothermal Binary Power Plant Schematic .............................. D-58

D.10-15 Geothermal Hot Dry Rock Power Plant Schematic ......................................... D-59

D.10-16 Geothermal Resources in the 48 Contiguous United States ........................... D-60

D.10-17 Wind Resources in Onshore and Offshore Areas of the 48 Contiguous 

 United States ................................................................................................... D-61

D.10-18 Biomass Resources in the 48 Contiguous United States ................................ D-62

D.10-19 Direct-Fire Biomass Power Plant Schematic ................................................... D-63

D.10-20 Biomass-Coal Co-Fire Power Plant Schematic ............................................... D-64

D.10-21 Biomass Gasification Power Plant Schematic ................................................. D-65

D.10-22 Landfills Currently Enrolled in and Candidate Landfills for Landfill 

 Gas-to-Energy Programs ................................................................................. D-66

D.10-23 Solar Thermal Power Trough Power Plant Schematic .................................... D-67

D.10-24 Solar Photovoltaic Fixed Flat Plate Power Plant Schematic ............................ D-68

D.10-25 Solar Photovoltaic Flat Plate with Concentrating Mirror Power Plant 

 Schematic ........................................................................................................ D-68

D.10-26 Solar Radiation Intensity in the 48 Contiguous United States ......................... D-69 

 xix NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Tables 

2.1-1 Summary of Impacts Associated with License Renewal under the 

 Proposed Action .............................................................................................. 2-6 

2.4-1 Environmental Impacts of Construction under the Proposed Action 

 and Alternatives ............................................................................................... 2-34 

2.4-2 Environmental Impacts of Operations under the Proposed Action 

 and Alternatives ............................................................................................... 2-35 

2.4-3 Impacts of Postulated Accidents under the Proposed Action and 

 Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 2-36 

2.4-4 Impacts of Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and 

 Decommissioning under the Proposed Action and Alternatives ...................... 2-37 

2.4-5 Impacts of the Fuel Cycle under the Proposed Action and Alternatives .......... 2-38 

3.1-1 Characteristics of Operating U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants ............ 3-6 

3.1-2 Types of Cooling Systems Used at U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power 

 Plants ............................................................................................................... 3-13 

3.2-1 Land Cover within a 5-Mile Radius of U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power 

 Plants ............................................................................................................... 3-28 

3.3-1 Fujita Tornado Intensity Scale ......................................................................... 3-32 

3.3-2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................................... 3-37 

3.5-1 Overall Condenser Cooling Water Flow Rate and Consumptive Water 

 Loss Rate per 1,000 MWe ............................................................................... 3-55 

3.6-1 Factors That Influence the Impacts of Nuclear Power Plant Operation on 

 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................... 3-76 

3.6-2 Number of Endangered Species Act-Listed Species That Could Occur 

 near Operating Nuclear Power Plants ............................................................. 3-78 
Tables 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xx 

3.6-3 Operating Nuclear Power Plants for Which Essential Fish Habitat May 

 Be a Consideration .......................................................................................... 3-82 

3.8-1 State Employment, Expenditures, and Tax Revenues at 11 Nuclear 

 Plants from 2003 through 2006 ....................................................................... 3-87 

3.8-2 Plant and Regional Employment and Earnings in Rural Locations ................. 3-89 

3.8-3 Local Economic Impacts of Plant Operations in Rural Locations .................... 3-90 

3.8-4 State Economic Impacts of Plant Operations in Rural Locations .................... 3-90 

3.8-5 Plant and Regional Employment and Earnings in Semi-Urban Locations ....... 3-92 

3.8-6 Local Economic Impacts of Plant Operations in Semi-Urban Locations .......... 3-92 

3.8-7 State Economic Impacts of Plant Operations in Semi-Urban Locations .......... 3-93 

3.8-8 Population Classification of Regions around Selected Nuclear Power 

 Plants ............................................................................................................... 3-94 

3.8-9 State and Local Tax Revenues Generated at Eight Nuclear Power 

 Plants ............................................................................................................... 3-96 

3.9-1 Occupational Dose Limits for Adults Established by 10 CFR Part 20 ............. 3-98 

3.9-2 Design Objectives and Annual Standards on Doses to the General 

 Public from Nuclear Power Plants ................................................................... 3-100 

3.9-3 Occupational Whole-Body Dose Data at U.S. Commercial Nuclear 

 Power Plants.................................................................................................... 3-102 

3.9-4 Annual Average Occupational Dose for U.S. Commercial Nuclear 

 Power Plants.................................................................................................... 3-103 

3.9-5 Collective and Individual Worker Doses at BWRs from 2003 through 2005 .... 3-104 

3.9-6 Collective and Individual Worker Doses at PWRs from 2003 through 2005 .... 3-105 

3.9-7 Annual Collective Dose and Annual Occupational Dose for Different 

 Commercial Nuclear Power Plants from 1993 through 2005 ........................... 3-108 
Tables 

 xxi NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

3.9-8 Annual Collective Dose for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants from 

 1993 through 2005 .......................................................................................... 3-111 

3.9-9 Annual Average Measurable Occupational Doses at Commercial 

 Nuclear Power Plant Sites from 1993 through 2005 ........................................ 3-114 

3.9-10 Annual Collective Occupational Dose per Plant for Commercial Nuclear 

 Power Plants.................................................................................................... 3-117 

3.9-11 Annual Individual Occupational Dose for Commercial Nuclear Power 

 Plants ............................................................................................................... 3-118 

3.9-12 Number of Workers at BWRs and PWRs Who Received Whole-Body 

 Doses within Specified Ranges during 2005 ................................................... 3-119 

3.9-13 Collective and Average CEDE for Commercial U.S. Nuclear Power Plant 

 Sites in 2005 .................................................................................................... 3-121 

3.9-14 Doses from Gaseous Effluent Releases for 2004 through 2006 ..................... 3-126 

3.9-15 Dose from Liquid Effluent Releases for 2004 through 2006 ............................ 3-128 

3.9-16 Total Effective Dose Equivalent to the Maximally Exposed Individual 

 for 2004 through 2006 ..................................................................................... 3-129 

3.9-17 Average Annual Effective Dose Equivalent of Ionizing Radiation to a 

 Member of the U.S. Population for 2006 ......................................................... 3-130 

3.9-18 Inadvertent Releases of Radioactive Liquids at Nuclear Power Plants ........... 3-131 

3.9-19 Dose from Inadvertent Releases of Radioactive Liquids at Nuclear Power 

 Plants ............................................................................................................... 3-133 

3.9-20 Nominal Probability Coefficients Used in ICRP ............................................... 3-135 

3.9-21 Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries by Industry Sector 

 in 2005 ............................................................................................................. 3-146 

3.9-22 Employment and Incidence Rate of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and 

 Illnesses in Different Utilities in 2005 ............................................................... 3-147 
Tables 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxii 

3.9-23 Number and Rate of Fatal Occupational Injuries for Selected Occupations 

 in 2005 ............................................................................................................. 3-147 

3.11-1 Solid Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shipped Offsite per Reactor from 

 10 Power Plant Sites in 2006 ........................................................................... 3-155 

4.3-1 Projected Air Quality Impacts for Selected Power Production 

 Technologies Burning Various Ranks of Coal ................................................. 4-22

4.3-2 Performance and Cost Data for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Power Plants That Are 

 Likely Alternatives to Retired Nuclear Reactors .............................................. 4-24

4.5-1 Raw Water Usage Estimates for Fossil Fuel Electric Power Technologies ..... 4-55

4.6-1 Estimated Radiation Dose Rates to Terrestrial Ecological Receptors 

 from Radionuclides Measured in Water, Sediment, and Soils at 

 U.S. Nuclear Power Plants .............................................................................. 4-64

4.6-2 Contaminants Evaluated in Cooling Systems at Selected Power Plants ......... 4-66

4.6-3 Estimated Annual Bird Collision Mortality in the United States ........................ 4-71

4.6-4 Fish Species Commonly Impinged or Entrained at Power Plants ................... 4-86

4.6-5 Estimated Radiation Dose Rates to Aquatic Animals from Radionuclides 

 Measured in Water and Sediments at U.S. Nuclear Power Plants .................. 4-107

4.9-1 Additional Collective Occupational Dose for Different Actions under 

 Typical and Conservative Scenarios during the License Renewal Term ......... 4-137

4.9-2 Radioactive Effluent Releases for Three Nuclear Power Plants That 

 Recently Replaced Steam Generators ............................................................ 4-142

4.9-3 Dose to the Maximally Exposed Individual from Gaseous and Liquid 

 Effluent Releases for Three Nuclear Power Plants That Recently Replaced 

 Steam Generators ........................................................................................... 4-143

4.9-4 Magnetic Fields at Different Distances from Household Appliances ............... 4-155

4.9-5 Summary of Issues Covered in Appendix E .................................................... 4-161 
Tables 

 xxiii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

4.12-1 Table S-3 Taken from 10 CFR 51.51 on Uranium Fuel Cycle 

 Environmental Data ......................................................................................... 4-186

4.12-2 Table S-4 Taken from 10 CFR 51.52 on the Environmental Impact of 

 Transporting Fuel and Waste to and from One Light-Water-Cooled 

 Nuclear Power Reactor .................................................................................... 4-191

4.12-3 Population Doses from Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities Normalized to 

 One Reference Reactor Year .......................................................................... 4-195 

4.12-4 Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Coal ................................ 4-232

4.12-5 Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to Natural Gas ..................... 4-233

4.12-6 Nuclear Greenhouse Gas Emissions Compared to 

 Renewable Energy Sources ............................................................................ 4-234

A-1 Individuals Providing Comments on the Draft Revised GEIS .......................... A-4

B-1 Environmental Issues and Findings in This GEIS Revision Compared 

 to the Issues and Findings in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 ............................ B-2

D.2-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................................... D-8

D.5-1 Level I Ecoregions and Corresponding Level III Ecoregions That Occur 

 in the Vicinity of U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants ................................ D-12 

D.5-2 Ecoregions in the Vicinity of Operating Nuclear Power Plants ........................ D-15 

D.5-3 Percent of Area Occupied by Wetland and Deepwater Habitats Within 

 5 Miles of Operating Nuclear Power Plants ..................................................... D-19 

D.7-1 Definition of Local Areas and Regions at 11 Nuclear Plants ........................... D-25 

D.8-1 Quality Factors and Absorbed Dose Equivalencies ......................................... D-32 

D.8-2 Organ Dose Weighting Factors ....................................................................... D-33 

D.8-3 Nominal Probability Coefficients for Stochastic Effects ................................... D-34 
Tables 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxiv 

D.8-4 Estimates of Lifetime Attributable Risk of Incidence and Mortality for All 

 Solid Cancers and for Leukemia in the BEIR VII Report ................................. D-36 

D.8-5 Comparison of BEIR VII Lifetime Cancer Mortality Estimates with Those 

 from Other Reports .......................................................................................... D-37

E-1 PWR Internal Event Comparison ..................................................................... E-12

E-2 BWR Internal Event Comparison ..................................................................... E-13

E-3 Comparisons with Other Risk Information ....................................................... E-14 

E-4 PWR Internal, Fire, and Seismic Event CDF Comparison ............................... E-18

E-5 BWR Internal, Fire, and Seismic Event CDF Comparison ............................... E-19

E-6 NUREG-1150 and NUREG/CR-5305 Fire and Seismic CDFs ........................ E-19

E-7 Catawba and McGuire Results for Internal and External Events ..................... E-21

E-8 Impacts of Accidents Caused by Fire Events .................................................. E-22

E-9 Impacts of Accidents Caused by Fire Events .................................................. E-22

E-10 Impacts of Accidents Caused by Fire Events .................................................. E-23

E-11 Impacts of Accidents Caused by Seismic Events ............................................ E-23

E-12 NUREG-0773 and NUREG/CR-6295 Large Source Terms ............................ E-25

E-13 NUREG-0773 and NUREG/CR-6295 Large Source Terms ............................ E-26

E-14 Changes in LERF for Extended Power Uprates >10 Percent .......................... E-28

E-15 LOCA Consequences as a Function of Fuel Burnup ....................................... E-30 

E-16 Airborne Impacts of Low Power and Shutdown Accidents .............................. E-33

E-17 Airborne Impacts of Low Power and Shutdown Accidents .............................. E-33

E-18 Impacts of Accidents at SFPs from NUREG-1738 .......................................... E-37 
Tables 

 xxv NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

E-19 Summary of Conclusions ................................................................................. E-47

F.6-1 State Environmental Requirements ................................................................. F-16 

F.6-2 Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements ........................... F-19 

 xxvii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Chemical Nomenclature 

ABWR advanced boiling water reactor 

AC alternating current 

ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

ACS American Cancer Society 

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 

AEA Atomic Energy Act 

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 

AGNIR Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation 

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable 

ALI annual limit on intake 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

ALWR advanced light water reactor 

ASLB Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

AWEA American Wind Energy Association 

BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (National Research Council 

Committee) 

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

BLS U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

BMPs best management practices 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

BWR boiling water reactor 

BOEMRE Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CADHS California Department of Health Services 

CCS carbon capture and storage 

CCW coal combustion waste 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

CDF core damage frequency 

CdTe cadmium telluride 

CEC California Energy Commission 

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxviii 

CEG Constellation Energy Group 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CF capacity factor 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGEC California Geothermal Energy Collaborative 

CH4 methane 

CHP combined heat and power 

CIGS copper-indium-gallium-selenide 

CLB current licensing basis 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

COL combined operating license 

CSP concentrating solar power 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DC direct current 

DDREF dose and dose rate effectiveness factor 

DNC Dominion Nuclear Connecticut 

DNI direct normal insolation 

DOD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

DSM demand-side management 

EA environmental assessment 

EAB exclusion area boundary 

ECRR European Committee on Radiation Risk 

EEI Edison Electric Institute 

EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone 

EF enhanced Fujita (scale) 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EGS engineered geothermal systems 

EI exposure index 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIML Environmental Incorporated Midwest Laboratory 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EJ environmental justice 

ELF-EMF extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field 
Notation 

 xxix NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

EMF electromagnetic field 

EMF-RAPID Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information 

Dissemination (Program) 

EP emergency planning 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005 

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

ER environmental report 

ERCOT Electric Reliability Council of Texas 

ERO Electric Reliability Organization 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESP early site permit 

Exelon Exelon Generating Company LLC 

F Fujita (scale) 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

FDOH Florida Department of Health 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FES final environmental statement 

FGD flue gas desulfurization 

FICN Federal Interagency Committee on Noise 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

FPL Florida Power & Light Company 

FR Federal Register 

FRCC Florida Reliability Coordinating Council 

FSAR Final Safety Analysis Report 

FS U.S. Forest Service 

GALL Generic Aging Lessons Learned 

GAO U.S. General Accounting Office (now U.S. Government Accountability 

Office) 

GCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

GDC General Design Criterion 

GEA Geothermal Energy Association 

GEIS generic environmental impact statement 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GIS geographic information system 

GNEP Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxx 

GSMFC Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission 

GTCC greater than Class C 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HAPC habitat area of particular concern 

HAWT horizontal axis wind turbine 

HCCP Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention 

HDR hot dry rock 

HFC hydrofluorocarbon 

HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HHV higher heating value 

HLW high-level (radioactive) waste 

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer 

ICM Interim Compensatory Measure 

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection 

IDPH Illinois Department of Public Health 

IDNR Idaho Department of Natural Resources 

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers 

IGCC integrated gasification combined cycle 

IMP Indiana Michigan Power 

INIRC International Non-Ionizing Radiation Commission 

IPE Individual Plant Examination 

IPEEE Individual Plant Examination of External Events 

IRPA International Radiation Protection Association 

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

ISI in-service inspection 

IWSA Integrated Waste Services Association 

LERF large early release frequency 

LET linear energy transfer 

LFG landfill gas 

LLAP Legionella-like amoebal pathogen 

LLD lower limit of detection 

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

LLW low-level (radioactive) waste 

LLRWPA Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act 

LLTF Lessons Learned Task Force 

LLWPAA Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act Amendments 
Notation 

 xxxi NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

LOA letter of authorization 

LOEL lowest observed effects level 

LWR light water reactor 

MACCS MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System 

MACT maximum achievable control technology 

MCAQD Maricopa County Air Quality Department 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MEI maximally exposed individual 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MMS Minerals Management Service 

MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

MSW municipal solid waste 

MTBE methyl tertiary butyl ether 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NaCl sodium chloride (salt) 

NAICS North American Industry Classification System 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NaNO3 sodium nitrate 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

National Register National Register of Historic Places 

NCDC National Climatic Data Center 

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements 

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

NESC National Electrical Safety Code 

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory 

NGCC natural gas combined cycle 

NGL natural gas liquids 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

(NH4)SO4 ammonium sulfate 

NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

NIH National Institutes of Health 

NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 

NMC Nuclear Management Company 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NO nitrogen oxide 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxxii 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NORM naturally occurring radioactive material 

NOS National Oceanic Service 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

NPCC Northeast Power Coordinating Council 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPP nuclear power plant 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

NRPB National Radiological Protection Board 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NWI National Waste Initiative; National Wetland Inventory 

NWPA National Waste Policy Act 

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

NYSDOL New York State Department of Labor 

O3 ozone 

OCS Outer Continental Shelf 

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual 

OPPD Omaha Public Power District 

OTA Office of Technology Assessment 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon 

PARS Publicly Available Record System 

Pb lead 

PC pulverized coal 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

PDR Public Document Room 

PEIS programmatic environmental impact statement 

PFC perfluorocarbon 

PI performance indicator 

PILOT payments in lieu of tax 

PM particulate matter 

PM2.5 particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm or less 

PM10 particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 μm or less 

POTW publicly owned treatment works 

PPE personal protective equipment 

PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

PSD prevention of significant deterioration 

PTC production tax credit 
Notation 

 xxxiii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1978 

PV photovoltaic 

PVC photovoltaic cell 

PWR pressurized water reactor 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

RD&D research, development, and demonstration 

RDF refuse-derived fuel 

REMP Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 

RER radiological effluent release 

RERR radiological effluent release report 

RES Renewable Energy Standard 

RFC Reliability First Corporation 

ROP Reactor Oversight Program 

ROW right-of-way 

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards 

RNA ribonucleic acid 

RRC Regional Reliability Council 

RRY reference reactor year 

SAAQS State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternative 

SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternative 

SCE Southern California Edison 

SCR selective catalytic reduction 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

SER safety evaluation report 

SFP spent fuel pool 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office or Officer 

SIP State implementation plan 

SMITTR surveillance, monitoring, inspection, testing, trending, and recordkeeping 

SNYPSC State of New York Public Service Commission 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOARCA state-of-the-art reactor consequence analysis 

SPAR standardized plant analysis risk 

SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

SPP Southwest Power Pool 

SRM Staff Requirements Memorandum 

SSCs systems, structures, and components 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxxiv 

Stat. Statutes at Large 

STG steam turbine generator 

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TEDE total effective dose equivalent 

TESS threatened and endangered species system 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

TLD thermoluminescence dosimeter 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSS total suspended solids 

TTU Texas Tech University 

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

TXU TXU Generation Company 

UCB upper confidence bound 

UCS Union of Concerned Scientists 

UF6 uranium hexafluoride 

UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

UO2 uranium dioxide 

U3O8 triuranium octaoxide 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USC United States Code 

USCB U.S. Census Bureau 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WCNOC Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation 

WCS Waste Control Specialists LLC 

WEC wave energy capture 

WGA Western Governors’ Association 

WHO World Health Organization 
Notation 

 xxxv NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Shortened Nuclear Power Plant Names Used in This Report 

Arkansas Arkansas Nuclear One 

Beaver Valley Beaver Valley Power Station 

Braidwood Braidwood Station 

Browns Ferry Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 

Brunswick Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 

Byron Byron Station 

Callaway Callaway Plant 

Calvert Cliffs Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 

Catawba Catawba Nuclear Station 

Clinton Clinton Power Station 

Columbia Columbia Generating Station 

Comanche Peak Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 

Cooper Cooper Nuclear Station 

Crystal River Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant 

Cook Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant 

Davis-Besse Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 

Diablo Canyon Diablo Canyon Power Plant 

Dresden Dresden Nuclear Power Station 

Arnold Duane Arnold Energy Center 

Farley Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant 

Fermi Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant 

FitzPatrick James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant 

Fort Calhoun Fort Calhoun Station 

Ginna R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant 

Grand Gulf Grand Gulf Nuclear Station 

Harris Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant 

Hatch Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant 

Hope Creek Hope Creek Generating Station 

Indian Point Indian Point Energy Center 

Kewaunee Kewaunee Power Station 

LaSalle LaSalle County Station 

Limerick Limerick Generating Station 

McGuire McGuire Nuclear Station 

Millstone Millstone Power Station 

Monticello Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 

Nine Mile Point Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station 

North Anna North Anna Power Station 

Oconee Oconee Nuclear Station 

Oyster Creek Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxxvi 

Palisades Palisades Nuclear Plant 

Palo Verde Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 

Peach Bottom Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station 

Perry Perry Nuclear Power Plant 

Pilgrim Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 

Point Beach Point Beach Nuclear Plant 

Prairie Island Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 

Quad Cities Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station 

River Bend River Bend Station 

Robinson H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant 

St. Lucie St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 

Salem Salem Nuclear Generating Station 

San Onofre San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 

Seabrook Seabrook Station 

Sequoyah Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 

South Texas South Texas Project Electric Generating Station 

Summer Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station 

Surry Surry Power Station 

Susquehanna Susquehanna Steam Electric Station 

Three Mile Island Three Mile Island, Unit 1 

Turkey Point Turkey Point Nuclear Plant 

Vermont Yankee Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 

Vogtle Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 

Waterford Waterford Steam Electric Station 

Watts Bar Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 

Wolf Creek Wolf Creek Generating Station 

Units of Measure

ac acre(s) 

bbl barrel(s) 

Btu British thermal unit(s) 

°C degree(s) Celsius 

cm centimeter(s) 

d day(s) 

dB decibel(s) 
Notation 

 xxxvii NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

°F degree(s) Fahrenheit 

ft foot (feet) 

ft2

 square foot (feet) 

ft3

 cubic foot (feet) 

gal gallon(s) 

gpd gallon(s) per day 

gpm gallon(s) per minute 

Gy gray(s) 

ha hectare(s) 

hr hour(s) 

Hz hertz 

in. inch(es) 

kg kilogram(s) 

km kilometer(s) 

kV kilovolt(s) 

kW kilowatt(s) 

kWh kilowatt-hour(s) 

L liter(s) 

lb pound(s) 

m meter(s) 

m2

 square meter(s) 

m3

 cubic meter(s) 

mA milliampere(s) 

mg milligram(s) 

mG milligauss 

mGy milligray(s) 

MHz megahertz 

mi mile(s) 

min minute(s) 

mL milliliter(s) 

MMBtu million Btu 

MPa megapascal(s) 

mph mile(s) per hour 

mrad milliard(s) 

mrem millirem(s) 
Notation 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 xxxviii 

mSv millisievert(s) 

mT milliTesla(s) 

MT metric tonne(s) 

MTHM metric tonne(s) of heavy metal 

MTU metric tonne(s) of uranium 

MW megawatt(s) 

MWe or 

MW(e) megawatt(s) electric 

MW(t) megawatt(s) thermal 

MWh megawatt-hour(s) 

pCi picocurie(s) 

ppm part(s) per million 

ppmv parts per million by volume 

ppt part(s) per thousand 

psi pound(s) per square inch 

rad radian 

rem roentgen-equivalent-man 

s second(s) 

scf standard cubic foot (feet) 

Sv sievert(s) 

T tesla(s) 

TPY ton(s) per year 

V volt(s) 

yr year(s) 

μCi microcurie(s) 

μGy microgray(s) 

μm micrometer(s) 

μT microtesla(s) 
Notation 

 xxxix NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Conversion Table 

Multiply By To Obtain 

To Convert English to Metric Equivalents

acres 0.4047 hectares (ha) 

cubic feet (ft3

) 0.02832 cubic meters (m3) 

cubic yards (yd3

) 0.7646 cubic meters (m3) 

curies (Ci) 3.7  1010 becquerels (Bq) 

degrees Fahrenheit (F) -32 0.5555 degrees Celsius (C) 

feet (ft) 0.3048 meters (m) 

gallons (gal) 3.785 liters (L) 

gallons (gal) 0.003785 cubic meters (m3

) 

inches (in.) 2.540 centimeters (cm) 

miles (mi) 1.609 kilometers (km) 

pounds (lb) 0.4536 kilograms (kg) 

rads 0.01 grays (Gy) 

rems 0.01 sieverts (Sv) 

short tons (tons) 907.2 kilograms (kg) 

short tons (tons) 0.9072 metric tons (t) 

square feet (ft2

) 0.09290 square meters (m2) 

square yards (yd2

) 0.8361 square meters (m2) 

square miles (mi2

) 2.590 square kilometers (km2) 

yards (yd) 0.9144 meters (m) 

 

To Convert Metric to English Equivalents

becquerels (Bq) 2.7  10-11 curies (Ci) 

centimeters (cm) 0.3937 inches (in.) 

cubic meters (m3

) 35.31 cubic feet (ft3) 

cubic meters (m3

) 1.308 cubic yards (yd3) 

cubic meters (m3

) 264.2 gallons (gal) 

degrees Celsius (C) +17.78 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (F) 

grays (Gy) 100 rads 

hectares (ha) 2.471 acres 

kilograms (kg) 2.205 pounds (lb) 

kilograms (kg) 0.001102 short tons (tons) 

kilometers (km) 0.6214 miles (mi) 

liters (L) 0.2642 gallons (gal) 

meters (m) 3.281 feet (ft) 

meters (m) 1.094 yards (yd) 

metric tons (t) 1.102 short tons (tons) 

sieverts (Sv) 100 rems 

square kilometers (km2

) 0.3861 square miles (mi2) 

square meters (m2

) 10.76 square feet (ft2) 

square meters (m2

) 1.196 square yards (yd2) 

Appendix B 

Comparison of Environmental Issues and Findings in 

This GEIS Revision to the Issues and Findings in 

Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 (1996 Version) 

 

 B-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Appendix B 

Comparison of Environmental Issues and Findings in 

This GEIS Revision to the Issues and Findings in 

Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 (1996 Version) 

This appendix provides a comparison of the issues and findings presented in this GEIS revision 

and those issues and findings presented in the 1996 version of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51. 

For the most part, the 1996 version of Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 reflected the findings of the 

1996 GEIS, although a few issues were modified or added after publication of the GEIS 

(e.g., environmental justice). 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-2 Table B-1. Environmental Issues and Findings in This GEIS Revision Compared to the Issues and Findings in Table B-1 of 10 CFR Part 51 New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Land Use Onsite land use Small (Category 1). Changes in onsite land use from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would be a small fraction of the nuclear power plant site and would involve only land that is controlled by the licensee. Onsite land use Small (Category 1). Projected onsite land use changes required during refurbishment and the renewal period would be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and would involve land that is controlled by the applicant. Offsite land use Small (Category 1). Offsite land use would not be affected by continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Offsite land use (refurbishment) Small or moderate (Category 2). Impacts may be of moderate significance at plants in low population areas.

Offsite land use (license renewal term)

Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Significant changes in land use may be associated with population and tax revenue changes resulting from license renewal.

Offsite land use in transmission line rights-of-way (ROWs) 

Small (Category 1). Use of transmission line ROWs from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would continue with no change in land use restrictions. 

Power line ROW Small (Category 1). Ongoing use 

of power line ROWs would continue with no change in restrictions. The effects of these restrictions are of small significance.
Appendix B

 B-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Visual Resources Aesthetic impacts Small (Category 1). No important changes to the visual appearance of plant structures or transmission lines are expected from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Aesthetic impacts (refurbishment) Small (Category 1). No significant impacts are expected during refurbishment. Aesthetic impacts (license renewal term) Small (Category 1). No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term. Aesthetic impacts of transmission lines (license renewal term) Small (Category 1). No significant impacts are expected during the license renewal term. Air Quality Air quality impacts (all plants) Small (Category 1). 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 Air quality during refurbishment (nonattainment and maintenance areas) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Air quality impacts from plant refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small. However, vehicle exhaust emissions could be cause for concern at locations in or near nonattainment or maintenance areas. The significance of the potential impact cannot be determined without considering the compliance status of each site and the numbers of workers expected to be employed during the outage. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-4 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Air Quality (cont.) Air quality (all plants) (cont.) 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 Small (Category 1). Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is 

insignificant and does not contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases. 

 Air quality effects of 

transmission lines 

Small (Category 1). Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is insignificant and does not contribute measurably to ambient levels of these gases. 

Noise 

Noise impacts Small (Category 1). Noise levels 

would remain below regulatory guidelines for offsite receptors during continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. 

 Noise Small (Category 1). Noise has 

not been found to be a problem at operating plants and is not expected to be a problem at any plant during the license renewal term. 
Appendix B

 B-5 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Geologic Environment Geology and soils Small (Category 1). 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. Not addressed Not applicable Surface Water Resources Surface water use and quality (non-cooling system impacts) Small (Category 1). Impacts are expected to be small if best management practices are employed to control soil erosion and spills. Surface water use associated with continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal would not increase significantly or would be reduced if refurbishment occurs during a plant outage. Impacts of refurbishment on surface water quality (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Impacts are expected to be negligible during refurbishment because best management practices are expected to be employed to control soil erosion and spills. Impacts of refurbishment on surface water use (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Water use during refurbishment will not increase appreciably or will be reduced during plant outage. Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures Small (Category 1). Altered current patterns would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. Altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Altered current patterns 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. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-6 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Surface Water Resources (cont.) Altered salinity gradients Small (Category 1). 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 salinity gradients (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Salinity gradients 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. Altered thermal stratification of lakes Small (Category 1). Effects on thermal stratification would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. Altered thermal stratification of lakes (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Generally, lake stratification has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Scouring caused by discharged 

cooling water 

Small (Category 1). Scouring effects would be limited to the area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

 Scouring caused by 

discharged cooling water (for all plants) 

Small (Category 1). Scouring has not been found to be a problem at most operating nuclear power plants and has caused only localized effects at a few plants. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Discharge of metals in cooling system effluent 

Small (Category 1). Discharges of metals have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily mitigated at other plants. Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. 

 Discharge of other metals in 

waste water (for all plants) 

Small (Category 1). These discharges 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. They are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 
Appendix B

 B-7 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Surface Water Resources (cont.) Discharge of biocides, sanitary wastes, and minor chemical spills Small (Category 1). The effects of these discharges are regulated by Federal and State environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored and controlled as part of the NPDES permit process. These impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. Discharge of chlorine or other biocides (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Effects are not a concern among regulatory and resource agencies, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Discharge of sanitary wastes and minor chemical spills (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Effects are readily controlled through NPDES permit rules and periodic modifications, if needed, and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Surface water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) Small (Category 1). These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-through heat dissipation systems. Water use conflicts (plants with once-through cooling systems) Small (Category 1). These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with once-through heat dissipation systems. Surface water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river) Small or moderate (Category 2). Impacts could be of small or moderate significance, depending on makeup water requirements, water availability, and competing water demands. Water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a small river with low flow) Small or moderate (Category 2). The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with cooling ponds and at plants with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and riparian communities near these plants could be of moderate significance in some situations. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-8 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Surface Water Resources (cont.) Effects of dredging on surface water quality Small (Category 1). Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge shipping has not been found to be a problem for surface water quality. Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly, from other State or local agencies. Not addressed Not applicable Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity Small (Category 1). These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem. Temperature effects on sediment transport capacity (for all plants) Small (Category 1). These effects have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license 

renewal term. 

Groundwater Resources 

Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system impacts) 

Small (Category 1). Extensive 

dewatering is not anticipated from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Industrial practices involving the use of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals, and/or the use of wastewater ponds or lagoons have the potential to contaminate site groundwater, soil, and subsoil. Contamination is subject to State or Environmental Protection Agency regulated cleanup and monitoring programs. The application of best 

 Impacts of refurbishment on 

groundwater use and quality 

Small (Category 1). Extensive dewatering during the original construction on some sites will not be repeated during refurbishment on any sites. Any plant wastes produced during refurbishment will be handled in the same manner as in current operating practices and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 
Appendix B

 B-9 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Groundwater Resources (cont.) Groundwater contamination and use (non-cooling system impacts) (cont.) 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]) Small (Category 1). Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts. Groundwater use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use <100 gpm) Small (Category 1). Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts. Groundwater use conflicts (plants that withdraw more than100 gallons per minute [gpm]) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Plants that withdraw more than 100 gpm could cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users. Groundwater use conflicts (potable and service water; plants that use >100 gpm) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Plants that use more than 100 gpm may cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby groundwater users. Groundwater use conflicts (Ranney wells) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Ranney wells can result in potential groundwater depression beyond the site boundary. Impacts of large groundwater withdrawal for cooling tower makeup at nuclear power plants using Ranney wells must be evaluated at the time of application for license renewal. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-10 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Groundwater Resources (cont.) Groundwater use conflicts (plants with closed-cycle cooling systems that withdraw makeup water from a river) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Water use conflicts could result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-flow conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge. The significance of impacts would depend on makeup water requirements, water availability, and competing water demands. Groundwater use conflicts (plants using cooling towers withdrawing makeup water from a small river) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Water use conflicts may result from surface water withdrawals from small water bodies during low flow conditions which may affect aquifer recharge, especially if other groundwater or upstream surface water users come on line before the time of license renewal. Groundwater quality degradation resulting from water withdrawals Small (Category 1). Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear power plants would not contribute significantly to groundwater quality 

degradation. 

 Groundwater quality 

degradation (Ranney wells) 

Small (Category 1). Groundwater quality at river sites may be degraded by induced infiltration of poor-quality river water into an aquifer that supplies large quantities of reactor cooling water. However, the lower quality infiltrating water would not preclude the current uses of groundwater and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

 Groundwater quality 

degradation (saltwater intrusion) 

Small (Category 1). Nuclear power plants do not contribute significantly to saltwater intrusion. 
Appendix B

 B-11 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Groundwater Resources (cont.) Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds in salt marshes) Small (Category 1). Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could degrade groundwater quality. However, groundwater in salt marshes is naturally brackish and thus, not potable. Consequently, the human use of such groundwater is limited to industrial purposes. Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds in salt marshes) Small (Category 1). Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds may degrade groundwater quality. Because water in salt marshes is brackish, this is not a concern for plants located in salt marshes. Groundwater quality degradation (plants with cooling ponds at inland sites) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). 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. Groundwater quality degradation (cooling ponds at inland sites) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Sites with closed- cycle cooling ponds may degrade groundwater quality. For plants located inland, the quality of the groundwater in the vicinity of the ponds must be shown to be adequate to allow continuation of current uses. Radionuclides released to groundwater Small or moderate (Category 2). Leaks of radioactive liquids from plant components and pipes have occurred at numerous plants. Groundwater protection programs have been established at all operating nuclear power plants to minimize the potential impact from any inadvertent releases. The magnitude of impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics. Not addressed Not applicable 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-12 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Terrestrial Resources Effects on terrestrial resources (non-cooling system impacts) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). 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. Refurbishment impacts Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Refurbishment impacts are insignificant if no loss of important plant and animal habitat occurs. However, it cannot be known whether important plant and animal communities may be affected until the specific proposal is presented with the license renewal application. Exposure of terrestrial organisms 

to radionuclides 

Small (Category 1). 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. 

 Not addressed Not applicable 
Appendix B

 B-13 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Terrestrial Resources (cont.) Cooling system impacts on terrestrial resources (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds) Small (Category 1). No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or animals have been reported as a result of increased water temperatures, fogging, humidity, or reduced habitat quality. Due to the low concentrations of contaminants in cooling system effluents, uptake and accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of wildlife exposed to the contaminated water or aquatic food sources are not expected to be significant issues. Cooling pond impacts on terrestrial resources Small (Category 1). Impacts of cooling ponds on terrestrial ecological resources are considered to be of small significance at all sites. Cooling tower impacts on vegetation (plants with cooling towers) Small (Category 1). 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. Cooling tower impacts on crops and ornamental vegetation Small (Category 1). Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with cooling tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Cooling tower impacts on native plants Small (Category 1). Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased humidity associated with cooling tower operation have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-14 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Terrestrial Resources (cont.) Bird collisions with plant structures and transmission lines Small (Category 1). 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. Bird collisions with cooling towers Small (Category 1). These collisions have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Bird collisions with power lines Small (Category 1). Impacts are expected to be of small significance at all sites. Water use conflicts with terrestrial resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river) Small or moderate (Category 2). Impacts on terrestrial resources in riparian communities affected by water use conflicts could be of moderate significance. Water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a small river with low flow) Small or moderate (Category 2). The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with cooling ponds and at plants with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and 

riparian communities near these plants could be of moderate significance in some situations. 

Transmission line ROW management impacts on terrestrial resources 

Small (Category 1). Continued ROW management during the license renewal term is expected to keep terrestrial communities in their current condition. Application of best management practices would reduce the potential for impacts. 

 Power line ROW 

management (cutting and herbicide application) 

Small (Category 1). The impacts of ROW maintenance on wildlife are expected to be of small significance at all sites. 

 Floodplains and wetland on 

power line ROW 

Small (Category 1). Periodic vegetation control is necessary in forested wetlands underneath power lines and can be achieved with minimal damage to the wetland. No significant impact is expected at any nuclear power plant during the license renewal term. 
Appendix B

 B-15 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Terrestrial Resources (cont.) Electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock) Small (Category 1). No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Impacts of electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna (plants, agricultural crops, honeybees, wildlife, livestock) Small (Category 1). No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on terrestrial flora and fauna have been identified. Such effects are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Aquatic Resources Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). The impacts of impingement and entrainment are small at many plants but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems, depending on cooling system withdrawal rates and volumes and the aquatic resources at the site. Impingement of fish and shellfish (for plants with once- through and cooling-pond heat dissipation systems) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). The impacts of impingement are small at many plants but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems. Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages (for plants with once-through and cooling-pond heat dissipation systems) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). The impacts of entrainment are small at many plants but may be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and cooling-pond cooling systems. Further, ongoing efforts in the vicinity of these plants to restore fish populations may increase the numbers of fish susceptible to intake effects during the license renewal period, such that entrainment studies conducted in support of the original license may no longer be valid. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-16 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Aquatic Resources (cont.) Impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers) Small (Category 1). Impingement and entrainment rates are lower at plants that use closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers because the rates and volumes of water withdrawal needed for makeup are minimized. Impingement of fish and shellfish (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems) Small (Category 1). The impingement has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages (for plants with cooling-tower- based heat dissipation systems) Small (Category 1). Entrainment of fish has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton (all plants) 

Small (Category 1). Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

 Entrainment of phytoplankton 

and zooplankton (for all plants) 

Small (Category 1). Entrainment of phytoplankton and zooplankton has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with oncethrough cooling systems or cooling ponds) 

Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Most of the effects 

associated with thermal discharges are localized and are not expected to affect overall stability of populations or resources. The magnitude of impacts, however, would depend on site-specific thermal plume characteristics and the nature of aquatic resources in the area. 

 Heat shock (for plants with 

once-through and coolingpond heat dissipation systems) 

Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Because of continuing concerns about heat shock and the possible need to modify thermal discharges in response to changing environmental conditions, the impacts may be of moderate or large significance at some plants. 
Appendix B

 B-17 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Aquatic Resources (cont.) Thermal impacts on aquatic organisms (plants with cooling towers) Small (Category 1). Thermal effects associated with plants that use cooling towers are expected to be small because of the reduced amount of heated discharge. Heat shock (for plants with cooling-tower-based heat dissipation systems) Small (Category 1). Heat shock has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with this type of cooling system and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants) Small (Category 1). 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. Cold shock (for all plants) Small (Category 1). 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 during the license renewal term. Thermal plumes have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem. Thermal plume barrier to migrating fish (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Thermal plumes 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. Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to affect the larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms. Distribution of aquatic organisms (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Thermal discharge may have localized effects but is not expected to affect the larger geographical distribution of aquatic organisms. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-18 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Aquatic Resources (cont.) Infrequently reported thermal impacts (all plants) (cont.) 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. Premature emergence of aquatic insects (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Premature emergence has been found to be a localized effect at some operating nuclear power plants but has not been a problem and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 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. 

 Stimulation of nuisance 

organisms (e.g., shipworms) 

Small (Category 1). Stimulation of nuisance organisms has been satisfactorily mitigated at the single nuclear power plant with a oncethrough cooling system where previously it was a problem. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 
Appendix B

 B-19 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Aquatic Resources (cont.) Effects of cooling water discharge on dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, and eutrophication Small (Category 1). 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. Gas supersaturation (gas bubble disease) (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number of operating nuclear power plants with once- through cooling systems but has been satisfactorily mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Low dissolved oxygen in the discharge (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Low dissolved oxygen has been a concern at one nuclear power plant with a once-through cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. It has not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling towers or cooling ponds and is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Eutrophication (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Eutrophication 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. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-20 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Aquatic Resources (cont.) Effects of nonradiological contaminants on aquatic organisms Small (Category 1). Best management practices and discharge limitations of NPDES permits are expected to minimize the potential for impacts to aquatic resources during continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Accumulation of metal contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with those of another metal. Accumulation of contaminants in sediments or biota (for all plants) Small (Category 1). Accumulation of contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy condenser tubes with those of another metal. It is not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Exposure of aquatic organisms to 

radionuclides 

Small (Category 1). Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to be well below exposure guidelines developed to protect these aquatic organisms. 

 Not addressed Not applicable 

Effects of dredging on aquatic resources 

Small (Category 1). Dredging at nuclear power plants is expected to occur infrequently, would be of relatively short duration, and would affect relatively small areas. Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and possibly from other State or local agencies. 

 Not addressed Not applicable 
Appendix B

 B-21 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Aquatic Resources (cont.) Water use conflicts with aquatic resources (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river) Small or moderate (Category 2). Impacts on aquatic resources in stream communities affected by water use conflicts could be of moderate significance in some situations. Water use conflicts (plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a small river with low flow) Small or moderate (Category 2). The issue has been a concern at nuclear power plants with cooling ponds and at plants with cooling towers. Impacts on instream and riparian communities near these plants could be of moderate significance in some situations. Effects on aquatic resources (non-cooling system impacts) Small (Category 1). Licensee application of appropriate mitigation measures is expected to result in no more than small changes to aquatic communities from their current condition. Refurbishment (for all plants) Small (Category 1). During plant shutdown and refurbishment there will be negligible effects on aquatic biota because of a reduction of entrainment and impingement of organisms or a reduced release of chemicals. Impacts of transmission line ROW management on aquatic resources Small (Category 1). Licensee application of best management practices to ROW maintenance is expected to result in no more than small impacts to aquatic resources. Not addressed Not applicable Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses Small (Category 1). These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. Losses from predation, parasitism, and disease among organisms exposed to sublethal stresses (for all plants) Small (Category 1). These types of losses have not been found to be a problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-22 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Special Status Species and Habitats Threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical habitat and essential fish habitat (Category 2). The magnitude of impacts on threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical habitat, and essential fish habitat would depend on the occurrence of listed species and habitats and the effects of power plant systems on them. Consultation with appropriate agencies would be needed to determine whether special status species or habitats are present and whether they would be adversely affected by continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Threatened or endangered species (for all plants) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are not expected to adversely affect threatened or endangered species. However, consultation with appropriate agencies would be needed at the time of license renewal to determine whether threatened or endangered species are present and whether they would be adversely affected. 
Appendix B

 B-23 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Historic and Cultural Resources Historic and Cultural resources (Category 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. Historic and archaeological resources Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Generally, plant refurbishment and continued operation are expected to have no more than small adverse impacts on historic and archaeological resources. However, the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Federal agency to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine whether there are properties present that require protection. Socioeconomics Employment and income, recreation and tourism Small (Category 1). Although most nuclear plants have large numbers of employees with higher than average wages and salaries, employment, income, recreation, and tourism, impacts from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be small. Public services: public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation Small (Category 1). Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are expected to be of small significance at all sites. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-24 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Socioeconomics (cont.) Tax revenues Small (Category 1). Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on energy production. The amount of tax revenue paid during the license renewal term as a result of continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal is not expected to change. Considered in the 1996 GEIS, but not identified as an issue Not applicable Community services and education Small (Category 1). 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. 

 Public services: public 

safety, social services, and tourism and recreation 

Small (Category 1). Impacts to public safety, social services, and tourism and recreation are expected to be of small significance at all sites. 

 Public services: public 

utilities 

Small or moderate (Category 2).

An increased problem with water shortages at some sites may lead to impacts of moderate significance on public water supply availability. 

 Public services, education 

(license renewal term) 

Small (Category 1). Only impacts of small significance are expected. 

 Public services, education 

(refurbishment) 

Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Most sites would experience impacts of small significance but larger impacts are possible depending on site- and project-specific factors. 
Appendix B

 B-25 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Socioeconomics (cont.) Population and housing Small (Category 1). Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to regional population and housing availability and value would be small. With little or no change in employment at the licensee’s plant expected during the license renewal term, population and housing availability and values would not be affected by continued power plant operations. Housing impacts Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Housing impacts are expected to be of small significance at plants located in a medium or high population area and not in an area where growth control measures that limit housing development are in effect. Moderate or large housing impacts of the workforce associated with refurbishment may be associated with plants located in sparsely populated areas or in areas with growth control measures that limit housing development. Transportation Small (Category 1). Changes resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal to traffic volumes would be small. Public services, transportation Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Transportation impacts (level of service) of highway traffic generated during plant refurbishment and during the term of the renewed license are generally expected to be of small significance. However, the increase in traffic associated with the additional workers and the local road and traffic control conditions may lead to impacts of moderate or large significance at some sites. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-26 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Human Health Radiation exposures to the public Small (Category 1). Radiation doses to the public from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to continue at current levels, and would be well below regulatory limits. Radiation exposures to the public during refurbishment Small (Category 1). During refurbishment, the gaseous effluents would result in doses that are similar to those from current operation. Applicable regulatory dose limits to the public are not expected to be exceeded. Radiation exposures to the public (license renewal term) Small (Category 1). Radiation doses to the public will continue at current levels associated with normal operations. Radiation exposures to plant workers Small (Category 1). Occupational doses from continued operations and refurbishment associated with 

license renewal are expected to be within the range of doses experienced during the current license term, and would continue to be well below regulatory limits. 

 Occupational radiation 

exposures during refurbishment 

Small (Category 1). Occupational doses from refurbishment are expected to be within the range of annual average collective doses experienced for pressurized-water reactors and boiling-water reactors. Occupational mortality risk from all causes, including radiation, is in the mid-range for industrial settings. 

 Occupational radiation 

exposures (license renewal term) 

Small (Category 1). Projected maximum occupational doses during the license renewal term are within the range of doses experienced during normal operations and normal maintenance outages, and would be well below regulatory limits. 
Appendix B

 B-27 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Human Health (cont.) Human health impact from chemicals Small (Category 1). Chemical hazards to plant workers resulting from continued operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal are expected to be minimized by the licensee implementing good industrial hygiene practices as required by permits and Federal and State regulations. Chemical releases to the environment and the potential for impacts to the public are expected to be minimized by adherence to discharge limitations of NPDES and other permits. Not addressed Not applicable Microbiological hazards to the public (plants with cooling ponds or canals or cooling towers that discharge to a river) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). These organisms are not expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals that discharge into rivers. Impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics. Microbiological organisms (public health) (plants using lakes or canals, or cooling towers or cooling ponds that discharge to a small river) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). These organisms are not expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals that discharge to small rivers. Without site-specific data, it is not possible to predict the effects generically. Microbiological hazards to plant workers Small (Category 1). Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures as required by permits and Federal and State regulations. Microbiological organisms (occupational health) Small (Category 1). Occupational health impacts are expected to be controlled by continued application of accepted industrial hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-28 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Human Health (cont.) Chronic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) Uncertain. 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. Electromagnetic fields, chronic effects Uncertain. Biological and physical studies of 60-Hz electromagnetic fields have not found consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. However, research is continuing in this area and a consensus scientific view has not been reached. Physical occupational hazards Small (Category 1). Occupational 

safety and health hazards are generic to all types of electrical generating stations, including nuclear power plants, and are of small significance if the workers adhere to safety standards and use protective equipment as required by Federal and State regulations. 

 Not addressed Not applicable 
Appendix B

 B-29 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Human Health (cont.) Electric shock hazards Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Electrical shock potential is of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in adherence with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). Without a review of conformance with NESC criteria of each nuclear plant’s in-scope transmission lines, it is not possible to determine the significance of the electrical shock potential. Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric shock) Small, moderate, or large (Category 2). Electrical shock resulting from direct access to energized conductors or from induced charges in metallic structures have not been found to be a problem at most operating plants and generally are not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. However, site-specific review is required to determine the significance of the electric shock potential at the site. Postulated Accidents Design-basis accidents Small (Category 1). The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design- basis accidents are of small significance for all plants. Design basis accidents Small (Category 1). The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of design basis accidents are of small significance for all plants. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-30 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Postulated Accidents (cont.) Severe accidents Small (Category 2). The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives. Severe accidents Small (Category 2). The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to ground water, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives. Environmental Justice Minority and low-income 

populations 

(Category 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). 

 Environmental justice None. The need for and the 

content of an analysis of environmental justice will be addressed in plant-specific reviews. 
Appendix B

 B-31 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Solid Waste Management Low-level waste storage and disposal Small (Category 1). The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the environment would remain small during the license renewal term. Low-level waste storage and disposal Small (Category 1). The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure that the radiological impacts to the environment will remain small during the term of a renewed license. The maximum additional onsite land that may be required for low-level waste storage during the term of a renewed license and associated impacts will be small. Nonradiological impacts on air and water will be negligible. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long- term disposal of low-level waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient low-level waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements.
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-32 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Solid Waste Management (cont.) Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel Small (Category 1). The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated onsite during the license renewal term with small environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all plants. Onsite spent fuel Small (Category 1). The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated onsite with small environmental effects through dry or pool storage at all plants if a permanent repository or monitored retrievable storage is not available. Offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal Uncertain impact. The generic conclusion on offsite radiological impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste is not being 

finalized pending the completion of a generic environmental impact statement on waste confidence.(a)

 Offsite radiological impacts 

(spent fuel and high-level waste disposal) 

The NRC did not assign a single level of significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal, but considered the issue Category 1.(b)
Appendix B

 B-33 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Solid Waste Management (cont.) Mixed waste storage and disposal Small (Category 1). The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic 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. Mixed waste storage and disposal Small (Category 1). The comprehensive regulatory controls and the facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. License renewal will not increase the small, continuing risk to human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental impacts of long- term disposal of mixed waste from any individual plant at licensed sites are small. In addition, the Commission concludes that there is reasonable assurance that sufficient mixed waste disposal capacity will be made available when needed for facilities to be decommissioned consistent with NRC decommissioning requirements. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-34 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Solid Waste Management (cont.) Nonradioactive waste storage and disposal Small (Category 1). No changes to systems that generate nonradioactive waste are anticipated during the license renewal term. Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling, storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure to toxic materials for the public and the environment at all plants. Nonradiological waste Small (Category 1). No changes to generating systems are anticipated for license renewal. Facilities and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling and disposal at all plants. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts (Category 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. 

 Not addressed Not applicable 

Uranium Fuel Cycle

Offsite radiological impacts— individual impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste 

Small (Category 1). The impacts to the public from radiological exposures have been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts to individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases, including radon-222 and technetium-99, would remain at or below the NRC’s regulatory limits. 

 Offsite radiological impacts 

(individual effects from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste 

Small (Category 1). Offsite impacts of the uranium fuel cycle have been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of this part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts on individuals from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases including radon-222 and technetium-99 are small. 
Appendix B

 B-35 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Uranium Fuel Cycle (cont.) Offsite radiological impacts— collective impacts from other than the disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste (Category 1). There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. The Commission concludes that the collective impacts are acceptable. Offsite radiological impacts (collective effects) The NRC did not assign a single level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel cycle, but considered the issue Category 1.(c) 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 Small (Category 1). The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant would be small. Nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle Small (Category 1). The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant are found to be small. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-36 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Uranium Fuel Cycle (cont.) Transportation Small (Category 1). The impacts of transporting materials to and from uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the environment are expected to be small. Transportation Small (Category 1). The impacts of transporting spent fuel enriched up to 5 percent uranium-235, with average burnup for the peak rod, to current levels approved by NRC up to 62,000 MWd/MTU and the cumulative impacts of transporting high-level waste to a single repository, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada, are found to be consistent with the impact values contained in 10 CFR 51.52(c), Summary Table S–4— Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste 

to and from One Light-WaterCooled Nuclear Power Reactor. If fuel enrichment or burnup conditions are not met, the applicant must submit an assessment of the implications for the environmental impact values reported in § 51.52. 
Appendix B

 B-37 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning Termination of plant operations and decommissioning Small (Category 1). License renewal is expected to have a negligible effect on the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning on all resources. Air quality Small (Category 1). Air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible either at the end of the current operating term or at the end of the license renewal term. Water quality Small (Category 1). The potential for significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills is no greater whether decommissioning occurs after a 20-year license renewal period or after the original 40-year operation period, and measures are readily available to avoid such impacts. Ecological resources Small (Category 1). Decommissioning after either the initial operating period or after a 20-year license renewal period is not expected to have any direct ecological impacts. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-38 Table B-1. (cont.) New Table B-1 Old Table B-1 Issue Findings Issue Findings Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning (cont.) Termination of plant operations and decommissioning (cont.) Socioeconomic impacts Small (Category 1). Decommissioning would have some short-term socioeconomic impacts. The impacts would not be increased by delaying decommissioning until the end of a 20-year relicense period, but they might be decreased by population and economic growth. Radiation doses Small (Category 1). Doses to the public will be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless of which decommissioning method is used. Occupational doses would 

increase no more than 1 man-rem caused by buildup of long-lived radionuclides during the license renewal term. 

 Waste management Small (Category 1).

Decommissioning at the end of a 20-year license renewal period would generate no more solid wastes than at the end of the current license term. No increase in the quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes would be expected. 
Appendix B

 B-39 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table B-1. (cont.) (a) 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. (b) For the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal component of the fuel cycle, there are no current regulatory limits for offsite releases of radionuclides for the current candidate repository site. However, if we assume that limits are developed along the lines of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, and that in accordance with the Commission's Waste Confidence Decision, 10 CFR 51.23, a repository can and likely will be developed at some site that will comply with such limits, peak doses to virtually all individuals will be 100 millirem per year or less. However, while the Commission has reasonable confidence that these assumptions will prove correct, there is considerable uncertainty since the limits are yet to be developed, no repository application has been completed or reviewed, and uncertainty is inherent in the models used to evaluate possible pathways to the human environment. The NAS report indicated that 100 millirem per year should be considered as a starting point for limits for individual doses, but notes that some measure of consensus exists among national and international bodies that the limits should be a fraction of the 100 millirem per year. The lifetime individual risk from 100 millirem annual dose limit is about 3 x 10-3. Estimating cumulative doses to populations over thousands of years is more problematic. The likelihood and consequences of events that could seriously compromise the integrity of a deep geologic repository were evaluated by the Department of Energy in the Final Environmental Impact Statement: Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste, October 1980. The evaluation estimated the 70-year whole-body dose commitment to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) and to the regional population resulting from several modes of breaching a reference repository in the year of closure, after 1,000 years, after 100,000 years, and after 100,000,000 years. Subsequently, the NRC and other Federal agencies have expended considerable effort to develop models for the design and for the licensing of a high-level waste repository, especially for the candidate repository at Yucca Mountain. More meaningful estimates of doses to the population may be possible in the future as more is understood about the performance of the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. Such estimates would involve very great uncertainty, especially with respect to cumulative population doses over thousands of years. The standard proposed by the NAS is a limit on maximum individual dose. The relationship of potential new regulatory requirements, based on the NAS report, and cumulative population impacts have not been determined, although the report articulates the view that protection of individuals will adequately protect the population for a repository at Yucca Mountain. However, the EPA's generic repository standards in 40 CFR Part 191 generally provide an indication of the order of magnitude of cumulative risk to population that could result from the licensing of a Yucca Mountain repository, assuming the ultimate standards will be within the range of standards now under consideration. The standards in 40 CFR Part 191 protect the population by imposing limitations on the amount of radioactive material released over 10,000 years. The cumulative release limits are based on EPA's population impact goal of 1,000 premature cancer deaths worldwide for a 100,000 metric tonne (MTHM) repository. Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgment as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made, and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgment in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent fuel and high-level waste disposal, this issue is considered in Category 1. 
Appendix B

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 B-40 Table B-1. (cont.) (c) The 100-year environmental dose commitment to the U.S. population from the fuel cycle, high-level waste and spent fuel disposal excepted, is calculated to be about 14,800 person rem, or 12 cancer fatalities, for each additional 20-year power reactor operating term. Much of this, especially the contribution of radon releases from mines and tailing piles, consists of tiny doses summed over large populations. This same dose calculation can theoretically be extended to include many tiny doses over additional thousands of years as well as doses outside the United States. The result of such a calculation would be thousands of cancer fatalities from the fuel cycle, but this result assumes that even tiny doses have some statistical adverse health effect that will never be mitigated (e.g., no cancer cure in the next thousand years), and that these doses projected over thousands of years are meaningful. However, these assumptions are questionable. In particular, science cannot rule out the possibility that there will be no cancer fatalities from these tiny doses. For perspective, the doses are very small fractions of regulatory limits, and even smaller fractions of natural background exposure to the same populations. Nevertheless, despite all the uncertainty, some judgment as to the regulatory NEPA implications of these matters should be made, and it makes no sense to repeat the same judgment in every case. Even taking the uncertainties into account, the Commission concludes that these impacts are acceptable in that these impacts would not be sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has not assigned a single level of significance for the collective effects of the fuel cycle, this issue is considered Category 1. 
Appendix C 

General Characteristics and Environmental Settings 

of Domestic Nuclear Power Plants 

 

 C-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Appendix C 

General Characteristics and Environmental Settings 

of Domestic Nuclear Power Plants 

This appendix contains brief descriptions of each commercial nuclear power plant site in the 

United States. The material is intended to serve as an overview of the important characteristics 

of each plant and its environmental setting. The information was taken from the 1996 GEIS 

(NRC 1996) and updated with information available from recently published supplemental 

environmental impacts statements (SEISs), environmental assessments, CEC (2006), DOE/EIA 

(2007a,b), USCB (2007), EPA (2007), NRC (2008a,b, 2010), USFWS (2007), and USGS 

(2003). 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-2 

ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE 

Location: Pope County, Arkansas 

 6 mi (10 km) WNW of Russellville 

 Latitude 35.3100°N; longitude 93.2308°W 

Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-313 50-368 

Construction Permit: 1968 1972 

Operating License: 1974 1978 

Commercial Operation: 1974 1980 

License Expiration: 2034 2038 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,568 3,026 

Net Capacity (MWe): 843 995 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: B&E CE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Unit 1: Once-through; Unit 2: Natural draft cooling tower 

Source: Dardanelle Reservoir 

Source Temperature Range: 4083°F (428°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 762,400 gpm (48.1 m3

/s) for Unit 1 

 422,000 gpm (26.6 m3

/s) for Unit 2 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 15°F (8.3°C) for Unit 1 

 30.7°F (17.1°C) for Unit 2 

Intake Structure: 4,400-ft (1,340-m) canal 

Discharge Structure: 520-ft (158-m) canal 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,164 ac (471 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.7 mi (1 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 4 mi (6.44 km) radius 

Nearest City: Little Rock: 2000 population: 183,133 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly to mountainous 

Dominant Land Cover Within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, open water 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 
Appendix C 

 C-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Arkansas Valley 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 11.7, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is London 2 mi (3 km) NW. The size of Lake Dardanelle is 

37,000 ac (15,000 ha). The reservoir is part of the Arkansas River. The 

Missouri Pacific Railroad and U.S. Highway I-40 are just north of the site. 

Population within an 50-mi (80-km) Radius: 267,664 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-4 

BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION 

Location: Beaver County, Pennsylvania 

 25 mi (40 km) NW of Pittsburgh 

 Latitude 40.6219°N; longitude 80.4339°W 

Licensee: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-334 50-412 

Construction Permit: 1970 1974 

Operating License: 1976 1987 

Commercial Operation: 1976 1987 

License Expiration: 2036 2047 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,900 2,900 

Net Capacity (MWe): 892 846 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling towers 

Source: Ohio River 

Source Temperature Range: 36.579.5°F (2.526.4°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 480,400 gpm (30.31 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 26°F (14°C) 

Intake Structure: Concrete structure at river edge 

Discharge Structure: At river edge 

Site Information

Total Area: 453 ac (183 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.38 mi (0.61 km) 

Low Population Zone: 3.60 mi (5.79 km) 

Nearest City: Pittsburgh; 2000 population: 334,563 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, developed: open space 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Western Allegheny Plateau 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 5.5, mostly riverine 
Appendix C 

 C-5 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Midland 1 mi (1.6 km) NW. A large industrial area is 

about 1 mi (1.6 km) WNW. The Penn Central Railroad State Parks are within 

10 mi (16 km). 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 3,274,451 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-6 

BRAIDWOOD STATION 

Location: Will County, Illinois 

 39 km (24 mi) SSW of Joliet 

 Latitude 41.2436°N; longitude 88.2297°W 

Licensee: Exelon Generation Company 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-456 50-457 

Construction Permit: 1975 1975 

Operating License: 1987 1988 

Commercial Operation: 1988 1988 

License Expiration: 2026 2027 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,587 3,587 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,178 1,152 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Closed-cycle cooling pond 

Source: Kankakee River 

Source Temperature Range: 3287°F (031°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 729,800 gpm (46.05 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 21°F (12°C) 

Intake Structure: Concrete structure at lake shore 

Discharge Structure: Surface discharge flume to lake 

Site Information

Total Area: 4,457 ac (1,804 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.3 mi (0.48 km) minimum 

Low Population Zone: 1.125 mi (1.810 km) radius 

Nearest City: Joliet; 2000 population: 106,221 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, developed: high, medium, low 

density 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Corn Belt Plains 
Appendix C 

 C-7 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 11.4, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Godley 0.5 mi (0.8 km) SW. There are 4 State parks 

within 10 mi (16 km). Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie and Abraham 

Lincoln National Cemetery are about 8 mi (13 km) NE. Dresden Nuclear 

Power Station is about 10 mi (16 km) N, and LaSalle County Station 

(nuclear) is about 20 mi (32 km) WSW. The Illinois Central Gulf Railroad is 

just NW. U.S. Highway I-55 is about 2 mi (3 km) NW. 

Population within an 80 km (50 mi) Radius: 4,272,003 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-8 

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT 

Location: Limestone County, Alabama 

 16 km (10 mi) NW of Decatur 

 Latitude 34.7042°N; longitude 87.1186°W 

Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

Docket Number: 50-259 50-260 50-296 

Construction Permit: 1967 1967 1968 

Operating License: 1973 1974 1976 

Commercial Operation: 1974 1975 1977 

License Expiration: 2033 2034 2036 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,458 3,458 3,458 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,065 1,104 1,115 

Type of Reactor: BWR BWR BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE GE GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through with helper towers 

Source: Tennessee River 

Source Temperature Range: 4090°F (432°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 734,000 gpm (139 m3

/s); for all three units 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 28.7°F (15.9°C) 

Intake Structure: Concrete structure in small inlet 

Discharge Structure: Diffuser pipes 

Site Information

Total Area: 840 ac (340 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.76 mi (1.22 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 7 mi (11.3 km) 

Nearest City: Huntsville; 2000 population: 158,216 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, open water, forest 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Interior Plateau 
Appendix C 

 C-9 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 42.2, mostly lake (some freshwater forested/shrub 

wetland) 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Lawngate 1 mi (1.6 km) NE. The Redstone Arsenal is 

25 mi (40 km) E. The Southern Railroad is 6 mi (10 km) S, and the Louisville 

and Nashville Railroad is 6 mi (10 km) E. Two wildlife management areas 

are located within 3 mi (5 km) of the plant. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 872,478 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-10 

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT 

Location: Brunswick County, North Carolina 

 16 mi (26 km) S of Wilmington 

 Latitude 33.9583°N; longitude 78.0106°W 

Licensee: Progress Energy 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-325 50-324 

Construction Permit: 1967 1968 

Operating License: 1976 1974 

Commercial Operation: 1977 1975 

License Expiration: 2036 2034 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,923 2,923 

Net Capacity (MWe): 938 937 

Type of Reactor: BWR BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Cape Fear River 

Source Temperature Range: 4086°F (430°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 675,000 gpm (42.6 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 17°F (9°C) 

Intake Structure: 3 mi (5 km) canal from Cape Fear River 

Discharge Structure: 6 mi (10 km) canal to Atlantic Ocean 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,200 ac (490 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.57 mi (0.92 km) 

Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km) 

Nearest City: Wilmington; 2000 population: 75,838 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Wetland, open water, forest 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain 
Appendix C 

 C-11 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 60.5, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater; freshwater 

forested/shrub wetland; estuarine and marine wetland 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Southport 3 mi (5 km) S. Sunny Point Military Ocean 

Terminal is about 5 mi (8 km) N. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 361,872 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-12 

BYRON STATION 

Location: Ogle County, Illinois 

 17 mi (27 km) SW of Rockford 

 Latitude 42.0750°N; longitude 89.2811°W 

Licensee: Exelon Generation Company 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-454 50-455 

Construction Permit: 1975 1975 

Operating License: 1985 1987 

Commercial Operation: 1985 1987 

License Expiration: 2025 2027 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,587 3,587 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,164 1,136 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft towers 

Source: Rock River 

Source Temperature Range: Not available

Condenser Flow Rate: 632,000 gpm (39.9 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 24°F (13°C) 

Intake Structure: Concrete structure on river bank 

Discharge Structure: Discharged to river 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,398 ac (565.8 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.26 mi (0.42 km)

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Rockford; 2000 population: 150,115 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, developed: open space 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Corn Belt Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 3.6, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-13 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Byron about 3 mi (5 km) NNE. The Chicago Milwaukee 

and the St. Paul and Pacific Railroads are about 4 mi (6 km) NNE. White 

Pines State Park is about 11 mi (18 km) WSW. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,300,282 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-14 

CALLAWAY PLANT 

Location: Callaway County, Missouri 

 10 mi (16 km) SE of Fulton 

 Latitude 38.7622°N; longitude 91.7817°W 

Licensee: Ameren Corporation 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-483 

Construction Permit: 1976 

Operating License: 1984 

Commercial Operation: 1984 

License Expiration: 2024 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,565 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,190 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling tower 

Source: Missouri River 

Source Temperature Range: Not available 

Condenser Flow Rate: 530,000 gpm (33 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 30°F (17°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake from river 

Discharge Structure: Discharged to river 

 

Site Information

Total Area: 5,228 ac (2,115.8 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.75 mi (1.21 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 2.50 mi (4.02 ha) 

Nearest City: Columbia; 2000 population: 84,531 

Site Topography: Flat, on a small plateau 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, developed: open space 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Interior River Valley and Hills 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 4.5, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland; riverine 
Appendix C 

 C-15 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Portland 5 mi (8 km) SE. The Missouri, Kansas, and 

Texas Railroad is about 3 mi (5 km) S, and the Missouri Pacific Railroad is 

about 6 mi (10 km) S. U.S. Highway I-70 is about 10 mi (16 km) N. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 491,072 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-16 

CALVERT CLIFFS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

Location: Calvert County, Maryland 

 35 mi (56 km) S of Annapolis 

 Latitude 38.4347°N; longitude 76.4419°W 

Licensee: Constellation Energy 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-317 50-318 

Construction Permit: 1969 1969 

Operating License: 1974 1976 

Commercial Operation: 1975 1977 

License Expiration: 2034 2036 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,700 2,700 

Net Capacity (MWe): 873 862 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: CE CE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Chesapeake Bay 

Source Temperature Range: 3487°F (131°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 1,200,000 gpm (76 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 12°F (6.7°C). 

Intake Structure: 4,500 ft (1,372 m) from shore 

Discharge Structure: 850 ft (260 m) from shore 

Site Information

Total Area: 2,108 ac (853 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.67 mi (1.08 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.2 km) 

Nearest City: Washington, D.C.; 2000 population: 572,059 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Plains; Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 66, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater 
Appendix C 

 C-17 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Long Beach 1 mi (1.6 km) NNW. Calvert Cliffs State 

Park is about 4 mi (6 km) SSE. A naval ordinance facility is 7 mi (11 km) 

SSW. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 3,919,397 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-18 

CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION 

Location: York County, South Carolina 

 6 mi (10 km) NNW of Rock Hill 

 Latitude 35.0514°N; longitude 81.0708°W 

Licensee: Duke Energy Power Corporation 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-413 50-414 

Construction Permit: 1975 1975 

Operating License: 1985 1986 

Commercial Operation: 1985 1986 

License Expiration: 2043 2043 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,411 3,411 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,129 1,129 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Mechanical draft towers 

Source: Lake Wylie 

Source Temperature Range: 4383°F (628°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 660,000 gpm (42 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 24°F (13°C) 

Intake Structure: Skimmer wall on cove of the lake 

Discharge Structure: On another cove of the lake 

Site Information

Total Area: 391 ac (158 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 2,500 ft (0.76 km; 0.47 mi) radius 

Low Population Zone: 3.8 mi (6.12 km) radius 

Nearest City: Charlotte, North Carolina; 2000 population: 540,828 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, developed: open space 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 12.9, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-19 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Rock Hill 6 mi (10 km) SSE. U.S. Highway I-77 is about 

6 mi (10 km) E and I-85 is about 17 mi (27 km) N. The Southern Railway is 

5 mi (8 km) S. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,041,465 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-20 

CLINTON POWER STATION 

Location: DeWitt County, Illinois 

 6 mi (10 km) E of Clinton 

 Latitude 40.1731°N; longitude 88.8342°W 

Licensee: Exelon Generation Company 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-461 

Construction Permit: 1976 

Operating License: 1987 

Commercial Operation: 1987 

License Expiration: 2026 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,473 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,065 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Salt Creek 

Source Temperature Range: 3283°F (028°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 568,701 gpm (35.89 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 23°F (13°C) 

Intake Structure: Concrete structure at shoreline of North Fork Salt Creek 

Discharge Structure: 3-mi (5-km) flume discharging to Salt Creek 

Site Information

Total Area: 14,090 ac (5,702 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.60 mi (0.97 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 2.5 mi (4.02 km) radius 

Nearest City: Decatur; 2000 population: 81,860 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, open water 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Corn Belt Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 9, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-21 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is DeWitt 2 mi (3 km) ENE. Weldon Springs State Park is 

6 mi (10 km) SW. The Illinois Central Gulf Railroad crosses the site. 

U.S. highway I-74 is 11 mi (18 km) NE. A dam on Salt Creek near the site 

creates the reservoir Lake Clinton for the cooling water system. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 789,754 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-22 

COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION 

Location: Benton County, Washington 

 12 mi (19 km) NW of Richland 

 Latitude 46.4714°N; longitude 119.3331°W 

Licensee: Energy Northwest 

Unit Information Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-397 

Construction Permit: 1973 

Operating License: 1984 

Commercial Operation: 1984 

License Expiration: 2023 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,323 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,131 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Mechanical draft cooling towers 

Source: Columbia River 

Source Temperature Range: 3864°F (318°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 550,000 gpm (35 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 28.7°F (15.9°C) 

Intake Structure: 2 perforated pipe inlets supported offshore above the river bed 900 ft (270 m) 

from pump structure on river bank 

Discharge Structure: Buried 3 mi (5 km) pipeline, terminating at the river bed 175 ft (53 m) from 

the shoreline 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,089 ac (441 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 1.21 mi (1.95 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Spokane; 2000 population: 195,629 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Shrub/scrub, open water, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): North American Desert 
Appendix C 

 C-23 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Columbia Plateau 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 5.6, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Richland 9 mi (14 km) S. The site is in the SE part of the 

Hanford Reservation. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 360,573 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-24 

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 

Location: Somervell County, Texas 

 40 mi (64 km) SW of Fort Worth 

 Latitude 32.2983°N; longitude 97.7856°W 

Licensee: Luminant Energy Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-445 50-446 

Construction Permit: 1974 1974 

Operating License: 1990 1993 

Commercial Operation: 1990 1993 

License Expiration: 2030 2033 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,458 3,458 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,200 1,150 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Squaw Creek Reservoir 

Source Temperature Range: Not available 

Condenser Flow Rate: 1,030,000 gpm (65 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 15°F (8°C) 

Intake Structure: On shore of reservoir 

Discharge Structure: Canal to reservoir 

Site Information

Total Area: 7,669 ac (3,104 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.96 mi (1.54 km) mínimum 

Low Population Zone: 4 mi (6.44 km) radius 

Nearest City: Fort Worth; 2000 population: 534,694 

Site Topography: Flat, with hills rising from the reservoir 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Herbaceous, forest, open water 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Great Plains 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Cross Timbers 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 8.8, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-25 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Glen Rose 5 mi (8 km) SSE. Dinosaur Valley State Park 

is 5 mi (8 km) SW. A 26-in. (66-cm) oil pipeline is very near the site, and a 

36-in. (91-cm) natural gas line is about 2 mi (3 km) from the site. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,431,094 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-26 

COOPER NUCLEAR STATION 

Location: Nemaha County, Nebraska 

 23 mi (37 km) S of Nebraska City 

 Latitude 40.3619°N; longitude 95.6411°W 

Licensee: Nebraska Public Power District 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-298 

Construction Permit: 1968 

Operating License: 1974 

Commercial Operation: 1974 

License Expiration: 2034 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,419 

Net Capacity (MWe): 830 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Missouri River 

Source Temperature Range: 3473°F (123°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 631,000 gpm (39.8 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 18°F (10°C) 

Intake Structure: At shoreline 

Discharge Structure: At shoreline 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,090 ac (441 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.68 mi (1.09 km) 

Low Population Zone: 1 mi (1.61 km) radius 

Nearest City: Lincoln; 2000 population: 225,581 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, wetland, forest 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Great Plains 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Western Corn Belt Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 6.8, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland; riverine 
Appendix C 

 C-27 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Nemaha about 1 mi (1.6 km) S. A railroad runs just W of 

the site. Indian Cave State Park is about 8 mi (13 km) SSE. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 156,157 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-28 

CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

Location: Citrus County, Florida 

 7 mi (11 km) NW of Crystal River 

 Latitude 28.9572°N; longitude 82.6989°W 

Licensee: Progress Energy 

Unit Information Unit 3

Docket Number: 50-302 

Construction Permit: 1968 

Operating License: 1977 

Commercial Operation: 1977 

License Expiration: 2016 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,609 

Net Capacity (MWe): 838 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: B&W 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Gulf of Mexico 

Source Temperature Range: 87°F (31°C) maximum 

Condenser Flow Rate: 680,000 gpm (43 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 17.1°F (9.5°C) 

Intake Structure: 16,000 ft (4,900 m) from shoreline 

Discharge Structure: 13,000 ft (4,000 m) canal 

Site Information

Total Area: 4,738 ac (1,917 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.83 mi (1.34 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 5 mi (8.05 km) 

Nearest City: Gainesville; 2000 population: 95,447 

Site Topography: Swamps and marshland 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, wetland, forest 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southern Coastal Plain 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 65.2, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater 
Appendix C 

 C-29 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Crystal River about 7 mi (11 km) SE. Units 1 and 2 are 

coal-fired plants and share a common intake and discharge with the nuclear 

unit. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,273,146 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-30 

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION 

Location: Ottawa County, Ohio 

 21 mi (34 km) E of Toledo 

 Latitude 41.5972°N; longitude 83.0864°W 

Licensee: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-346 

Construction Permit: 1971 

Operating License: 1977 

Commercial Operation: 1978 

License Expiration: 2017 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,817 

Net Capacity (MWe): 893 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: B&W 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling tower 

Source: Lake Erie 

Source Temperature Range: 3473°F (123°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 480,000 gpm (30 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 26°F (14°C) 

Intake Structure: Submerged intake about 3,000 ft (900 m) offshore 

Discharge Structure: Submerged discharge about 930 ft (280 m) offshore 

Site Information

Total Area: 954 ac (386 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.45 mi (0.72 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km) 

Nearest City: Toledo; 2000 population: 313,619 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, agriculture, wetland 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Huron/Erie Lake Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 66.6, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-31 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Oak Harbor about 6 mi (10 km) SW. Several wildlife 

refuge areas are within 5 mi (8 km) of the site. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,617,550 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-32 

DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT 

Location: San Luis Obispo County, California 

 12 mi (19 km) W of San Luis Obispo 

 Latitude 35.2117°N; longitude 120.8544°W 

Licensee: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-275 50-323 

Construction Permit: 1968 1970 

Operating License: 1984 1985 

Commercial Operation: 1985 1986 

License Expiration: 2024 2025 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,411 3,411 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,122 1,118 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Pacific Ocean 

Source Temperature Range: 5063°F (1017°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 863,000 gpm (54.5 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 18°F (10°C) 

Intake Structure: Reinforced-concrete structure located at shoreline in a cove with artificial 

breakwater wall 

Discharge Structure: Reinforced-concrete structure drops water in stair-step type weir overflow 

from elevation 70 ft (21 m) to the ocean and discharges on the surface at 

the shoreline 

Site Information

Total Area: 750 ac (300 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.50 mi (0.80 km) 

Low Population Zone: 6 mi (9.66 km) 

Nearest City: Santa Barbara; 2000 population: 92,325 

Site Topography: Hilly 

Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly to mountainous 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, shrub/scrub 
Appendix C 

 C-33 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Mediterranean California 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southern and Central California Chaparral and Oak 

Woodlands 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 54.6, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater 

Nearby Features: Site is remote, the nearest town being San Obispo 12 mi (19 km) E. 

Beaches 715 mi (1124 km) ESE have an influx of summer visitors. Pismo 

Beach State Park and Morro Bay State Park are within 15 mi (24 km). 

Vandenberg Air Base is 35 mi (56 km) ESE. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 836,031 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-34 

DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT 

Location: Berrien County, Michigan 

 10 mi (16 km) S of St. Joseph 

 Latitude 41.9761°N; longitude 86.5664°W 

Licensee: Indiana Michigan Power Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-315 50-316 

Construction Permit: 1969 1969 

Operating License: 1974 1977 

Commercial Operation: 1975 1978 

License Expiration: 2034 2037 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,304 3,468 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,009 1,060 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Lake Michigan 

Source Temperature Range: 3473°F (123°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 1.6 million gal/min (both units) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 20°F (11°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake cribs 2,250 ft (686 m) from shore 

Discharge Structure: 1,150 ft (351 m) from shore 

Site Information

Total Area: 650 ac (260 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.38 mi (0.61 km) 

Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km) 

Nearest City: South Bend, Indiana; 2000 population: 107,789 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, agriculture, forest 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): S. Michigan/N. Indiana Drift Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 53.6, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-35 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Livingston 1 mi (1.6 km) SW. The Chesapeake and 

Ohio Railroad and U.S. Highway I-94 are just E of the site. Warren Dunes 

State Park is about 5 mi (8 km) SSW. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,447,303 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-36 

DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION 

Location: Grundy County, Illinois 

 9 mi (14 km) E of Morris 

 Latitude 41.3897°N; longitude 88.2711°W 

Licensee: Exelon Generation Company 

Unit Information Unit 2 Unit 3

Docket Number: 50-237 50-249 

Construction Permit: 1966 1966 

Operating License: 1969 1971 

Commercial Operation: 1970 1971 

License Expiration: 2029 2031 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,957 2,957 

Net Capacity (MWe): 867 867 

Type of Reactor: BWR BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Cooling lake and spray canal; mechanical draft towers 

Source: Kankakee River 

Source Temperature Range: 4085°F (429°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 940,000 gpm (both units) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: Not available 

Intake Structure: Canal from Kankakee River to a crib house 

Discharge Structure: A canal carries water to a cooling lake of about 1,275 ac (516 ha) 

Site Information

Total Area: 2,500 ac (1,012 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.5 mi (0.8 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 5 mi (8 km) 

Nearest City: Joliet; 2000 population: 106,221 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, herbaceous, forest 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Corn Belt Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 22, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-37 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Channahon 3 mi (5 km) NNE. Braidwood Station 

(nuclear plant) is about 10 mi (16 km) S and LaSalle County Station (nuclear 

plant) is about 22 mi (35 km) SW. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 7,337,564 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-38 

DUANE ARNOLD ENERGY CENTER 

Location: Linn County, Iowa 

 8 mi (13 km) NW of Cedar Rapids 

 Latitude 42.1006°N; longitude 91.7772°W 

Licensee: Florida Power & Light Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-331 

Construction Permit: 1970 

Operating License: 1974 

Commercial Operation: 1975 

License Expiration: 2034 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 1,912 

Net Capacity (MWe): 640 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Mechanical draft cooling towers 

Source: Cedar River 

Source Temperature Range: 3289°F (032°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 290,000 gpm (18 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 25°F (14°C) 

Intake Structure: Structure on river shoreline 

Discharge Structure: Canal to shoreline 

Site Information

Total Area: 500 ac (200 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.27 mi (0.43 km) 

Low Population Zone: 6 mi (9.66 km) 

Nearest City: Cedar Rapids; 2000 population: 120,758 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, wetland 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Great Plains 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Western Corn Belt Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 11.7, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland 
Appendix C 

 C-39 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Palo about 2 mi (3 km) SW. Several wildlife refuge 

areas are within 10 mi (16 km) of the site. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 613,736 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-40 

EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT 

Location: Appling County, Georgia 

 11 mi (18 km) N of Baxley 

 Latitude 31.9342°N; longitude 82.3444°W 

Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-321 50-366 

Construction Permit: 1969 1972 

Operating License: 1974 1978 

Commercial Operation: 1975 1979 

License Expiration: 2034 2038 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,804 2,804 

Net Capacity (MWe): 876 883 

Type of Reactor: BWR BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Mechanical draft towers 

Source: Altamaha River 

Source Temperature Range: 4390°F (632°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 556,000 gpm (35.1 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 20°F (11°C) 

Intake Structure: At edge of river 

Discharge Structure: 120 ft (37 m) from shore 

Site Information

Total Area: 2,244 ac (908 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.78 mi (1.26 km) 

Low Population Zone: 0.78 mi (1.26 km) 

Nearest City: Savannah; 2000 population: 131,510 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, wetland, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Plains; Southern Coastal Plain 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 23.9, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland 
Appendix C 

 C-41 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Cedar Crossing about 7 mi (11 km) NNW. 

U.S. Highway 1 is just W of the site. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 366,508 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-42 

ENRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT 

Location: Monroe County, Michigan 

 30 mi (48 km) SW of Detroit 

 Latitude 41.9631°N; longitude 83.2578°W 

Licensee: Detroit Edison Co. 

Unit Information Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-341 

Construction Permit: 1972 

Operating License: 1985 

Commercial Operation: 1988 

License Expiration: 2025 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,292 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,122 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling towers 

Source: Lake Erie 

Source Temperature Range: 3476°F (124°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 836,000 gpm (52.80 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 18°F (10°C) 

Intake Structure: At edge of lake 

Discharge Structure: To the lake via a 50-ac (20-ha) pond 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,120 ac (453 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.57 mi (0.92 km) 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Detroit; 2000 population: 951,270 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, agriculture, developed: high, medium, 

low density 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Huron/Erie Lake Plains 
Appendix C 

 C-43 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 57.9, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The town of Stony Point is adjacent to the site to the S. Sterling State Park 

and General Custer Historical Site are about 5 mi (8 km) SW. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 7,803,464 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-44 

JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

Location: Oswego County, New York 

 6 mi (10 km) NE of Oswego 

 Latitude 43.5239°N; longitude 76.3983°W 

Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-333 

Construction Permit: 1970 

Operating License: 1974 

Commercial Operation: 1975 

License Expiration: 2034 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,536 

Net Capacity (MWe): 852 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Lake Ontario 

Source Temperature Range: 3268°F (020°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 352,600 gpm (22.25 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 32°F (18°C) 

Intake Structure: 900 ft (274 m) from shore 

Discharge Structure: 1,400 ft (427 m) from shore 

Site Information

Total Area: 702 ac (284 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 3,000 ft (914 m) to the east, over 1 mi (1.6 km) to the west, and about 

1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the southern site boundary 

Low Population Zone: 3.4 mi (5.47 km) 

Nearest City: Syracuse; 2000 population: 147,306 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands 
Appendix C 

 C-45 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 65.4, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Lakeview about 1 mi (1.6 km) WSW. Fort Ontario is 

about 5 mi (8 km) SW. Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station is about 0.5 mi 

(0.8 km) W. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 914,668 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-46 

JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT 

Location: Houston County, Alabama 

 16 mi (26 km) E of Dothan 

 Latitude 31.2228°N; longitude 85.1125°W 

Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Company 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-348 50-364 

Construction Permit: 1972 1972 

Operating License: 1977 1981 

Commercial Operation: 1977 1981 

License Expiration: 2037 2041 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,775 2,775 

Net Capacity (MWe): 851 860 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Mechanical draft cooling towers 

Source: Chattahoochee River 

Source Temperature Range: 86°F (130°C) maximum 

Condenser Flow Rate: 635,000 gpm (40.1 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 20°F (11°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake from river bank via storage pond 

Discharge Structure: At river bank 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,850 ac (749 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.78 mi (1.26 km) 

Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km) 

Nearest City: Columbus, Georgia; 2000 population: 185,781 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, wetland 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 13.1, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland 
Appendix C 

 C-47 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Columbia about 4 mi (6 km) N. Chattahoochee State 

Park is about 12 mi (19 km) S. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 393,639 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-48 

FORT CALHOUN STATION 

Location: Washington County, Nebraska 

 19 mi (31 km) N of Omaha 

 Latitude 41.5208°N; longitude 96.0767°W 

Licensee: Omaha Public Power District 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-285 

Construction Permit: 1968 

Operating License: 1973 

Commercial Operation: 1974 

License Expiration: 2033 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 1,500 

Net Capacity (MWe): 478 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: CE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Missouri River 

Source Temperature Range: 027°C (3280°F) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 360,000 gpm (23 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 23°F (13°C) 

Intake Structure: Concrete structure at river shore 

Discharge Structure: At river shore 

Site Information

Total Area: 660 ac (270 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.57 mi (0.92 km) mínimum 

Low Population Zone: 5 mi (8.05 km) 

Nearest City: Omaha: 2000 population: 390,007 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, herbaceous, wetland 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Great Plains 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Western Corn Belt Plains 
Appendix C 

 C-49 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 6.3, mostly lake; riverine; freshwater forested/shrub 

wetland 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is De Soto 2 mi (3 km) SSE. De Soto National Wildlife 

Refuge is about 1 mi (1.6 km) E. Wilson Island State Park is about 4 mi 

(6 km) SE. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 852,717 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-50 

GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION 

Location: Clairborne County, Mississippi 

 25 mi (40 km) S of Vicksburg 

 Latitude 32.0075°N; longitude 91.0475°W 

Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-416 

Construction Permit: 1974 

Operating License: 1984 

Commercial Operation: 1985 

License Expiration: 2024 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,963 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,297 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling towers 

Source: Mississippi River 

Source Temperature Range: 3482°F (128°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 572,000 gpm (36.1 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 30°F (17°C) 

Intake Structure: A series of radial-collector wells along the shoreline 

Discharge Structure: Discharge to river via a barge slip 

Site Information

Total Area: 2,100 ac (850 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.43 mi (0.69 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km) 

Nearest City: Jackson; 2000 population: 184,256 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, wetland, open water 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Mississippi Valley Loess Plains; Mississippi 

 Alluvial Plain 
Appendix C 

 C-51 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 39.4, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Grand Gulf 2 mi (3 km) N. The Natchez Trace Parkway 

is about 6 mi (10 km) SE. The Grand Gulf Military Park is just N of the site. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 357,525 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-52 

H.B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 

Location: Darlington County, South Carolina 

 26 mi (42 km) NE of Florence 

 Latitude 34.4025°N; longitude 80.1586°W 

Licensee: Progress Energy 

Unit Information Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-261 

Construction Permit: 1967 

Operating License: 1970 

Commercial Operation: 1971 

License Expiration: 2030 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,339 

Net Capacity (MWe): 710 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through, cooling pond 

Source: Lake Robinson 

Source Temperature Range: 4685°F (829°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 454,167 gpm (28.7 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 18°F (10°C) 

Intake Structure: Concrete structure on edge of lake 

Discharge Structure: 4.2 mi (6.8 km) canal discharging about 4 mi (6 km) upstream from intake 

Site Information

Total Area: 6,020 ac (2,435 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.27 mi (0.43 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 4.5 mi (7.24 km) 

Nearest City: Columbia; 2000 population: 116,278 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, herbaceous 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 13.5, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland 
Appendix C 

 C-53 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Hartsville 5 mi (8 km) SE. Unit 1 is an adjacent 

185 MWe capacity coal-fired plant. Sand Hills State Forest is about 4 mi 

(6 km) N. The Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge is about 5 mi 

(8 km) NNW. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 809,582 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-54 

HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION 

Location: Salem County, New Jersey 

 8 mi (13 km) SW of Salem 

 Latitude 39.4678°N; longitude 75.5381°W 

Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-354 

Construction Permit: 1974 

Operating License: 1986 

Commercial Operation: 1986 

License Expiration: 2046 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,339 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,061 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling tower 

Source: Delaware River 

Source Temperature Range: 3481°F (127°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 552,000 gpm (34.8 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 28°F (16°C) 

Intake Structure: At edge of river 

Discharge Structure: Pipe 10 ft (3 m) offshore 

Site Information

Total Area: 740 ac (300 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.56 mi (0.90 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 5 mi (8.05 km) radius 

Nearest City: Wilmington, Delaware; 2000 population: 72,664 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, wetland, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain 
Appendix C 

 C-55 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 82.4, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater; estuarine 

and marine wetland 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Port Penn about 4 mi (6 km) NW in Delaware. The 

nearest railroad is 8 mi (13 km) NE. The plant is on the same site as the 

Salem Nuclear Generating Station. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 5,999,588 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-56 

INDIAN POINT ENERGY CENTER 

Location: Westchester County, New York 

 24 mi (39 km) N of New York City 

 Latitude 41.2714°N; longitude 73.9525°W 

Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

Unit Information Unit 2 Unit 3

Docket Number: 50-247 50-286 

Construction Permit: 1966 1969 

Operating License: 1973 1976 

Commercial Operation: 1974 1976 

License Expiration: 2013 2015 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,216 3,216 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,020 1,025 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Hudson River 

Source Temperature Range: 3278°F (026°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 840,000 gal/min (53 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 16.6°F (9.2°C) 

Intake Structure: Concrete structure at river bank 

Discharge Structure: Discharge canal to river exiting through 12 ports 

Site Information

Total Area: 239 ac (96.7 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.20 mi (0.32 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 0.65 mi (1.05 km) radius 

Nearest City: White Plains; 2000 population: 53,077 

Site Topography: Hilly 

Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly to mountainous 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, open water, developed: open space 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northern Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northeastern Highlands 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 19.0, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater 
Appendix C 

 C-57 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Buchannan 2 mi (3 km) ESE. Camp Smith (military) is 

1 mi (1.6 km) N, and West Point is 8 mi (13 km) N. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 16,791,654 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-58 

KEWAUNEE POWER STATION 

Location: Kewaunee County, Wisconsin 

 27 mi (43 km) E of Green Bay 

 Latitude 44.3431°N; longitude 87.5361°W 

Licensee: Dominion Generation 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-305 

Construction Permit: 1968 

Operating License: 1973 

Commercial Operation: 1974 

License Expiration: 2033 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 1,772 

Net Capacity (MWe): 556 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Lake Michigan 

Source Temperature Range: 3467°F (119°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 420,000 gpm (27 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 19°F (11°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake crib 15 ft (4.6 km) deep 1,750 ft (533 m) from shore 

Discharge Structure: At shoreline 

Site Information

Total Area: 908 ac (367 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.75 mi (1.21 km) 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) radius 

Nearest City: Green Bay; 2000 population: 102,313 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open Water, Agriculture, Wetland 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 51.9, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-59 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Two Creeks about 3 mi (5 km) S. Point Beach Nuclear 

Plant is about 5 mi (8 km) S. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,585,415 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-60 

LASALLE COUNTY STATION 

Location: LaSalle County, Illinois 

 11 mi (18 km) SE of Ottawa 

 Latitude 41.2439°N; longitude 88.6708°W 

Licensee: Exelon Generation Company 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-373 50-374 

Construction Permit: 1973 1973 

Operating License: 1982 1984 

Commercial Operation: 1984 1984 

License Expiration: 2022 2023 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,489 3,489 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,118 1,120 

Type of Reactor: BWR BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Cooling pond 

Source: Illinois River 

Source Temperature Range: 4785°F (829°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 645,000 gpm (40.7 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 24°F (13°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake from 2,058 ac (832.8 ha) cooling pond, makeup from river 

Discharge Structure: Discharge to cooling pond 

Site Information

Total Area: 3,060 ac (1,240 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.32 mi (0.51 km) 

Low Population Zone: 3.98 mi (6.41 km) 

Nearest City: Joliet; 2000 population: 106,221 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat with hills along river 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, open water 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Corn Belt Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 4.9, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-61 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Seneca about 5 mi (8 km) NNE. Braidwood Station 

(nuclear plant) is about 20 mi (32 km) ENE, and Dresden Nuclear Power 

Station is about 22 mi (35 km) NE. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,498,644 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-62 

LIMERICK GENERATING STATION 

Location: Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 

 21 mi (34 km) NW of Philadelphia 

 Latitude 40.2200°N; longitude 75.5900°W 

Licensee: Exelon Generation Company 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-352 50-353 

Construction Permit: 1974 1974 

Operating License: 1985 1989 

Commercial Operation: 1986 1989 

License Expiration: 2024 2029 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,458 3,458 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,134 1,134 

Type of Reactor: BWR BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling towers 

Source: Schuylkill River 

Source Temperature Range: 4282°F (628°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 450,000 gpm (28 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 30°F (17°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake from river 

Discharge Structure: Discharge to river 

Site Information

Total Area: 595 ac (241 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.47 mi (0.76 km) 

Low Population Zone: 1.30 mi (2.09 km) 

Nearest City: Reading; 2000 population: 81,207 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, developed: high, medium, low 

density 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northern Piedmont 
Appendix C 

 C-63 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 2, mostly riverine 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Linfield about 1 mi (1.6 km) SE. Valley Forge State Park 

is 10 mi (16 km) SSE. U.S. Highway I-76 is about 10 mi (16 km) S. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 7,651,537 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-64 

MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION 

Location: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

 17 mi (27 km) NNW of Charlotte 

 Latitude 35.4322°N; longitude 80.9483°W 

Licensee: Duke Energy Power Company 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-369 50-370 

Construction Permit: 1973 1973 

Operating License: 1981 1983 

Commercial Operation: 1981 1984 

License Expiration: 2041 2043 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,411 3,411 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,100 1,100 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Lake Norman 

Source Temperature Range: 3889°F (332°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 1,756,944 gpm (111 m3

/s) both units 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 22.1°F (12.3°C) 

Intake Structure: Submerged and surface intakes at shoreline 

Discharge Structure: 2,000 ft (610 m) discharge canal 

Site Information

Total Area: 577 ac (234 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.47 mi (0.76 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 5.50 mi (8.85 km) 

Nearest City: Charlotte; 2000 population: 540,828 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, open water, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 21.4, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-65 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Lowesville about 3 mi (5 km) W. The dam forming Lake 

Norman and a hydroelectric power plant are adjacent to the site. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,425,097 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-66 

MILLSTONE POWER STATION 

Location: New London County, Connecticut 

 3 mi (5 km) WSW of New London 

 Latitude 41.3086°N; longitude 72.1681°W 

Licensee: Dominion Generation 

Unit Information Unit 2 Unit 3

Docket Number: 50-336 50-423 

Construction Permit: 1970 1974 

Operating License: 1975 1986 

Commercial Operation: 1975 1986 

License Expiration: 2035 2045 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,700 3,650 

Net Capacity (MWe): 884 1,227 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: CE WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Long Island Sound 

Source Temperature Range: 3672°F (222°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 1.46 million gpm (92 m3

/s) both units 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 21°F (13°C) for Unit 2 

17.5°F (9.7°C) for Unit 3 

Intake Structure: On shore of Niantic Bay off Long Island Sound 

Discharge Structure: Discharge to Niantic Bay via holding pond 

Site Information

Total Area: 500 ac (200 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.34 mi (0.55 km) minimum 

Low Population Zone: (2.40 mi 3.86 km) radius 

Nearest City: New Haven; 2000 population: 123,626 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, developed: high, medium, 

low density 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 
Appendix C 

 C-67 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northeastern Coastal Zone 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 53.5, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Niantic 2 mi (3 km) NW. U.S. Highway I-95 is about 4 mi 

(6 km) NNE. Stone Ranch Military Reservation is about 6 mi (10 km) NW. 

Harkness Memorial State Park, Bluff Point State Park, and Rocky Neck State 

Park are within 5 mi (8 km) of the site. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Plum Island facility is 10 mi (16 km) S in Long Island Sound. The 

decommissioned Haddam Neck Plant (nuclear) is 20 mi (32 km) NW. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,868,207 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-68 

MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT 

Location: Wright County, Minnesota 

 35 mi (56 km) NW of Minneapolis 

 Latitude 45.3333°N; longitude 93.8483°W 

Licensee: Northern States Power Company 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-263 

Construction Permit: 1967 

Operating License: 1970 

Commercial Operation: 1971 

License Expiration: 2030 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 1,775 

Net Capacity (MWe): 572 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through and mechanical draft towers 

Source: Mississippi River 

Source Temperature Range: 3285°F (029°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 292,000 gpm (18 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 26.8°F (14.9°C) 

Intake Structure: Canal 

Discharge Structure: Canal 

Site Information

Total Area: 2,150 ac (860 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.30 mi (0.48 km) 

Low Population Zone: 1 mi (1.61 km) 

Nearest City: Minneapolis; 2000 population: 382,618 

Site Topography: Flat terraces 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to gently sloping 

Dominant Land Cover 5 mi within (8 km): Agriculture, forest, developed: open space 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): North Central Hardwood Forests 
Appendix C 

 C-69 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 11.8, mostly freshwater emergent wetland; lake; freshwater 

forested/shrub wetland 

Nearby Features: The business district of Monticello is about 2 mi (3.2 km) SE. Sherburne 

National Wildlife Refuge is about 9 mi (14 km) N. Lake Maria State Park is 

about 6 mi (10 km) WSW, and Sand Dunes State Forest and campground 

are 9 mi (14 km) NE. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,740,995 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-70 

NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION 

Location: Oswego County, New York 

 6 mi (10 km) NE of Oswego 

 Latitude 43.5222°N; longitude 76.4100°W 

Licensee: Constellation Energy 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-220 50-410 

Construction Permit: 1965 1974 

Operating License: 1968 1987 

Commercial Operation: 1969 1988 

License Expiration: 2029 2046 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 1,850 3,467 

Net Capacity (MWe): 621 1,140 

Type of Reactor: BWR BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Unit 1: Once-through 

 Unit 2: Natural draft tower 

Source: Lake Ontario 

Source Temperature Range: 3377°F (125°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: Unit 1: 290,278 gpm (18 m3

/s); Unit 2: 580,000 gpm (36.6 m3/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: Unit 1: 35°F (19.4°C); 

 Unit 2: 30°F (16.7°C) 

Intake Structure: Unit 1: submerged pipeline about 850 ft (260 m) from shore; 

 Unit 2: submerged pipelines about 950 ft (300 m) and 1,050 ft (320 m) from 

shore 

Discharge Structure: Diffuser pipe 555 ft (169 m) long serving both sides 

Site Information

Total Area: 900 ac (360 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 1 mi (1.6 km) to the east, 0.87 mi (1.4 km) to the southwest, and 1.3 mi 

(2 km) to the southern site boundary 

Low Population Zone: 4 mi (6.44 km) radius 

Nearest City: Syracuse; 2000 population: 147,306 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 
Appendix C 

 C-71 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 65.7, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Lakeview about 1 mi (1.6 km) WSW. Fort Ontario is 

about 6 mi (10 km) SW. James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant is 0.5 mi 

(0.8 km) E. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 914,668 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-72 

NORTH ANNA POWER STATION 

Location: Louisa County, Virginia 

 40 mi (64 km) NW of Richmond 

 Latitude 38.0608°N; longitude 77.7906°W 

Licensee: Dominion Generation 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-338 50-339 

Construction Permit: 1971 1971 

Operating License: 1978 1980 

Commercial Operation: 1978 1980 

License Expiration: 2038 2040 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,893 2,893 

Net Capacity (MWe): 981 973 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Lake Anna 

Source Temperature Range: 4883°F (928°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 1,900,000 gpm (120 m3

/s) both units 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 14.5°F (8.1°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake at lake shore 

Discharge Structure: Discharged through lake via a 3,400 ac (1,400 ha) cooling pond 

Site Information

Total Area: 18,643 ac (7,550 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.84 mi (1.35 km) 

Low Population Zone: 9.66 km (6 mi) 

Nearest City: Richmond; 2000 population: 197,790 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, agriculture, open water 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 21.1, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-73 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Centreville 1 mi (1.6 km) SW. Fredericksburg and 

Spotsylvania National Military Park is about 15 mi (24 km) NE. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,614,983 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-74 

OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION 

Location: Oconee County, South Carolina 

 26 mi (42 km) W of Greenville 

 Latitude 34.7917°N; longitude 82.8986°W 

Licensee: Duke Energy Power Company 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

Docket Number: 50-269 50-270 50-287 

Construction Permit: 1967 1967 1967 

Operating License: 1973 1973 1974 

Commercial Operation: 1973 1974 1974 

License Expiration: 2033 2033 2034 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,568 2,568 2,568 

Net Capacity (MWe): 846 846 846 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: B&W B&W B&W 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Lake Keowee 

Source Temperature Range: 4477°F (725°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 1,527,778 gpm (96 m3

/s) all units 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 17.2°F (9.6°C) 

Intake Structure: A skimmer wall draws water from the depths of 735 ft (223 m). 

Discharge Structure: All three units discharge through one structure near the Keowee Dam. 

Site Information

Total Area: 510 ac (210 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 1 mi (1.6 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 6 mi (9.66 km) 

Nearest City: Greenville; 2000 population: 56,002 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, open water, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 22.3, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-75 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Six Mile (6 4 mi km) ENE. Keowee Dam is close to the 

plant. Chattahoochee National Forest is about 15 mi (24 km) W. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,226,479 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-76 

OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION 

Location: Ocean County, New Jersey 

 9 mi (14 km) S of Toms River 

 Latitude 39.8142°N; longitude 74.2064°W 

Licensee: Exelon Generation Company 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-219 

Construction Permit: 1964 

Operating License: 1969 

Commercial Operation: 1969 

License Expiration: 2029 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 1,930 

Net Capacity (MWe): 619 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Barnegat Bay 

Source Temperature Range: 3575°F (224°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 460,000 gpm (29 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 14°F (8°C) 

Intake Structure: Forked River serves as a canal for intake and discharge to Barnegat Bay. 

Discharge Structure: Forked River serves as a canal for intake and discharge to Barnegat Bay. 

Site Information

Total Area: 800 ac (323.8 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.25 mi (0.40 km) 

Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km) 

Nearest City: Atlantic City; 2000 population: 40,517 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling plains to flat lowlands 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, open water, developed: high, medium, low 

density 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens 
Appendix C 

 C-77 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 45, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater; freshwater 

forested/shrub wetland 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Forked River about 2 mi (3 km) N. The Garden State 

Parkway is 1 mi (1.6 km) W. There is a large influx of recreationists and 

tourists in the summer. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 4,243,462 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-78 

PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT 

Location: Van Buren County, Michigan 

 35 mi (56 km) W of Kalamazoo 

 Latitude 42.3222°N; longitude 86.3153°W 

Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

Unit Information Unit 1

 

Docket Number: 50-255 

Construction Permit: 1967 

Operating License: 1972 

Commercial Operation: 1973 

License Expiration: 2031 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,565 

Net Capacity (MWe): 778 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: CE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Mechanical draft cooling towers 

Source: Lake Michigan 

Source Temperature Range: 3575°F (224°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 98,000 gpm (6.2 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 25°F (14°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake crib 3,300 ft (1,000 m) from shore 

Discharge Structure: 108 ft (33 m) long canal 

Site Information

Total Area: 432 ac (174.8 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.44 mi (0.71 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: Not available 

Nearest City: Kalamazoo; 2000 population: 77,145 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): S. Michigan/N. Indiana Drift Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 58.1, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-79 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is South Haven about 4 mi (6 km) N. Van Buren State 

Park joins the plant on the north. Many tourists come to the beaches in the 

summer. The C&O Railway is about 2 mi (3 km) E. Highway I-196 is about 

1 mi (1.6 km) E. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,287,558 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-80 

PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION 

Location: Maricopa County, Arizona 

 34 mi (55 km) W of Phoenix 

 Latitude 33.3881°N; longitude 112.8644°W 

Licensee: Arizona Public Service Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3

Docket Number: 50-528 50-529 50-530 

Construction Permit: 1976 1976 1976 

Operating License: 1985 1986 1987 

Commercial Operation: 1986 1986 1988 

License Expiration: 2045 2046 2047 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,990 3,990 3,990 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,335 1,335 1,335 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: CE CE CE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Mechanical draft cooling towers treatment plant 

Source: Phoenix City Sewage 

Source Temperature Range: Not available 

Condenser Flow Rate: 560,000 gpm (35 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 32.1°F (17.8°C) 

Intake Structure: 35 mi (56 km) underground pipeline from Phoenix 91st Avenue Sewage 

Treatment Plant 

Discharge Structure: Blowdown from the circulating water system is directed to onsite 

evaporation ponds without requiring any offsite discharge 

Site Information

Total Area: 4,050 ac (1,640 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.54 mi (0.87 km) minimum 

Low Population Zone: 4 mi (6.44 km) radius 

Nearest City: Phoenix; 2000 population: 1,321,045 

Site Topography: Flat with hills 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat with hills 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Shrub/scrub, agriculture, developed: open space 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): North American Desert 
Appendix C 

 C-81 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Sonoran Basin and Range 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 1.2, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Wintersburg about 3 mi (5 km) N. U.S. Highway I-10 is 

about 7 mi (11 km) N. The Southern Pacific Railroad is about 5 mi 

(8 km) SE. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,781,095 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-82 

PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION 

Location: York County, Pennsylvania 

 18 mi (29 km) S of Lancaster 

 Latitude 39.7589°N; longitude 76.2692°W 

Licensee: Exelon Generation Company 

Unit Information Unit 2 Unit 3

Docket Number: 50-277 50-278 

Construction Permit: 1968 1968 

Operating License: 1973 1974 

Commercial Operation: 1974 1974 

License Expiration: 2033 2034 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,514 3,514 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,112 1,112 

Type of Reactor: BWR BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through, with helper mechanical draft towers 

Source: Conowingo Pond 

Source Temperature Range: 3480°F (127°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 1.5 million gpm (95 m3

/s) (both units) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 20.8°F (11.5°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake from Conowingo Pond through a small intake pond 

Discharge Structure: 5,000 ft (1,520 m) canal to Conowingo Pond 

Site Information

Total Area: 620 ac (248 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.51 mi (0.82 km) 

Low Population Zone: 1.38 mi (2.22 km) 

Nearest City: Lancaster; 2000 population: 56,348 

Site Topography: Rolling to hilly 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, open water 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northern Piedmont 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 14.5, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-83 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Slate Hill 2 mi (3 km) SW. Susquehanna State Park is 

about 3 mi (5 km) N. U.S. Highway I-95 is about 15 mi (24 km) SE. 

Conowingo Dam, about 8 mi (13 km) SE on the Susquehanna River, forms 

Conowingo Pond. Unit 1 is a 40 MWe nuclear plant on the same site and 

was retired from service in 1974. Three Mile Island Nuclear Station is 35 mi 

(56 km) upstream on the Susquehanna River. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 5,270,600 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-84 

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

Location: Lake County, Ohio 

 7 mi (11 km) NE of Painesville 

 Latitude 41.8008°N; longitude 81.1442°W 

Licensee: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-440 

Construction Permit: 1977 

Operating License: 1986 

Commercial Operation: 1987 

License Expiration: 2026 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,758 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,261 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling tower 

Source: Lake Erie 

Source Temperature Range: 3279°F (026°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 545,400 gpm (34.41 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 32°F (18°C) 

Intake Structure: Submerged multiport structure 2,550 ft (777 m) offshore 

Discharge Structure: Submerged diffuser 1,650 ft (503 m) offshore 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,100 ac (450 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.55 mi (0.89 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 2.50 mi (4.02 km) 

Nearest City: Euclid; 2000 population: 52,717 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, developed: high, medium, low 

density 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 
Appendix C 

 C-85 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands; Erie Drift 

Plain 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 49.3, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is North Perry 1 mi (1.6 km) SW. The Penn Central 

Railroad is about 3 mi (5 km) S. U.S. Highway I-90 is about 5 mi (8 km) S. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 4,923,662 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-86 

PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION 

Location: Plymouth County, Massachusetts 

 4 mi (6 km) SE of Plymouth 

 Latitude 41.9444°N; longitude 70.5794°W 

Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

Unit Information Unit 1

 

Docket Number: 50-293 

Construction Permit: 1968 

Operating License: 1972 

Commercial Operation: 1972 

License Expiration: 2012 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,028 

Net Capacity (MWe): 685 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Cape Cod Bay 

Source Temperature Range: 35.671.6°F (222°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 311,100 gpm (19.6 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 32°F (18°C) 

Intake Structure: Concrete structure at edge of bay protected by a breakwater 

Discharge Structure: 850 ft (260 m) long canal 

Site Information

Total Area: 140 ac (57 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.33 mi (0.53 km) 

Low Population Zone: 4.20 mi (6.76 km) 

Nearest City: Brockton; 2000 population: 94,304 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, developed: high, medium, low 

density 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens; Northeastern Coastal Zone 
Appendix C 

 C-87 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 64.4, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Plymouth about 4 mi (6 km) NW. Miles Standish State 

Forest is about 6 mi (10 km) SW. Plymouth Rock and Plymouth Plantation 

historical sites are about 5 mi (8 km) W. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 4,629,116 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-88 

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT 

Location: Manitowoc County, Wisconsin 

 13 mi (21 km) NNW of Manitowoc 

 Latitude 44.2808°N; longitude 87.5361°W 

Licensee: Florida Power & Light Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

 

Docket Number: 50-266 50-301 

Construction Permit: 1967 1968 

Operating License: 1970 1972 

Commercial Operation: 1970 1972 

License Expiration: 2030 2033 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 1,540 1,540 

Net Capacity (MWe): 512 514 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Lake Michigan 

Source Temperature Range: Not available 

Condenser Flow Rate: 350,000 gpm (22 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 19.3°F (10.7°C) 

Intake Structure: Submerged structure 1,750 ft (533 m) from shore 

Discharge Structure: 2 steel piling troughs, extending 200 ft (61 m) into Lake Michigan 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,260 ac (510 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.74 mi (1.19 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 5.60 mi (9.01 km) 

Nearest City: Green Bay; 2000 population: 102,313 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, agriculture, wetland 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 54, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-89 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Two Creeks 1 mi (1.6 km) NNW. Point Beach State 

Forest is just S of the site. The Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant is about 5 mi 

(8 km) N. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,622,052 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-90 

PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT 

Location: Goodhue County, Minnesota 

 28 mi (45 km) SE of Minneapolis 

 Latitude 44.6219°N; longitude 92.6331°W 

Licensee: Northern States Power Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-282 50-306 

Construction Permit: 1968 1968 

Operating License: 1973 1974 

Commercial Operation: 1973 1974 

License Expiration: 2033 2034 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 1,650 1,650 

Net Capacity (MWe): 551 545 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through and/or mechanical draft cooling towers 

Source: Mississippi River 

Source Temperature Range: 3282°F (028°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 294,000 gpm (18.6 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 27°F (15°C) 

Intake Structure: Short canal 

Discharge Structure: Discharges to a basin then to towers and/or river 

Site Information

Total Area: 560 ac (230 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.43 mi (0.69 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 1.50 mi (2.41 km) 

Nearest City: Minneapolis; 2000 population: 382,618 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, wetland 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Driftless Area 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 31.9, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland; lake 
Appendix C 

 C-91 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The business district of the town of Red Wing is 6 mi (9.6 km) SE. A railroad 

line is just SW of the site. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,731,953 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-92 

QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION 

Location: Rock Island County, Illinois 

 20 mi (32 km) NE of Moline 

 Latitude 41.7261°N; longitude 90.3100°W 

Licensee: Exelon Generation Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-254 50-265 

Construction Permit: 1967 1967 

Operating License: 1972 1972 

Commercial Operation: 1973 1973 

License Expiration: 2032 2032 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,957 2,957 

Net Capacity (MWe): 867 869 

Type of Reactor: BWR BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Mississippi River 

Source Temperature Range: 3285°F (029°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 970,000 gpm (61 m3

/s) both units 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 28°F (15.6°C) 

Intake Structure: Canal at edge of river 

Discharge Structure: Two-pipe diffuser system on bottom of river 

Site Information

Total Area: (817 ac 331 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.50 mi (0.80 km) 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Davenport, Iowa; 2000 population: 98,359 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, wetland, forest 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Interior River Valley and Hills; Western Corn Belt Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 22.2, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland; lake 
Appendix C 

 C-93 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Folletts 3 mi (5 km) NW. The Rock Island Railroad is 

2 mi (3 km) W and the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad is 1 mi 

(1.6 km) E. The Rock Island Arsenal is about 15 mi (24 km) SW. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 656,527 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-94 

R.E. GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

Location: Wayne County, New York 

 20 mi (32 km) NE of Rochester 

 Latitude 43.2778°N; longitude 77.3089°W 

Licensee: Constellation Energy 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-244 

Construction Permit: 1966 

Operating License: 1969 

Commercial Operation: 1970 

License Expiration: 2029 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 1,775 

Net Capacity (MWe): 498 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Lake Ontario 

Source Temperature Range: 3280°F (027°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 340,000 gpm (21.4 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 20°F (11°C) 

Intake Structure: 3,100 ft (945 m) from shore, at a depth of 33 ft (10 m) 

Discharge Structure: Canal discharges to Lake Ontario at shoreline. 

Site Information

Total Area: 488 ac (197 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.290.85 mi (0.471.38 km) 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Rochester; 2000 population: 219,773 

Site Topography: Gently rolling to flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Sloping 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, agriculture, forest 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 63.1, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-95 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Lakeside 2 mi (3 km) SW. The N.Y. Central Railroad is 

about 3 m (5 km) S. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,250,000 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-96 

RIVER BEND STATION 

Location: West Feliciana County, Louisiana 

 24 mi (39 km) NNW of Baton Rouge 

 Latitude 30.7569°N; longitude 91.3314°W 

Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-458 

Construction Permit: 1977 

Operating License: 1985 

Commercial Operation: 1986 

License Expiration: 2025 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,091 

Net Capacity (MWe): 989 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Mechanical draft cooling towers 

Source: Mississippi River 

Source Temperature Range: Not available 

Condenser Flow Rate: 508,470 gpm (32.08 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 27°F (15°C) 

Intake Structure: At river bank 

Discharge Structure: Pipe extending into the river 

Site Information

Total Area: 3,342 ac (1,352 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.57 mi (0.92 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 2.50 mi (4.02 km) radius 

Nearest City: Baton Rouge; 2000 population: 227,818 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Wetland, forest, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Mississippi Valley Loess Plains; Mississippi Alluvial Plain 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 41.6, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland 
Appendix C 

 C-97 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is St. Francisville 3 mi (5 km) NW. Audubon Memorial 

State Park is about 3 mi (5 km) NNE. The Illinois Central Railroad crosses 

the site. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 866,314 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-98 

SAINT LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT 

Location: St. Lucie County, Florida 

 7 mi (11 km) SE of Fort Pierce 

 Latitude 27.3486°N; longitude 80.2464°W 

Licensee: Florida Power & Light Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-335 50-389 

Construction Permit: 1970 1977 

Operating License: 1976 1983 

Commercial Operation: 1976 1983 

License Expiration: 2036 2043 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,700 2,700 

Net Capacity (MWe): 839 839 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: CE CE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Atlantic Ocean 

Source Temperature Range: 87°F (31°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 968,000 gpm (61 m3

/s) both units 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 24°F (13°C). 

Intake Structure: 1,200 ft (370 m) offshore 

Discharge Structure: Unit 1 is 1,500 ft (460 m) offshore; Unit 2 is a multisport discharge 3,400 ft 

(1,040 m) offshore 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,130 ac (457 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.97 mi (1.56 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 1 mi (1.61 km) 

Nearest City: West Palm Beach; 2000 population: 82,103 

Site Topography: Flat land and water 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, wetland, developed: high, medium, low 

density 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 
Appendix C 

 C-99 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southern Coastal Plain 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 77.8, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Ankona 2 mi (3 km) W. The Florida East Coast Railroad 

is about 2 mi (3 km) W. The plant is on Hutchinson Island, which is 

separated from the mainland by the Indian River, which is part of the 

Intracoastal Waterway. A causeway to the mainland is about 6 mi (10 km) 

SSE. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,180,000 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-100 

SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION 

Location: Salem County, New Jersey 

 8 mi (13 km) SW of Salem 

 Latitude 39.4628°N; longitude 75.5358°W 

Licensee: Public Service Electric and Gas Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-272 50-311 

Construction Permit: 1968 1968 

Operating License: 1976 1981 

Commercial Operation: 1977 1981 

License Expiration: 2036 2040 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,459 3,459 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,174 1,130 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Delaware River 

Source Temperature Range: 3379°F (126°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 1,100,000 gpm (69 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 13.6°F (7.6°C) 

Intake Structure: 12-bay structure on edge of river 

Discharge Structure: Submerged pipes extending 500 ft (150 m) into the river 

Site Information

Total Area: 700 ac (280 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.80 mi (1.29 km) 

Low Population Zone: 5 mi (8.05 km) 

Nearest City: Wilmington, Delaware; 2000 population: 72,664 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, wetland, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain 
Appendix C 

 C-101 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 84, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater; estuarine and 

marine wetland 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Port Penn about 4 mi (6 km) NW in Delaware. The 

nearest railroad is 8 mi (13 km) NE. The plant is on the same site as the 

Hope Creek Generating Station (nuclear). 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 5,975,864 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-102 

SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION 

Location: San Diego County, California 

 5 mi (8 km) SE of San Clemente 

 Latitude 33.3703°N; longitude 117.5569°W 

Licensee: Southern California Edison Co. 

Unit Information Unit 2 Unit 3

Docket Number: 50-361 50-362 

Construction Permit: 1973 1973 

Operating License: 1982 1983 

Commercial Operation: 1983 1984 

License Expiration: 2022 2022 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,438 3,438 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,070 1,080 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: CE CE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Pacific Ocean 

Source Temperature Range: 5473°F (1223°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: Unit 2: 797,000 gpm (50.3 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 20°F (11°C) 

Intake Structure: Velocity-cap structure about 3,400 ft (1,040 m) from shore in water 30 ft (9 m) 

deep 

Discharge Structure: Diffuser port systems extending 3,8008,500 ft (1,1602,590 m) from 

shore 

Site Information

Total Area: 84 ac (34 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.37 mi (0.60 km) 

Low Population Zone: 1.95 mi (3.14 km) 

Nearest City: Oceanside; 2000 population: 161,029 

Site Topography: Narrow, sloping coastal plain and sea cliffs 

Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, shrub/scrub, developed: high, medium, 

low density 
Appendix C 

 C-103 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Mediterranean California 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southern and Central California Chaparral and Oak 

Woodlands 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 50.7, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is San Clemente 5 mi (8 km) NW. The site is surrounded 

by Camp Pendleton Marine Base. Camps on the base are 1.5 mi (2.4 km) or 

more from the site. U.S. Highway I-5 and the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa 

Fe Railroad are adjacent to the site to the east. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 12,404,757 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-104 

SEABROOK STATION 

Location: Rockingham County, New Hampshire 

 13 mi (21 km) SSW of Portsmouth 

 Latitude 42.8983°N; longitude 70.8497°W 

Licensee: Florida Power & Light Company 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-443 

Construction Permit: 1976 

Operating License: 1990 

Commercial Operation: 1990 

License Expiration: 2030 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,648 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,295 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Atlantic Ocean 

Source Temperature Range: 3755°F (313°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 399,000 gpm (25.2 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 38°F (21°C) 

Intake Structure: 3 structures 50 ft (15 m) below sea level with pipeline submerged about 175 ft 

(50 m) below mean sea level and extending about 7,000 ft (2,100 m) offshore 

Discharge Structure: Submerged pipeline ending in a diffuser located about 5,500 ft (1,675 m) 

offshore and about 5,000 ft (1,525 m) S of intake 

Site Information

Total Area: 896 ac (363 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.57 mi (0.92 km) minimum 

Low Population Zone: 1.25 mi (2.01 km) 

Nearest City: Lawrence, Massachusetts; 2000 population: 72,043 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, developed: high, medium, low 

density 
Appendix C 

 C-105 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northeastern Coastal Zone 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 45.2, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater; estuarine 

and marine wetland 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Seabrook 1 mi (1.6 km) W. U.S. Highway I-95 is about 

1 mi (1.6 km) W. The Boston and Maine Railroad is adjacent to the site. 

Hampton Beach State Park is 2 mi (3 km) E. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 6,932,660 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-106 

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT 

Location: Hamilton County, Tennessee 

 10 mi (16 km) NE of Chattanooga 

 Latitude 35.2233°N; longitude 85.0878°W 

Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-327 50-328 

Construction Permit: 1970 1970 

Operating License: 1980 1981 

Commercial Operation: 1981 1982 

License Expiration: 2020 2021 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,455 3,455 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,148 1,126 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through and/or natural draft cooling towers 

Source: Chickamauga Lake 

Source Temperature Range: 4283°F (628°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 522,000 gpm (32.9 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 30°F (17°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake from lake 

Discharge Structure: Discharge to lake 

Site Information

Total Area: 525 ac (212 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.35 mi (0.56 km) 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Chattanooga; 2000 population: 155,554 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, open water 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Ridge and Valley 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 15.1, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-107 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Shady Grove about 2 mi (3 km) NW. Harrison Bay State 

Park is 3 mi (5 km) S. The Volunteer Ordnance Works is about 9 mi 

(15 km) S. Chickamauga Lake is part of the Tennessee River. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 954,430 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-108 

SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT 

Location: Wake County, North Carolina 

 20 mi (32 km) SW of Raleigh 

 Latitude 35.6336°N; longitude 78.9564°W 

Licensee: Progress Energy 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-400 

Construction Permit: 1978 

Operating License: 1987 

Commercial Operation: 1987 

License Expiration: 2046 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,900 

Net Capacity (MWe): 900 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling tower 

Source: Buckhorn Creek 

Source Temperature Range: 4181°F (527°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 483,000 gpm (30.5 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 25.7°F (14.3°C) 

Intake Structure: At shoreline of reservoir on Buckhorn Creek 

Discharge Structure: Discharged to reservoir 

Site Information

Total Area: 10,744 ac (4,348 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 6,640 ft (2 km) (northwest) to 7,000 ft (2.1 km) (east) to 7,200 ft (2.2 km) 

(south) 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Raleigh; 2000 population: 276,093 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, herbaceous, open water 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont; Southeastern Plains 
Appendix C 

 C-109 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 13.2, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Bonsal 2 mi (3 km) NW. The Seaboard Coast Line 

Railroad is 2 mi (3 km) NW. Buckhorn Creek feeds into the Cape Fear River. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,035,797 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-110 

SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION 

Location: Matagorda County, Texas 

 12 mi (19 km) SSW of Bay City 

 Latitude 28.7950°N; longitude 96.0481°W 

Licensee: STP Nuclear Operating Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-498 50-499 

Construction Permit: 1975 1975 

Operating License: 1988 1989 

Commercial Operation: 1988 1989 

License Expiration: 2027 2028 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,853 3,853 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,280 1,280 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Closed cycle cooling reservoir 

Source: Colorado River 

Source Temperature Range: 5884°F (1429°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 907,400 gpm (57.26 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 19°F (11°C) 

Intake Structure: On bank of Colorado River 

Discharge Structure: On bank of Colorado River 

Site Information

Total Area: 12,350 ac (4,998 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.89 mi (1.43 km) minimum 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Galveston; 2000 population: 57,247 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, open water, wetland 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Great Plains 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Western Gulf Coastal Plain 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 23.3, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-111 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Matagorda 8 mi (13 km) SE. The Missouri Pacific 

Railroad is about 5 mi (8 km) NNE. A 16-in. (40-cm) natural gas pipeline is 

about 2 mi (3 km) NW. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 402,902 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-112 

SURRY POWER STATION 

Location: Surry County, Virginia 

 17 mi (27 km) NW of Newport News 

Latitude 37.1656°N; longitude 76.6983°W 

Licensee: Dominion Generation 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-280 20-281 

Construction Permit: 1968 1968 

Operating License: 1972 1973 

Commercial Operation: 1972 1973 

License Expiration: 2032 2033 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,546 2,546 

Net Capacity (MWe): 799 799 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: James River 

Source Temperature Range: 3584°F (229°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 1.68 million gpm (106 m3

/s) both units 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 14°F (7.8°C) 

Intake Structure: 1.7 mi (2.7 km) concrete canal 

Discharge Structure: 2,900 ft (880 m) canal 

Site Information

Total Area: 840 ac (340 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 1,650 ft (500 m) radius or 0.31 mi (0.5 km) 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Newport News; 2000 population: 180,150 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Open water, forest, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain; Southeastern Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 60.9, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater; riverine 
Appendix C 

 C-113 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Scotland 5 mi (8 km) W. Jamestown Island, a Federal 

park, is 4 mi (6 km) NW. Chippokes Plantation, a State park, is 3 mi (5 km) 

WSW. Jamestown National Historical Park is 5 mi (8 km) WNW. Colonial 

Williamsburg is 7 mi (11 km) NNW. Adjacent to the site on the north is Hog 

Island, a waterfowl refuge. U.S. Highway I-64 is 12 mi (19 km) NW. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,387,353 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-114 

SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 

Location: Luzerne County, Pennsylvania 

 7 mi (11 km) NE of Berwick 

 Latitude 41.0922°N; longitude 76.1467°W 

Licensee: PPL Susquehanna, LLC 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-387 50-388 

Construction Permit: 1973 1973 

Operating License: 1982 1984 

Commercial Operation: 1983 1985 

License Expiration: 2042 2044 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,952 3,952 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,149 1,140 

Type of Reactor: BWR BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling towers 

Source: Susquehanna River 

Source Temperature Range: Not available 

Condenser Flow Rate: 968,000 gpm (61 m3

/s) both units 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 14°F (8°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake bays on river bank 

Discharge Structure: Diffuser pipe 200 ft (61 m) from river bank 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,173 ac (475 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.34 mi (0.55 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Wilkes-Barre; 2000 population: 43,123 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Hilly with flat river valley 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, developed: open space 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Ridge and Valley 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 4.6, mostly riverine 
Appendix C 

 C-115 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Beach Haven about 1 mi (1.6 km) SW. U.S. Highway 

I-80 is 5 mi (8 km) E, and the Delaware and Hudson Railroad is 1 mi 

(1.6 km) E. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,684,794 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-116 

THREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 1 

Location: Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 

 10 mi (16 km) SE of Harrisburg 

 Latitude 40.1531°N; longitude 76.7250°W 

Licensee: Exelon Generation Company 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-289 

Construction Permit: 1968 

Operating License: 1974 

Commercial Operation: 1974 

License Expiration: 2034 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,568 

Net Capacity (MWe): 786 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: B&W 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling towers 

Source: Susquehanna River 

Source Temperature Range: 3384°F (129°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 430,000 gpm (27 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: Not available 

Intake Structure: Concrete structure on river bank 

Discharge Structure: Discharged at the shoreline 

Site Information

Total Area: 472 ac (191 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.38 mi (0.61 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km) 

Nearest City: Harrisburg; 2000 population: 48,950 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Agriculture, forest, developed: high, medium, low 

density 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northern Piedmont 
Appendix C 

 C-117 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 11.4, mostly riverine 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Middletown 4 mi (6 km) N. Harrisburg-York Airport is 

8 mi (13 km) WNW. Unit 2 ceased operation after an accident in 1979. 

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station is 35 mi (56 km) downstream. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,466,679 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-118 

TURKEY POINT NUCLEAR PLANT 

Location: Dade County, Florida 

 25 mi (40 km) S of Miami 

 Latitude 25.4350°N; longitude 80.3314°W 

Licensee: Florida Power and Light Co. 

Unit Information Unit 3 Unit 4

Docket Number: 50-250 50-251 

Construction Permit: 1967 1967 

Operating License: 1972 1973 

Commercial Operation: 1972 1973 

License Expiration: 2032 2033 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,300 2,300 

Net Capacity (MWe): 693 693 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Closed-cycle cooling canal 

Source: Biscayne Bay 

Source Temperature Range: 5490°F (1232°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 1.3 million gpm (82 m3

/s) both units 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 18°F (10°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake canal and barge canal 

Discharge Structure: Canal system covering about 4,000 ac (1,600 ha) 

Site Information

Total Area: 24,000 ac (9,700 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.79 mi (1.27 km) 

Low Population Zone: 5 mi (8.05 km) 

Nearest City: Miami; 2000 population: 362,470 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Wetland, open water, agriculture 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Tropical Wet Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southern Florida Coastal Plain 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 91.5, mostly estuarine and marine deepwater 
Appendix C 

 C-119 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Florida City about 9 mi (14 km) W. Hawk Missile Base is 

1 mi (1.6 km) NW. Homestead Recreation Park is about 2 mi (3 km) NNW. 

The Florida East Coast Railroad is about 9 mi (14 km) NW. Units 1 and 2 

are coal-fired and adjacent to the site. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 7,490,123 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-120 

VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION 

Location: Windham County, Vermont 

 5 mi (8 km) S of Brattleboro 

 Latitude 42.7803°N; longitude 72.5158°W 

Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-271 

Construction Permit: 1967 

Operating License: 1973 

Commercial Operation: 1972 

License Expiration: 2032 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 1,912 

Net Capacity (MWe): 510 

Type of Reactor: BWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: GE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through; closed-cycle mechanical draft towers 

Source: Connecticut River 

Source Temperature Range: 023°F (3274°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 360,000 gpm (22.7 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 13.4°F (10°C) 

Intake Structure: Concrete structure at edge of river 

Discharge Structure: Aerating structure discharges at edge of river 

Site Information

Total Area: 125 ac (50.6 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.17 mi (0.27 km) 

Low Population Zone: 5 mi (8.05 km) 

Nearest City: Holyoke, Massachusetts; 2000 population: 39,838 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, developed: high, medium, low 

density 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Northeastern Coastal Zone; Northeastern Highlands 
Appendix C 

 C-121 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 6.1, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Vernon about 1 mi (1.6 km) W. Vernon Dam is 0.7 mi 

(1 km) downstream from the site. The decommissioned Yankee Nuclear 

Power Station is about 20 mi (32 km) WSW. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,513,282 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-122 

VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION 

Location: Fairfield County, South Carolina 

 26 mi (42 km) NW of Columbia 

 Latitude 34.2958°N; longitude 81.3203°W 

Licensee: South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-395 

Construction Permit: 1973 

Operating License: 1982 

Commercial Operation: 1984 

License Expiration: 2042 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 2,900 

Net Capacity (MWe): 966 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Lake Monticello 

Source Temperature Range: 5291°F (1133°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 507,000 gpm (32 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 25°F (14°C) 

Intake Structure: Intake at shoreline 

Discharge Structure: Discharge to lake via a discharge basin and 1,000-ft (305-m) canal 

Site Information

Total Area: 2,200 ac (890 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 1.01 mi (1.63 m) radius 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Columbia; 2000 population: 116,278 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, open water, herbaceous 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Piedmont 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 20.2, mostly lake 
Appendix C 

 C-123 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Jenkinsville 3 mi (5 km) SE. U.S. Highway I-26 is 7 mi 

(11 km) SSW. The Southern Railroad is 1 mi (1.6 km) W. The Fairfield 

pumped storage hydrostation is about 1 mi (1.6 km) NW and uses Lake 

Monticello as well as the Parr Reservoir. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,032,330 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-124 

VOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT 

Location: Burke County, Georgia 

 26 mi (42 km) SE of Augusta 

 Latitude 33.1414°N; longitude 81.7625°W 

Licensee: Southern Nuclear Operating Co. 

Unit Information Unit 1 Unit 2

Docket Number: 50-424 50-425 

Construction Permit: 1974 1974 

Operating License: 1987 1989 

Commercial Operation: 1987 1989 

License Expiration: 2047 2049 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,565 3,565 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,109 1,127 

Type of Reactor: PWR PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling towers 

Source: Savannah River 

Source Temperature Range: 3986°F (430°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 509,600 gpm (32.16 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 33°F (18°C) 

Intake Structure: At river bank 

Discharge Structure: Single-point discharge pipe near the shoreline 

Site Information

Total Area: 3,169 ac (1,282 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.68 mi (1.09 km) minimum 

Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km) radius 

Nearest City: Augusta-Richmond County; 2000 population: 195,182 

Site Topography: Rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling, river flood plain 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, wetland, herbaceous 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Southeastern Plains 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 27.4, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland 
Appendix C 

 C-125 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Shell Bluff about 7 mi (11 km) W. The Seaboard Coast 

Line Railroad is about 4 mi (6 km) NE. The Department of Energy Savannah 

River Plant is about 10 mi (16 km) NNE. 

Population within 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 670,000 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-126 

WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 

Location: St. Charles County, Louisiana 

 20 mi (32 km) W of New Orleans 

 Latitude 29.9947°N; longitude 90.4711°W 

Licensee: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

Unit Information Unit 3

Docket Number: 50-382 

Construction Permit: 1974 

Operating License: 1985 

Commercial Operation: 1985 

License Expiration: 2024 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,716 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,250 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: CE 

Cooling Water System

Type: Once-through 

Source: Mississippi River 

Source Temperature Range: 4682°F (828°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 975,000 gpm (61.53 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 16°F (9°C) 

Intake Structure: At river bank 

Discharge Structure: At river bank 

Site Information

Total Area: 3,561 ac (1,441 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 90.57 mi (0.92 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 2 mi (3.22 km) 

Nearest City: New Orleans; 2000 population: 484,674 

Site Topography: Flat 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Wetland, agriculture, developed: high, medium, low 

density 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Mississippi Alluvial Plain 
Appendix C 

 C-127 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 67.8, mostly freshwater forested/shrub wetland 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Killona 1 mi (1.6 km) WNW. U.S. Highway I-10 is about 

7 mi (11 km) NE and I-90 about 7 mi (11 km) SE. Several active and 

abandoned gas and oil fields are within 10 mi (16 km). Lake Pontchartrain is 

about 7 mi (11 km) NE. The Missouri Pacific Railroad is just S of the site, 

and the Southern Pacific Railroad is about 8 mi (13 km) SE. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 2,072,270 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-128 

WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT 

Location: Rhea County, Tennessee 

 7 mi (11 km) SSE of Spring City 

 Latitude 35.6022°N; longitude 84.7894°W 

Licensee: Tennessee Valley Authority 

Unit Information Unit 1(a)

Docket Number: 50-390 

Construction Permit: 1973 

Operating License: 1996 

Commercial Operation: 1996 

License Expiration: 2035 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,459 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,123 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Natural draft cooling towers 

Source: Chickamauga Lake 

Source Temperature Range: 4382°F (628°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 410,000 gpm (26 m3

/s) each unit 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 38°F (21°C) 

Intake Structure: At lake bank 

Discharge Structure: To lake via a holding pond 

Site Information

Total Area: 1,770 ac (716 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.75 mi (1.21 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 3 mi (4.83 km) 

Nearest City: Chattanooga; 2000 population: 155,554 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Rolling to hilly 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Forest, agriculture, open water 

 

(a) Construction of Unit 1 was halted in 1985, resumed in 1990, and completed in 1995. Construction of 

Unit 2 was halted in 1988. The unit remains idle. 
Appendix C 

 C-129 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Eastern Temperate Forest 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Ridge and Valley 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 10.9, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Peakland 2 mi (3 km) NE. Watts Bar Dam is 1 mi 

(1.6 km) N. A fossil-fired steam plant is just N of the site. U.S. Highway I-75 

is about 11 mi (18 km) SE. The New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railroad is 

7 mi (11 km) NW. Chickamauga Lake is on the Tennessee River. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 1,044,454 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-130 

WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 

Location: Coffey County, Kansas 

 4 mi (6 km) NE of Burlington 

 Latitude 38.2386°N; longitude 95.6894°W 

Licensee: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation 

Unit Information Unit 1

Docket Number: 50-482 

Construction Permit: 1977 

Operating License: 1985 

Commercial Operation: 1985 

License Expiration: 2045 

Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): 3,565 

Net Capacity (MWe): 1,166 

Type of Reactor: PWR 

Nuclear Steam Supply System Vendor: WEST 

Cooling Water System

Type: Closed-cycle cooling pond 

Source: Wolf Creek 

Source Temperature Range: 3287°F (031°C) 

Condenser Flow Rate: 500,000 gpm (30 m3

/s) 

Design Condenser Temperature Rise: 30°F (1.1°C) 

Intake Structure: On the shore of cooling lake 

Discharge Structure: Discharged to 5,090 ac (2,060 ha) cooling lake, into an embayment 

separated from the intake 

Site Information

Total Area: 9,818 ac (3,973 ha) 

Exclusion Distance: 0.75 mi (1.21 km) radius 

Low Population Zone: 2.5 mi (4.02 km) radius 

Nearest City: Topeka; 2000 population: 122,377 

Site Topography: Flat to rolling 

Surrounding Area Topography: Flat to rolling 

Dominant Land Cover within 5 mi (8 km): Herbaceous, agriculture, open water 

Level 1 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Great Plains 

Level 3 Ecoregion within 5 mi (8 km): Central Irregular Plains 
Appendix C 

 C-131 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Percent Wetland within 5 mi (8 km): 14.8, mostly lake 

Nearby Features: The nearest town is Sharpe about 2 mi (3 km) N. The Flint Hills National 

Wildlife Refuge is about 7 mi (11 km) W. The John Redmond Reservoir is 

about 4 mi (6 km) W. U.S. Highway I-35 is 14 mi (23 km) N. The cooling 

lake is formed by a dam on Wolf Creek. 

Population within a 50 mi (80 km) Radius: 176,301 
Appendix C 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 C-132 

References 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). 2006. Level I Ecological Regions of North 

America, Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/wed/ 

pages/ecoregions/na_eco.htm#Level%20I (Accessed November 6, 2007). 

Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2007a. Nuclear Power Plants Operating in the 

United States as of September 30, 2005. Available URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/ 

page/at_a_glance/reactors/nuke1.html (Accessed December 5, 2007). 

Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA). 2007b. Monthly Nuclear Utility Generation by 

State and Reactor, 2007—January through October. Available URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_generation/usreactors.xls (Accessed February 6, 2008). 

 

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2007. State and County Quickfacts. Available URL: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html (Accessed December 5, 2007). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Level III Ecoregions of the Conterminous 

United States. National and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. Revised March, 

2007. Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm (Accessed 

November 6, 2007). 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. National Land Cover Database. Sioux Falls, South 

Dakota. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National Wetlands Inventory. Available URL: 

http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html (Accessed November 7, 2007). 

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

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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. Approved Applications for Power 

Uprates. Available URL: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operation/licensing/poweruprates/approved-applications.html (Accessed February 6, 2008). 

 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Power Uprates for Nuclear Plants. 

Available URL: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/power-uprates.html 

(Accessed October 31, 2010). 
Appendix C 

 C-133 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010. List of Power Reactor Units. Available 

URL: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/list-power-reactor-units.html (Accessed October 5, 

2010). 

Appendix D 

Technical Support for GEIS Analyses 

 

 D-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Appendix D 

Technical Support for GEIS Analyses

D.1 Land Use and Visual Resources 

D.1.1 Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence 

Onsite land use resources that could be affected by continued power plant operations during the 

license renewal term include all of the land within the plant site property boundaries. For license 

renewal, the current onsite industrial use of the land use is assumed to remain unchanged. 

Offsite land use resources include all patterns of land use in the vicinity of the nuclear plant that 

could be affected by continued operations and refurbishment activities associated with license 

renewal. Transmission lines generally have no effect on land use within the right-of-way (ROW) 

corridor. The region of influence for visual resource impacts includes all areas within view of the 

nuclear power plant. 

D.1.2 Description of Impact Assessment 

Completed license renewal supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) were 

examined to determine the extent of past onsite land use disturbances occurring as a result of 

license renewal and refurbishment activities at nuclear power plants. Offsite land use impacts 

were assessed based on a survey of newspaper and magazine accounts related to land use 

issues, a survey of all operating nuclear power plants, and experiences at seven selected 

license renewal case study sites. Additional information on offsite land use impacts came from 

a literature search on land use controls and workforce impacts with respect to nuclear power 

plants. The evaluation of land use impacts of transmission lines was derived from information 

compiled from a review of license renewal SEISs. The assessment of visual resource impacts 

caused by the presence of the nuclear power plant and transmission lines was derived from a 

review of license renewal SEISs. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-2 

D.2 Air Quality and Noise 

D.2.1 Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence 

Similar to most industrial facilities, nuclear power plants and other fuel-cycle facilities generate 

air pollutants(a)

 and propagate noise. The region of influence of the effects on air quality and 

noise includes the regulated ambient air environment within and outside each plant site property 

boundaries, whether open to the public or under various levels of access control. For license 

renewal, current air and noise pollution levels would remain unchanged, while during 

refurbishment and decommissioning activities, some additional impacts could occur, particularly 

on plant property. Some offsite areas at a few plants have a limited region of influence of a few 

kilometers beyond plant boundaries for measurable air quality impacts and a few hundred 

meters for noticeable noise impacts. The region of air and noise influences for primary source 

activities can conservatively include downwind areas within a 15.5 to 31 mi (25 to 50 km) radius 

of the plant for air impacts and up to about 1.9 mi (3 km) from the fence line for noise impacts. 

It is not anticipated that construction or refurbishment activities associated with license renewal 

would involve new primary sources of air or noise pollution. 

D.2.2 Description of Impact Assessment 

Air quality and noise impacts were examined through a review of a select number of SEISs to 

identify air emission sources that are permitted or have applications for permits during license 

renewal, as well as the information provided in the 1996 GEIS (NRC 1996) and the 

decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002), which addressed impacts for plants that have undergone 

decommissioning or are in the process of decommissioning. Offsite impacts were assessed 

based on a survey of all operating nuclear power plants and information in the decommissioning 

GEIS. 

The following, including figures and tables, provides supplemental data and information in 

support of the air quality impacts provided in Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 4.3.1.1. 

D.2.2.1 Climatology 

Continental U.S. maximum and minimum average annual temperatures from 1981 through 2010 

are shown in Figures D.2-1 and D.2-2, respectively. The average annual precipitation over the 

same period is shown in Figure D.2-3. In the period from 2006 through 2010, actual 

precipitation as a percent of the average monthly precipitation is shown in Figure D.2-4. 

 

(a) Both radiological and nonradiological (criteria air pollutants) releases are covered in the GEIS. See 

Appendix F for description of region of influence and the impact assessment for radiological releases. 
Appendix D

 D-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure D.2-1. Average Annual Maximum Temperatures over the Continental United States (1981–2010) (Permission to use this copyrighted material is granted by PRISM Group, Oregon State University) Copyright © 2010, PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://www.prismclimate.org. Map created February 17, 2012. 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-4

Appendix D 

Figure D.2-2. Average Annual Minimum Temperatures over the Continental United States (1981–2010) 

(Permission to use this copyrighted material is granted by PRISM Group, Oregon State University) 

Copyright © 2010, PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://www.prismclimate.org. Map created February 17, 2012.
Appendix D

 D-5 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure D.2-3. Average Annual Precipitation over the Continental United States (1981–2010) (Permission to use this copyrighted material is granted by PRISM Group, Oregon State University) Copyright © 2010, PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://www.prismclimate.org. Map created February 17, 2012. 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-6

Appendix D 

Figure D.2-4. Percent of Average Monthly Precipitation over the Past 5 Years (2006–2010) vs. the Past 30 Years 

(1981–2010) 

(Permission to use this copyrighted material is granted by PRISM Group, Oregon State University)

Copyright © 2010, PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University, http://www.prismclimate.org. Map created February 17, 2012.
Appendix D 

 D-7 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Drought or near-drought conditions are shown in south-central California northeast of the 

San Onofre plant and north of the Diablo Canyon plant. Similar drought conditions over this 

recent 5-year period also appear in limited areas near the Palo Verde plant in Arizona. Above 

normal annual precipitation (10 to 30 percent above historical averages) in the vicinity of 

licensed commercial power reactors are shown in large areas of southwestern and south Texas, 

the Midwest, and over much of the northeastern United States. 

D.2.2.2 Air Quality 

Air quality in all geographical regions of the United States is classified as being either in 

attainment or nonattainment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the 

authority to formally designate areas as attainment or nonattainment areas and uses the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to evaluate an area’s attainment status. The 

pollutants for which the NAAQS have been established are known as criteria pollutants (ozone 

[O3], particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 μm [PM10], 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 μm [PM2.5], nitrogen 

dioxide [NO2], SO2, CO, and lead [Pb]). If the concentration limit of a pollutant is below the 

NAAQS, the area will be designated as being in attainment for that pollutant. An area is 

deemed to be in attainment by the EPA when the air quality is monitored and the resultant 

concentrations are found to be consistently below the NAAQS. Table D.2-1 provides primary 

(public health, including health of “sensitive” populations) and secondary (public welfare, 

e.g., protection against vegetation and materials damage, decrease in visibility) NAAQS for 

each criteria air pollutant. However, if the pollution limits are exceeded for several consecutive 

years, the EPA will designate an area as being in nonattainment. The area will subsequently be 

subject to more stringent new or modified source regulatory requirements. 

Areas can be in attainment for some pollutants, while being in nonattainment for others. Some 

areas are designated as “maintenance” areas. These are regions that were initially designated 

as nonattainment or unclassifiable and have since attained compliance with the NAAQS. Some 

designated nonattainment areas for some pollutants include classifications identifying the level 

of severity or degree of nonattainment. For example, the 1997 8-hr O3 standard of 0.08 ppm 

has six separate classification levels, ranging from “marginal” to “extreme”.(b)

 Further details on 

the nonattainment designations, including the classification levels, can be found in EPA’s 

“Green Book” (http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk/). 

 

(b) Extreme—Area has a design value of 0.187 ppm and above. Severe 17—Area has a design value of 

0.127 up to but not including 0.187 ppm. Severe 15—Area has a design value of 0.120 up to but not 

including 0.127 ppm. Serious—Area has a design value of 0.107 up to but not including 0.120 ppm. 

Moderate—Area has a design value of 0.092 up to but not including 0.107 ppm. Marginal—Area has 

a design value of 0.085 up to but not including 0.092 ppm. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-8 

Table D.2-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

 

Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS(b)

Pollutant(a) Value Type(c)

SO2 1-hour 75 ppb(d) P 

 3-hour 0.5 ppm S 

NO2 1-hour 100 ppb P 

 Annual 0.053 ppm (53 ppb) P, S 

CO 1-hour 35 ppm P 

 8-hour 9 ppm P 

O3 8-hour 0.075 ppm(e)

 P, S 

PM10 24-hour 150 μg/m3 P, S 

PM2.5 24-hour 35 μg/m3 P, S 

 Annual 15 μg/m3 P, S 

Pb Rolling 

3-month 

0.15 μg/m3(f) P, S 

(a) Notation: CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone; 

Pb =lead; PM2.5 = particulate matter  2.5 μm; PM10 = particulate matter 

 10 μm; and SO2 = sulfur dioxide. 

(b) Refer to 40 CFR Part 50 for detailed information on attainment determination 

and reference method for monitoring. 

(c) P = Primary standard whose limits were set to protect public health; 

S = Secondary standard whose limits were set to protect public welfare. 

(d) Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards 

were revoked in that same rulemaking. However, these standards remain in 

effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except in 

areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, where the 1971 

standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 

2010 standard are approved. 

(e) Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years) 

and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 

1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per 

year) in all areas, although some areas have continued obligations under that 

standard (“anti-backsliding”). The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the 

expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average 

concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1. 

(f) Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3

 as a 

quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated 

for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 

1978, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain 

or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 

Source: EPA 2011a 

 
Appendix D 

 D-9 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

To be reclassified from nonattainment to an attainment maintenance area, the Clean Air Act 

outlines several conditions that must be met, one of which is the development and EPA 

approval of a maintenance plan. Other conditions that States must meet before an area may be 

redesignated by the EPA include: (1) the area has monitored attainment of the air quality 

standard; (2) the EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent 

and enforceable reductions in emissions; (3) the State has submitted and EPA has approved a 

maintenance plan for the area; and (4) the area has met all other applicable Clean Air Act 

requirements. The EPA may approve or deny the redesignation request based on air 

monitoring information, the activities listed in the State Implementation Plan, and the comments 

submitted by the public. 

The maintenance plan must demonstrate continued compliance, considering projected growth, 

for a period of ten years. If outdoor air monitors record a violation of the standard, the 

maintenance plan must include a commitment to determine appropriate measures to address 

the cause of the violation. This plan must specify measures that will be used in the area to 

maintain compliance with the NAAQS. The plan must include controls the area will employ to 

ensure emissions remain below certain levels and contingency measures to ensure prompt 

correction of any NAAQS violations. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will 

ensure coordination of the licensee with the appropriate EPA Regional Office and/or State air 

quality office before any plants begin major construction or refurbishment activities. 

D.3 Geologic Environment 

D.3.1 Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence 

The geologic environment of nuclear power plant sites was not addressed in the 1996 GEIS, but 

geology and soils are included in this GEIS update. An understanding of such geologic and soil 

conditions, as well as the presence of geologic hazards, has been well established at all nuclear 

power plants during the current licensing term. Changes in the potential for hazards, such as 

earthquakes, are not within the scope of this GEIS because any such changes during the period 

of extended operation would not be the result of nuclear reactor operations. The geologic and 

soil resources considered in this GEIS are those that could be affected by an additional 

20 years of reactor operation and by refurbishment activities within the nuclear power plant site 

property boundaries and nearby offsite areas. Because land and soil disturbance during license 

renewal could occur in undisturbed and undeveloped areas either onsite or possibly offsite, the 

locations of power plants relative to areas of important farmland soils (e.g., prime farmland) 

were considered. In addition, the region of potentially affected geologic resources considered 

extends to offsite areas because the presence of a nuclear power plant may restrict rock, 

mineral, and fossil fuel extraction operations beyond the site boundaries. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-10 

D.3.2 Description of Impact Assessment 

Geologic and soil resources could be affected by construction or refurbishment projects during 

the license renewal term or subsequently during plant decommissioning. These actions would 

include activities that disturb surface soils, sediments, and underlying geologic strata, resulting 

in such effects as erosion, loss of soil resources, and increased suspended solids in nearby 

surface water bodies. 

All published SEISs were reviewed for new and significant information pertaining to geologic 

and soil impacts from continued operations and refurbishment, but none was noted. The 

magnitude of the impact of potential ground-disturbing activities on geology and soils and local 

geologic resources would depend on site-specific factors such as the nature of geologic strata 

and soils, facility location, construction planning, and site-specific resource mapping. 

D.4 Water Resources 

D.4.1 Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence 

Most of the nuclear power plants are located near significant surface water bodies that are 

either natural or man-made. Therefore, the region of influence for water resources includes 

those on and adjacent to each nuclear power plant site that could be impacted by water 

withdrawals, effluent discharges, and spills or stormwater runoff associated with continued 

operations and refurbishment activities. Thus, the surface water resources considered includes 

those onsite, downstream of the site (in the case of river settings), or throughout some portion of 

a body of water (in the case of an ocean, lake or Great Lake, bay, reservoir, or pond) adjacent 

to the site. The region of influence for groundwater impacts includes areas both onsite (local 

water table) and offsite (regional aquifer). 

D.4.2 Description of Impact Assessment 

Sources of information about surface-water and groundwater issues regarding water use, water 

conflicts, and water quality included the 1996 GEIS, plant-specific supplements to the GEIS, 

and the decommissioning GEIS update (NRC 2002). All published SEISs were reviewed for 

new and significant information pertaining to water issues. 

To analyze the condenser flow rate requirements and consumptive loss associated with specific 

categories of cooling system technologies (see Section 3.5.1.1 in this GEIS), data from the 

1996 GEIS and a U.S. Geological Survey report were compiled. The flow rates and 

consumptive loss rates were normalized to a specific power capacity to allow comparisons. 
Appendix D 

 D-11 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Permitting requirements related to surface water withdrawal and groundwater use were 

summarized, and recent information was reviewed to assess water use conflicts and drought 

effects on rivers. 

The evaluation of new and significant information related to water resources impacts led to 

several new water issues being considered in this GEIS revision. For example, the impacts of 

dredging were addressed by reviewing information on dredging operations and permitting 

requirements in SEISs prepared since issuance of the 1996 GEIS. The effects of general 

groundwater and soil contamination stemming from spills, leaks, and general industrial practices 

at power plants were evaluated through review of plant-specific SEISs and supporting 

documents. The impacts of radionuclide leaks, particularly tritium, were summarized based on 

a recent NRC summary report of tritium incidents (NRC 2006). A related document by the 

nuclear industry (NEI 2007) pertaining to assessment and monitoring was also reviewed. 

D.5 Ecological Resources 

D.5.1 Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence 

Terrestrial resources potentially affected by nuclear power plant operations during the license 

renewal term were determined at a broad level by obtaining the Level III ecoregion data 

(EPA 2007) (Table D.5-1) and land cover data (USGS 2003) for the vicinity of each power plant. 

An ecoregion describes a broad landscape in which the ecosystems have a general similarity. It 

can be characterized by the spatial pattern and composition of biotic and abiotic features, such 

as vegetation, wildlife, physiography, climate, soils, and hydrology (CEC 1997). The Level I 

ecoregions of the United States in which the nuclear power plants are located are shown in 

Figure D.5-1. Each ecoregion is subdivided into subregions. Level III ecoregions range from 

the warm, arid Sonoran Basin and Range ecoregion with cactus-shrub habitats, in which the 

Palo Verde plant in Arizona is located, to the cool, moist Northeastern Highlands ecoregion with 

northern hardwood and spruce-fir forests, which contains the Indian Point plant in New York. 

Level III ecoregions in the vicinity of the operating nuclear plants are presented in Table D.5-2. 

The region of influence for each power plant was considered to be the area within a radius of 

5 mi as well as the transmission line ROWs associated with each power plant. 

In the vicinity of the nuclear plants, an average of 25 percent of the land area is forested, 

5 percent is grassland, and 4 percent is shrubland, as determined from land cover data. The 

land area around 10 plants is mostly forested (exceeding 50 percent of the land cover), and 

around 2 plants, it is mostly shrubland. (For no plants is it mostly grassland.) Agricultural lands 

are also present in the vicinity of many of the nuclear plants. An average of 23 percent of the 

area around all plants is used for crop production, and the area around 9 nuclear plants is 

mostly agricultural (greater than 30 percent land cover). Wetland types within 5 mi of each 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-12

Appendix D Table D.5-1. Level I Ecoregions and Corresponding Level III Ecoregions That Occur in the Vicinity of U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Level I Ecoregion Level III Ecoregion Level III Description 

Eastern Temperate Forests Arkansas Valley Forest, pasture, cropland; bottomland deciduous forest on 

floodplains 

Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens Northeastern oak-pine woodland; marsh, swamp, 

floodplain forest along tidal rivers, freshwater marsh; agriculture; dunes, barrier islands 

 Central Corn Belt Plains Cropland; tallgrass prairie, oak-hickory forest  Driftless Area Agriculture; hardwood forest  Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands Agriculture; northern hardwood forest  Erie Drift Plain Agriculture; maple-beech-birch forest; wetlands 

Huron/Erie Lake Plains Cropland; oak savanna on dunes/beach ridges, elm-ash 

swamp, beech forest 

Interior Plateau Oak-hickory forest, cropland, pasture; bluestem prairie, 

cedar glades 

Interior River Valleys and Hills Cropland; pasture; forested valley slopes, bottomland 

deciduous forest, swamp forest, mixed oak forest, oakhickory forest 

Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Pine forest, swamp, marsh, estuaries; oak, gum, cypress 

near rivers; cropland; dunes, barrier islands 

 Mississippi Alluvial Plain Cropland; bottomland deciduous forest  Mississippi Valley Loess Plains Cropland; oak-hickory forest and oak-hickory-pine forest 

North Central Hardwood Forests Mosaic of coniferous forest and northern hardwood forest, 

wetlands and lakes, cropland, pasture 

 Northeastern Coastal Zone Northern hardwood forest, spruce-fir forest, lakes 

 Northern Piedmont Appalachian oak forest, cropland 
Appendix D

 D-13 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table D.5-1. (cont.) Level I Ecoregion Level III Ecoregion Level III Description Eastern Temperate Forests (cont.) Piedmont Oak-hickory-pine woodland; cropland Ridge and Valley Appalachian oak forest, oak-hickory-pine forest, agriculture S. Michigan/N. Indiana Drift Plains Lakes, marsh; agriculture; oak-hickory forest, northern swamp forest, beech forest Southeastern Plains Mosaic of cropland, pasture, woodland, mixed forest Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains Agriculture; mosaic of hardwood forest, oak savanna, tallgrass prairie Southern Coastal Plain Coastal lagoons, marsh, swamp, barrier islands; pine, oak- gum-cypress forest; citrus groves, pasture; lakes Western Allegheny Plateau Mixed mesophytic forest, mixed oak forest; pasture, cropland Great Plains Central Irregular Plains Mosaic of grassland, wide riparian forest; cropland Cross Timbers Rangeland, pasture; little bluestem grassland with scattered oaks Western Corn Belt Plains Cropland, pasture; tallgrass prairie; narrow riparian forest Western Gulf Coastal Plain Grassland, cropland North American Deserts Columbia Plateau Arid sagebrush steppe and grassland; agriculture Sonoran Basin and Range Hot climate; creosote bush-bur sage; large areas of palo verde-cactus shrub and giant saguaro cactus Mediterranean California Southern and Central California Chaparral and Oak Woodlands Mediterranean climate: hot dry summers, cool moist winters Northern Forests Northeastern Highlands Northern hardwood forest, spruce-fir forest; lakes Tropical Wet Forests Southern Florida Coastal Plain Frost-free climate; flat plains with wet soils; marshland, swamp, everglades, palmetto prairie Source: EPA 2007
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-14

Appendix D 

Figure D.5-1. Level I Ecoregions of the United States (CEC 2006) 
Appendix D

 D-15 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table D.5-2. Ecoregions in the Vicinity of Operating Nuclear Power Plants Site Name Level I Description Level III Ecoregion(s) Arkansas Eastern Temperate Forests Arkansas Valley Beaver Valley Eastern Temperate Forests Western Allegheny Plateau Braidwood Eastern Temperate Forests Central Corn Belt Plains Browns Ferry Eastern Temperate Forests Interior Plateau Brunswick Eastern Temperate Forests Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Byron Eastern Temperate Forests Central Corn Belt Plains Callaway Eastern Temperate Forests Interior River Valleys and Hills Calvert Cliffs Eastern Temperate Forests Southeastern Plains, Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Catawba Eastern Temperate Forests Piedmont Clinton Eastern Temperate Forests Central Corn Belt Plains Columbia North American Deserts Columbia Plateau Comanche Peak Great Plains Cross Timbers Cooper Great Plains Western Corn Belt Plains Crystal River Eastern Temperate Forests Southern Coastal Plain D.C. Cook Eastern Temperate Forests S. Michigan/N. Indiana Drift Plains Davis Besse Eastern Temperate Forests Huron/Erie Lake Plains Diablo Canyon Mediterranean California Southern and Central California Chaparral and Oak Woodlands Dresden Eastern Temperate Forests Central Corn Belt Plains Duane Arnold Great Plains Western Corn Belt Plains Farley Eastern Temperate Forests Southeastern Plains Fermi Eastern Temperate Forests Huron/Erie Lake Plains FitzPatrick Eastern Temperate Forests Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-16

Appendix D Table D.5-2. (cont.) Site Name Level I Description Level III Ecoregion(s) Fort Calhoun Great Plains Western Corn Belt Plains 

Ginna Eastern Temperate Forests Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands Grand Gulf Eastern Temperate Forests Mississippi Valley Loess Plains, Mississippi Alluvial Plain Harris Eastern Temperate Forests Piedmont, Southeastern Plains Hatch Eastern Temperate Forests Southeastern Plains, Southern Coastal Plain Hope Creek Eastern Temperate Forests Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain Indian Point Northern Forests Northeastern Highlands Kewaunee Eastern Temperate Forests Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains LaSalle Eastern Temperate Forests Central Corn Belt Plains Limerick Eastern Temperate Forests Northern Piedmont McGuire Eastern Temperate Forests Piedmont Millstone Eastern Temperate Forests Northeastern Coastal Zone Monticello Eastern Temperate Forests North Central Hardwood Forests Nine Mile Point Eastern Temperate Forests Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands North Anna Eastern Temperate Forests Piedmont Oconee Eastern Temperate Forests Piedmont Oyster Creek Eastern Temperate Forests Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens Palisades Eastern Temperate Forests S. Michigan/N. Indiana Drift Plains Palo Verde North American Deserts Sonoran Basin and Range Peach Bottom Eastern Temperate Forests Northern Piedmont Perry Eastern Temperate Forests Eastern Great Lakes and Hudson Lowlands, Erie Drift Plain Pilgrim Eastern Temperate Forests Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens, Northeastern Coastal Zone Point Beach Eastern Temperate Forests Southeastern Wisconsin Till Plains 
Appendix D

 D-17 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table D.5-2. (cont.) Site Name Level I Description Level III Ecoregion(s) Prairie Island Eastern Temperate Forests Driftless Area Quad Cities Eastern Temperate Forests and Great Plains Interior River Valleys and Hills, Western Corn Belt Plains, Central Corn Belt Plains River Bend Eastern Temperate Forests Mississippi Valley Loess Plains, Mississippi Alluvial Plain Robinson Eastern Temperate Forests Southeastern Plains Salem Eastern Temperate Forests Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain San Onofre Mediterranean California Southern and Central California Chaparral and Oak Woodlands Seabrook Eastern Temperate Forests Northeastern Coastal Zone Sequoyah Eastern Temperate Forests Ridge and Valley South Texas Great Plains Western Gulf Coastal Plain St. Lucie Eastern Temperate Forests Southern Coastal Plain Summer Eastern Temperate Forests Piedmont Surry Eastern Temperate Forests Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, Southeastern Plains Susquehanna Eastern Temperate Forests Ridge and Valley Three Mile Island Eastern Temperate Forests Northern Piedmont Turkey Point Tropical Wet Forests Southern Florida Coastal Plain Vermont Yankee Eastern Temperate Forests and Northern Forests Northeastern Coastal Zone, Northeastern Highlands Vogtle Eastern Temperate Forests Southeastern Plains Waterford Eastern Temperate Forests Mississippi Alluvial Plain Watts Bar Eastern Temperate Forests Ridge and Valley Wolf Creek Great Plains Central Irregular Plains Source: EPA 2007 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-18 

power plant were determined by obtaining National Wetland Inventory (NWI) data 

(USFWS 2007) (Table D.5-3). When NWI data were not available, the land cover data were 

used. Open water areas were assigned to NWI classification on the basis of NWI classification 

methodology. 

Aquatic habitats and the types of aquatic organisms (including special status species) that could 

be affected by nuclear power plant operations during the license renewal term were determined 

at a broad level on the basis of the location of the plant and the source of cooling water used by 

the plant. In cases where cooling systems could affect more than one type of system 

(e.g., freshwater and estuarine), impacts to both systems were considered in the analysis. 

Similarly, the potential for migratory aquatic species to be affected by a particular plant was 

based on reported occurrences of such species in waters used to supply cooling water. Plants 

that use estuarine or marine water sources for cooling or plants that use freshwater cooling 

water sources with a potential for containing migratory life stages of Federally managed fishery 

species were assumed to have a potential for affecting essential fish habitat. In general, 

existing impingement, entrainment, and thermal impacts on aquatic organisms from cooling 

water systems were considered to be lower for plants with cooling towers when operating in a 

closed-cycle mode because those plants withdraw smaller volumes of water for cooling and 

have comparatively smaller thermal plumes. 

Additional information regarding terrestrial and aquatic resources in the vicinity of specific 

nuclear power plants was obtained from scientific articles and reports, from recently completed 

SEISs, and from environmental reports (ERs) included as part of the applications submitted by 

applicants for renewal of reactor licenses. Information from these sources was used to describe 

the general types of nuclear plant interactions with ecological resources and illustrate impact 

types observed at the nuclear plants. In some cases, information provided in the 1996 GEIS 

(NRC 1996) was used to describe the affected environment. 

D.5.2 Description of Impact Assessment 

A wide range of issues (Table 2.4-1) related to potential impacts of license renewal on 

ecological resources were evaluated by considering how continuation of operations would affect 

ecological resources compared to the current condition. Although the ecological impacts 

associated with plant decommissioning have been previously evaluated by the NRC (2002), the 

ecological impacts associated with delaying decommissioning because of license renewal were 

considered as part of the proposed action (Section 4.1.3.5). Potential impacts to terrestrial and 

aquatic resources were evaluated, in part, by a review of published literature related to the 

impacting factors associated with operations and associated construction and refurbishment 

actions during the license renewal term. Although some of the impacts identified were specific 

to nuclear power plant operation (e.g., effects of radionuclides on biota), impacts associated 

with non-nuclear power plants also were reviewed (e.g., the effects of bird collisions 
Appendix D

 D-19 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table D.5-3. Percent of Area Occupied by Wetland and Deepwater Habitats Within 5 Miles of Operating Nuclear Power Plants Percent of Area Occupied by Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Types Site Estuarine and Marine Deepwater(b) Estuarine and Marine Wetland Lacustrine Palustrine Pond(c) Riverine Palustrine Emergent Wetland Palustrine Forested/Shrub Wetland Other Total Wetland(d) Arkansas(a) 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 11.7 Beaver Valley 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 3.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 5.5 Braidwood 0.0 0.0 7.6 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.0 11.4 Browns Ferry 0.0 0.0 26.6 0.2 0.0 0.7 14.7 0.0 42.2 Brunswick 23.6 15.3 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.5 19.9 0.1 36.9 Byron 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.0 3.6 Callaway 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 1.1 0.8 1.7 0.0 4.5 Calvert Cliffs 52.8 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 2.3 0.0 3.3 Catawba 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 12.9 Clinton 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 9.0 Columbia 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 5.6 Comanche Peak(a) 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.2 0.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 8.8 Cooper 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 2.7 0.7 3.1 0.0 6.8 Crystal River 39.1 13.9 0.1 0.3 0.2 2.1 9.6 0.0 26.1 Cook 0.0 0.0 50.6 0.3 0.0 0.5 2.2 0.0 53.6 Davis Besse 0.0 0.0 53.7 0.8 2.7 7.4 2.0 0.0 66.6 Diablo Canyon 53.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 Dresden 0.0 0.0 10.8 1.5 1.2 5.1 3.4 0.0 22.0 Duane Arnold 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 1.6 1.2 7.5 0.0 11.7 Farley 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 10.1 0.0 13.1 Fermi 0.0 0.0 53.3 0.4 0.8 2.0 1.4 0.0 57.9 FitzPatrick(a) 0.0 0.0 60.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.7 0.0 65.4 Fort Calhoun 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.3 1.7 0.9 1.6 0.0 6.3 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-20

Appendix D Table D.5-3. (cont.) Percent of Area Occupied by Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Types 

Site 

Estuarine 

and Marine 

Deepwater(b)

Estuarine 

and Marine 

Wetland Lacustrine 

Palustrine 

Pond(c) Riverine 

Palustrine 

Emergent 

Wetland 

Palustrine 

Forested/Shrub 

Wetland Other 

Total 

Wetland(d)

Ginna(a) 0.0 0.0 61.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.0 63.1 Grand Gulf(a) 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 8.8 0.7 26.8 0.0 39.4 

Harris 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 13.2 Hatch 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.3 0.5 20.3 0.0 23.9 Hope Creek 44.1 34.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.7 1.4 0.1 38.3 Indian Point 14.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 1.8 0.0 4.3 Kewaunee(a) 0.0 0.0 46.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.3 0.0 51.9 

LaSalle 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 4.9 Limerick 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 2.0 McGuire 0.0 0.0 19.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 21.4 Millstone 49.1 1.7 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 2.1 0.0 4.3 Monticello 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.7 1.4 4.3 2.5 0.0 11.8 Nine Mile Point(a) 0.0 0.0 60.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.6 0.0 65.7 

North Anna 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.4 0.0 21.1 Oconee(a) 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 22.3 

Oyster Creek 27.0 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 13.0 0.0 18.0 Palisades 0.0 0.0 48.9 0.2 0.0 1.1 7.8 0.1 58.1 Palo Verde(a) 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.2 

Peach Bottom 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 14.5 Perry(a) 0.0 0.0 48.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 49.3 

Pilgrim 60.8 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.0 3.6 Point Beach(a) 0.0 0.0 45.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 7.5 0.0 54.0 

Prairie Island(a) 0.0 0.0 13.2 1.0 0.1 4.4 13.2 0.0 31.9 

Quad Cities 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.7 0.2 2.0 10.3 0.0 22.2 
Appendix D

 D-21 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Table D.5-3. (cont.) Percent of Area Occupied by Wetland and Deepwater Habitat Types Site Estuarine and Marine Deepwater(b) Estuarine and Marine Wetland Lacustrine Palustrine Pond(c) Riverine Palustrine Emergent Wetland Palustrine Forested/Shrub Wetland Other Total Wetland(d) River Bend(a) 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 6.2 1.3 32.7 0.0 41.6 Robinson 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 8.3 0.0 13.5 Salem 45.0 35.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.5 1.3 0.1 39.0 San Onofre 48.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 1.3 0.0 2.6 Seabrook 24.3 12.8 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.7 6.9 0.0 20.9 Sequoyah 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 15.1 South Texas 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.2 0.8 5.0 3.1 0.0 23.3 St. Lucie 65.8 4.3 0.0 0.5 0.1 7.0 0.1 0.0 11.9 Summer 0.0 0.0 17.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 2.0 0.0 20.2 Surry 33.8 2.6 1.4 0.2 17.3 3.2 2.4 0.0 27.0 Susquehanna 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 3.1 0.1 1.0 0.0 4.6 Three Mile Island 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 10.6 0.1 0.3 0.0 11.4 Turkey Point 53.7 12.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 15.7 9.1 0.0 37.8 Vermont Yankee 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.3 1.1 0.6 1.4 0.0 6.1 Vogtle 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.6 24.3 0.0 27.4 Waterford 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.9 7.6 11.8 45.8 0.2 67.8 Watts Bar 0.0 0.0 9.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.0 10.9 Wolf Creek(a) 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.0 14.8 (a) Data were derived, at least in part, from the National Land Cover Database (USGS 2003) and were assigned to NWI categories. (b) Deepwater habitats are permanently flooded and lie below the deepwater/wetland boundary (Cowardin et al 1979). (c) Includes the Aquatic Bed and Unconsolidated Bottom wetland classes. (d) Does not include deepwater habitats. Source: National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2007), except where noted. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-22 

with natural draft cooling towers or electric transmission lines, or the effects of impingement, 

entrainment, and thermal stress on fish and other aquatic organisms). In addition, recently 

completed SEISs were reviewed for impact evaluations and the presentation of new and 

potentially significant information on the impacts of plant operations during the renewal term. 

The potential impacts of radionuclide exposure on terrestrial and aquatic biota at nuclear power 

plants were evaluated by reviewing Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program reports 

(primarily annual radiological environmental operating reports) for 15 power plants selected to 

represent a range of radionuclide concentrations in the environmental media, including plants 

identified as having high annual worker total effective dose equivalent values or public 

exposures. In instances where a site’s sediment or soil concentration for a particular nuclide 

was below the lower limit of detection (LLD), the LLD was substituted as the concentration for 

that media type, thereby resulting in a conservative estimate (i.e., more likely to identify a 

potential for negative impacts to biota) of potential exposure. The radionuclide concentrations in 

water, sediment, and soil were then input to the RESRAD-BIOTA dose evaluation model 

(DOE 2004) to estimate the dose rates for terrestrial and aquatic biota. 

The RESRAD-BIOTA code was developed at Argonne National Laboratory based on the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) graded approach to biota dose evaluation (DOE 2002). 

There are three levels provided by the RESRAD-BIOTA code corresponding to the graded 

approach to biota dose evaluation. The evaluation presented in Section 4.1.1.5.1 was 

conducted using RESRAD-BIOTA Level 2, which was necessary for dose modeling. Because 

the LLDs for water samples were relatively high compared to the Biota Concentration Guide, 

water radionuclide concentrations below the LLD were estimated using the partition coefficient 

(Kd value) provided in the RESRAD-BIOTA code. 

For all ecological receptors, default bioaccumulation factors and dose limits were used. 

Radionuclides at each site were evaluated by comparing the sum of the total estimated dose to 

the default dose limits (riparian animal, 0.1 rad/d; terrestrial animal, 0.1 rad/d; terrestrial plant, 

1.0 rad/d; aquatic organisms, 1.0 rad/d). Estimated doses that were less than the dose limit 

were determined to represent an acceptable radiological risk to the receptor, whereas estimated 

doses above the dose limit were determined to represent an unacceptable radiological risk to 

the receptor. More information about the RESRAD-BIOTA code, including instructions for using 

the model, can be found at http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/. 

The potential impacts of continued operation of the cooling systems on terrestrial biota at 

nuclear power plants were evaluated by reviewing published site-specific reports to gather 

information on the types and concentrations of contaminants released from the cooling systems 

into the environment and comparing those concentrations to regulatory guidelines to determine 

whether the contaminants associated with cooling system operation posed any risk to terrestrial 

resources. Specifically, radiological effluent release reports (RERRs), ERs, and recently 
Appendix D 

 D-23 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

prepared SEISs for eight nuclear power plants were reviewed to identify the types and 

concentrations of contaminants associated with the operation of the cooling systems. The eight 

nuclear power plants were selected to represent different cooling systems and contaminants. 

Water concentrations were reported in the RERRs, ERs, or SEISs for only two contaminants: 

chlorine and tritium. The maximum reported concentrations for both contaminants from the sitespecific reports were compared to regulatory guidelines and the results from laboratory 

experiments. Maximum site-specific concentrations below the lowest observed effects level 

(LOEL) or below the recommended regulatory guideline were considered to represent an 

acceptable risk to terrestrial resources. Maximum site-specific concentrations above the LOEL 

or above the recommended regulatory guideline were considered to represent an unacceptable 

risk to terrestrial resources. Potential effects of contaminants introduced into aquatic 

environments from cooling water systems were evaluated by reviewing the SEISs that have 

been previously completed and scientific literature pertaining to potential and observed effects 

of contaminants and biocides used for maintenance of cooling water systems. 

D.6 Historic and Cultural Resources 

D.6.1 Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence 

In this revision, the term “historic properties” is used when discussing Section 106 compliance 

activities and “historic and cultural resources” is used when generically referencing the 

resource. The NRC considers historic and cultural resources as an all-inclusive term that 

includes prehistoric, historic, and traditional cultural properties. In addition, while NHPA 

requires agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, 

NEPA requires the consideration of the cultural environment; thus the issue is termed “Historic 

and Cultural Resources” (see NEPA Statute Sec. 101 42 USC 4331(b) 4). The NRC 

coordinates Section 106 requirements through the NEPA process. 

In determining affected historic and cultural resources, the region of influence is the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE). The license renewal APE is the area that may be impacted by land 

disturbing, or other operational, activities associated with continued plant operations and 

maintenance during the license renewal term and/or refurbishment. The APE typically 

encompasses the nuclear power plant site, its immediate environs including viewshed, and the 

transmission lines within this scope of review (see Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.6.5 in this GEIS). The 

APE may extend beyond the nuclear plant site and transmission lines when these activities may 

affect historic and cultural resources. This determination is made irrespective of land ownership 

or control. The NRC must identify historic and cultural resources occurring within the defined 

APE. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-24 

Historic and cultural resources can include physical remains of past human activity that have 

historic or cultural meaning. They include archaeological sites (e.g., prehistoric campsites and 

villages), historic era resources (e.g., farmsteads, forts, and canals), and traditional cultural 

properties (e.g., resource collection areas and sacred areas). Historic and cultural resources 

that are eligible for listing on the NRHP are considered historic properties that are evaluated 

under Section 106 of the NHPA. Historic properties that could be affected by license renewal 

and that are included in the region of influence include both those found in areas within the plant 

property and areas outside the property that would be affected by plant activities. In most 

cases, license renewal activities will be confined to the current property boundaries and the 

transmission line ROW up to the first substation. Continued operations, refurbishment, and 

decommissioning activities may affect currently undeveloped portions of plant property. While 

some portions of the nuclear power plant site and transmission line ROW were heavily disturbed 

during the power plant construction, it is expected that some historic and cultural resources 

would remain in less disturbed portions of the site. 

D.6.2 Description of Impact Assessment 

Cultural resources were identified as resources to be considered for license renewal in the 

1996 GEIS (NRC 1996), where they were identified as a Category 2 issue (NRC 1996). The 

current assessment is in agreement with this categorization. Due to geographic, cultural, and 

historic differences, a site-specific assessment of historic and cultural resources must be 

performed. A sample review of 27 nuclear power plants revealed very few archaeological sites. 

Extensive ground-disturbing activities occurred during nuclear power plant construction, and 

much of the land immediately surrounding the power block was disturbed down to bedrock. 

This activity would have eliminated any potential for historic or cultural resources to be present 

in this portion of the power plant site. However, to effectively determine areas that could 

potentially contain historic and cultural resources, a survey of any previously disturbed areas of 

the nuclear power plant site must be conducted by qualified professionals and in consultation 

with the SHPO and other consulting parties. Plant activities that could affect historic and 

cultural resources during the renewal period include minor construction projects, maintenance 

actions, security improvements, landscaping activities, agricultural, and recreational activities. 

Impacts to historic and cultural resources from these activities are assessed in plant-specific 

supplements to the GEIS. 

Potential impacts to historic and cultural resources were considered for decommissioning and 

were found to be SMALL (NRC 2002). The current assessment evaluates whether continued 

operations during the license renewal term would affect the conclusions in the decommissioning 

GEIS for both the plant and transmission lines. The current assessment is based on potential 

effects of continued operation and refurbishment activities on historic and cultural resources 

during the license renewal term. 
Appendix D 

 D-25 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

D.7 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

D.7.1 Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence 

The impacts of nuclear power plant operations and refurbishment occur at the local level, in the 

county in which a plant is located, at the regional level, in the counties in which the majority of 

permanent plant employees reside, and at the State level. The definition of the region around 

each nuclear plant is based on employee residential location data and the location of vendors 

providing materials, equipment, and services necessary for operation, maintenance, and any 

construction that might be required for refurbishment activities. The majority of the economic 

and tax revenue data used in the GEIS update was derived from a series of reports developed 

by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI 2003, 2004a,b,c,d, 2005a,b, 2006a,b,c), which was used to 

describe the socioeconomic environment in the region in which a sample of 11 nuclear plants 

are located, and for the estimation of impacts of each plant at the local and State levels 

(Table D.7-1). 

Table D.7-1. Definition of Local Areas and Regions at 11 Nuclear Plants 

Plant Counties in Local Area 

Additional 

Counties in Region State 

Diablo Canyon San Luis Obispo None California 

Grand Gulf Warren and Claiborne Hinds, Franklin, Copiah, Adams Mississippi 

Indian Point Westchester, Duchess, 

Orange, Putnam and 

Rockland 

None New York 

Limerick Montgomery Berks, Chester Pennsylvania 

Millstone New London None Connecticut 

Oconee Anderson, Greenville, 

Oconee and Pickens 

None South Carolina 

Palo Verde Maricopa None California 

Peach Bottom York Lancaster, Chester Pennsylvania 

Susquehanna Luzerne None Pennsylvania 

Three Mile Island Dauphin Lancaster, Lebanon, York, 

Cumberland, Perry 

Pennsylvania 

Wolf Creek Coffey Lyon, Franklin, Anderson, 

Shawnee 

Kansas 

Sources: NEI 2003, 2004a,b,c,d, 2005a,b, 2006a,b,c
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-26 

D.7.2 Estimation of Direct and Indirect Economic Effects 

Nuclear power plant operations generate significant employment and expenditures at each plant 

site. Wage and salary and nonlabor expenditures create demand for a range of durable and 

nondurable goods provided by wholesalers and retailers, and also create demand for health and 

professional services and housing. Power plants also provide tax revenues for local and State 

governmental entities. In addition to employment, wages and salaries, and nonlabor 

expenditures directly associated with plant operations, power plants also produce indirect 

employment and income in the local and State economies as direct expenditures associated 

with wages and salaries, procurement, and tax revenues, which circulate through the 

economies, producing additional economic activity. The magnitude of the indirect economic 

impact of labor spending at each plant is determined by the extent to which plant employees live 

in the local area and region around each plant. The indirect impact of nonlabor expenditures is 

determined by the extent to which vendors of materials, equipment, and supplies are located in 

the local area and region. 

Estimation of the indirect impact of nuclear power plants on local and State employment and 

income in NEI data was based on the use of regional economic multipliers in association with 

plant expenditure data for the construction and operations phases. Multipliers capture the 

indirect (offsite) effects of onsite activities associated with construction and operation of an 

activity or event. Expenditure data associated with the construction and operation of nuclear 

power plants were derived from individual utility sources, which provided the relevant 

construction and operating cost data for wages and salaries and nonlabor expenditures 

(procurement of materials, equipment, and services) and tax revenues. 

Expenditure data in the NEI reports were mapped into the relevant North American Industry 

Classification System codes for use with multipliers from an IMPLAN model specified for the 

local area and State in which each power plant is located. IMPLAN input-output economic 

models are based on economic accounts showing the flow of commodities to industries from 

producers and institutional consumers. The accounts also show consumption activities by 

workers and owners of capital and imports from outside the region. The IMPLAN model 

contains 528 sectors representing industries in agriculture, mining, construction, manufacturing, 

wholesale and retail trade, utilities, finance, insurance and real estate, and consumer and 

business services. The model also includes information for each sector on employee 

compensation; proprietary and property income; personal consumption expenditures; Federal, 

State, and local expenditures; inventory and capital formation; and imports and exports. More 

information on the IMPLAN model and data can be found in each NEI report (NEI 2003, 

2004a,b,c,d, 2005a,b, 2006a,b,c). 

In addition to NEI data on direct power plant employment, wage and salary spending, materials 

and equipment expenditures, and local and State tax revenues, NEI estimates of indirect 
Appendix D 

 D-27 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

employment and income impacts at the local and State levels associated with power plant labor 

and nonlabor expenditures and tax revenue spending were reported in the analysis of impacts 

in the GEIS update. 

Impacts of plant operations and refurbishment are likely to vary according to the scale of 

employment and expenditures at each power plant and the type of economy in which each plant 

is located. To assess the impact of power plant size and location in the GEIS update, 11 power 

plants for which direct and indirect impacts were estimated by NEI were classified according to 

whether the economic structure in the locality and region around each plant is rural or semiurban. Rural areas often have relatively simple economies, and agriculture is often the primary 

economic activity. Many of the industries that provide equipment and services important to 

power plant operations are largely absent in rural areas, which have smaller, less diversified 

labor markets, with often lower skilled, lower paying occupations. In addition to agriculture and 

related activities, in some locations there may also be a range of other activities, including 

resource extraction, manufacturing, and transportation industries that provide employment and 

income. In semi-urban areas, where economic structures are more complex than in rural areas, 

there are a wider range of industries and larger and more diverse labor markets. Semi-urban 

areas may also serve specialized economic functions, including maritime shipping, fishing, 

boatbuilding, recreation, and tourism and numerous locations featuring residential areas hosting 

second homes and retirement communities. 

D.7.3 Environmental Justice Assessment Methods 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requests independent Federal agencies to 

incorporate environmental justice as part of their missions. Specifically, it requests them to 

address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their actions, programs, or policies on minority and low-income 

populations. The NRC voluntarily complies with this Executive Order. Additional guidance for 

undertaking environmental justice reviews is described in Section 3.10. 

The analysis of the impacts of nuclear power plant operations and refurbishment during the 

license renewal term on environmental justice has three parts: (1) a description of the 

geographic distribution of low-income and minority populations in the affected area; (2) an 

assessment of whether the impacts of license renewal would produce impacts that are high and 

adverse; and (3) if impacts are high and adverse, a determination as to whether these impacts 

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. 

The analysis considers minority and low-income populations who reside within a 50-mi (80-km) 

radius of a nuclear plant. Data on low-income and minority individuals are collected and 

analyzed at the census tract or census block group level. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-28 

Minority individuals are those who identify themselves as members of the following population 

groups: Hispanic or Latino, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or AfricanAmerican, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races. Beginning with the 

2000 census, where appropriate, the census form allows individuals to designate multiple 

population group categories to reflect their ethnic or racial origin. In addition, persons who 

classify themselves as being of multiple racial origins may choose up to six racial groups as the 

basis of their racial origins. The term minority includes all persons, including those classifying 

themselves in multiple racial categories, except those who classify themselves as not of 

Hispanic origin and as White or Other Race. 

Minority populations are identified when (1) the minority population of an affected area exceeds 

50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is “meaningfully 

greater than” the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate 

unit of geographic analysis. Minority populations may be communities of individuals living in 

close geographic proximity to one another, or a geographically dispersed or transient set of 

individuals (e.g., migrant workers or American Indians) where the group experiences common 

conditions of environmental exposure or effect. The appropriate unit of geographic analysis 

may be a political jurisdiction, county, region, or State or other similar unit that is chosen so as 

not to artificially dilute or inflate the affected minority population. 

Low-income individuals are those whose annual income falls below the poverty line. The 

poverty line takes into account family size and the age of individuals in the family. In 1999, for 

example, the poverty line for a family of five with three children below the age of 18 was 

$19,882. For any given family below the poverty line, all family members are considered as 

being below the poverty line for the purposes of analysis. Low-income populations in an 

affected area are identified with the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Census 

Bureau’s Current Population Reports, Series PB60. Low-income populations may be 

communities of individuals living in close geographic proximity to one another, or a set of 

individuals (e.g., migrant workers) where the group experiences common conditions of 

environmental exposure or effect. 

Nuclear power plant license renewal could affect environmental justice if any adverse health 

and environmental impacts are significantly high, and if these impacts would disproportionately 

affect minority and low-income populations. If the analysis determines that health and 

environmental impacts are not significant, there can be no disproportionate impacts to minority 

and low-income populations. Disproportionately high and adverse human health effects occur 

when the risk or rate of exposure to an environmental hazard for a minority or low-income 

population is significant (as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality, CEQ) and 

appreciably exceeds the risk or exposure rate for the general population or for another 

appropriate comparison group. Disproportionately high environmental impacts that are 

significant (as defined by CEQ) are impacts or risks of impacts on the natural or physical 
Appendix D 

 D-29 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

environment in a low-income or minority community that appreciably exceed the environmental 

impact on the larger community. Such effects may include ecological, cultural, economic, or 

social impacts. Adverse environmental impacts are impacts that are determined to be both 

harmful and significant (as defined by CEQ). In assessing cultural and aesthetic environmental 

impacts, impacts that uniquely affect geographically dislocated or dispersed minority or lowincome populations or American Indian Tribes are considered (CEQ 1997). 

D.8 Human Health 

D.8.1 Radiological Effects 

Nuclear power plants produce electricity through a heat-generating process known as “fission,” 

in which neutrons split uranium atoms to produce large amounts of energy. Any material that is 

capable of undergoing fission by neutrons in a self-sustaining chain reaction is called fissile 

material. The most common fissile isotopes are uranium-235 and plutonium-239. Neutrons 

whose energy distribution is in thermal equilibrium with the ambient medium are called thermal 

neutrons. When a thermal neutron strikes uranium-235, it splits the uranium atom into two 

isotopes with a smaller atomic weight (called fission products) and several neutrons (the mean 

number of neutrons per fission of uranium-235 is 2.5) and gamma rays. All fission products are 

radioactive and decay to form other radioactive isotopes. The amount of energy generated in a 

fission reaction is about 200 MeV, and this energy is distributed among fission products, 

neutrons, and fission gamma rays. Most of the energy generated in the nuclear fission process 

is dissipated as thermal energy and is converted into electrical energy in a nuclear power plant. 

Nuclear fission differs from other forms of radioactive decay in that it can be harnessed and 

controlled via a chain reaction in which neutrons released by each fission event trigger yet more 

events, which, in turn, release more neutrons and cause more fission. 

In a nuclear reactor, a controlled sustained chain reaction is produced. The core of a nuclear 

reactor consists of fuel (containing uranium enriched in uranium-235), a moderator to slow down 

the neutrons released in fission, a coolant to remove the thermal energy, and control rods for 

controlling the chain reaction. In enriched uranium, the percent composition of uranium-235 is 

increased (2 to 5 percent) from its natural composition (about 0.7 percent) in uranium. The 

nuclear power plants in the United States use water as both a moderator and a coolant. During 

the fission process, a large inventory of radioactive fission products builds up within the fuel. 

Virtually all of the fission products are contained within the fuel pellets. The fuel pellets are 

enclosed in hollow metal rods (cladding), which are hermetically sealed to further prevent the 

release of fission products. However, a small fraction of the fission products migrate from the 

fuel rods and contaminate the reactor coolant. The primary system coolant also has radioactive 

contaminants as a result of neutron activation (a process by which a stable atom becomes 

radioactive after undergoing a reaction with a neutron). Neutrons also interact with structural 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-30 

materials inside the pressure vessel and with the pressure vessel itself and make those 

materials radioactive. 

D.8.1.1 Background Information on Radiation 

Atoms are the basic building blocks of matter. An atom consists of three basic particles: 

(1) neutrons (neutral particles), (2) protons (positively charged particles), and (3) electrons 

(negatively charged particles). Neutrons and protons combine to form the positively charged 

nucleus which is the central part of the atom. The electrons revolve around the nucleus in 

different orbits. Atoms of different types are known as elements. Elements differ in the number 

of protons and electrons they have, but they have an equal number of each. When atoms of an 

element have a different number of neutrons, they are called isotopes of that element. 

Elements have many isotopes, and some of them may be unstable. 

Radiation is energy transmitted in the form of waves or particles. There are two basic types of 

radiation: particulate radiation and electromagnetic radiation. Particulate radiation (alpha and 

beta radiation) has both mass and energy associated with it. Electromagnetic radiation is pure 

energy with no mass, such as x-rays and gamma rays. Radiation is produced when unstable 

isotopes undergo spontaneous change, known as radioactive disintegration or radioactive 

decay. The rate of decay is measured by how long it takes for half of the sample to decay. 

When an unstable isotope changes into a more stable form it may emit either an alpha particle 

or a beta particle. These reactions may or may not be associated with gamma radiation. The 

alpha and beta particles are generally referred to as ionizing radiation. 

An alpha particle emits positively charged, highly energetic ionizing radiation that consists of two 

protons and two neutrons. Alpha particles are extremely limited in their ability to penetrate 

matter, and they can be stopped easily by a sheet of paper or by the outer layer of the skin. In 

air, they can travel only a few centimeters. Therefore, alpha particles outside the body do not 

cause any external radiation exposure. However, when the alpha particles are ingested or 

inhaled they dissipate all their energy in the living tissue, which results in radiation exposure. 

A beta particle is an electron that is much lighter than an alpha particle. It can travel a longer 

distance in air than an alpha particle but can still be stopped by a thin sheet of aluminum foil. 

Low-energy beta emitters in general do not result in external radiation exposure, but highenergy beta emitters, when stopped by shielding, may generate Bremsstrahlung x-rays that may 

result in external radiation exposure. The intake of beta particles would result in internal 

radiation exposure. 

X-rays and gamma rays are waves of pure energy that travel with the speed of light and are 

very penetrating; they require thick concrete or lead shielding to stop them. X-rays and gamma 

rays can result in both external and internal radiation exposure. 
Appendix D 

 D-31 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Neutrons lose energy through collisions with the nuclei of the atoms in their environment. They 

generally slow down to thermal or near thermal energies and are captured by nuclei of the 

absorbing material. Therefore, neutrons generally travel long distances in air or metallic 

components before they are absorbed. Radiation exposure occurs from gamma rays and alpha 

particles that are emitted when a neutron is captured in matter. 

D.8.1.2 Conventional Quantities and Units 

Following is the list of conventional terms used in the evaluation of radiological human health 

impacts. 

• Absorbed dose: The energy imparted by ionizing radiation per unit mass of the 

irradiated material. The units of absorbed dose are the rad and the gray (Gy). 

• Activity: The rate of disintegration (transformation) or decay of radioactive material. The 

units of radioactivity are the curie (Ci) and the Becquerel (Bq). 

• Collective dose: The sum of the individual doses received in a given period of time by a 

specified population from exposure to a specified source of radiation. 

• Committed dose equivalent: The dose equivalent to organs or tissues of reference that 

will be received from an intake of radioactive material by an individual during the 50-year 

period following the intake. 

• Committed effective dose equivalent: The sum of the products of the weighting factors 

applicable to each of the body organs or tissues that are irradiated and the committed 

dose equivalent to these organs or tissues. 

• Deep-dose equivalent: Applies to external whole-body exposure and is the dose 

equivalent at a tissue depth of 1 cm. 

• Dose equivalent: The product of the absorbed dose in tissue, quality factor, and all other 

modifying factors at the location of interest. The units of dose equivalent are the rem 

and the sievert (Sv). 

• Effective dose equivalent: The sum of the products of the dose equivalent to the organ 

or tissue and the weighting factors applicable to each of the body organs or tissues that 

are irradiated. 

• External dose: That portion of the dose equivalent received from radiation sources 

outside the body. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-32 

• Internal dose: That portion of the dose equivalent received from radioactive material 

taken into the body. 

• Nonstochastic effect: Health effects, the severity of which varies with the dose and for 

which a threshold is believed to exist. Radiation-induced cataract formation is an 

example of a nonstochastic effect (also called a deterministic effect). 

• Organ dose: Dose received as a result of radiation energy absorbed in a specific organ. 

• Occupational dose: Dose received by an individual in the course of employment in 

which the individual’s assigned duties involve exposure to radiation or to radioactive 

material. 

• Public dose: The dose received by a member of the public from exposure to radiation or 

radioactive material. 

• Quality factor: The modifying factor (see Table D.8-1) that is used to derive the dose 

equivalent from the absorbed dose. 

• Shallow-dose equivalent: Applies to external exposure of the skin or an extremity and is 

taken as the dose equivalent at a tissue depth of 0.007 cm averaged over an area of 

1 cm2

. 

• Stochastic effect: Health effects that occur randomly and for which the probability of the 

effect occurring, rather than its severity, is assumed to be a linear function of dose 

without threshold. Hereditary effects and cancer incidence are examples of stochastic 

effect. 

Table D.8-1. Quality Factors and Absorbed Dose Equivalencies 

Type of Radiation 

Quality 

Factor 

Absorbed Dose Equal to 

a Unit Dose Equivalent(a)

X-, gamma, or beta radiation 1 1 

Alpha particles, multiple-charged particles, fission 

fragments, and heavy particles of unknown energy. 

20 0.05 

Neutrons of unknown energy 10 0.1 

High energy protons 10 0.1 

(a) Absorbed dose in rad equal to 1 rem or the absorbed dose in gray equal to sievert. 

Source: 10 CFR Part 20 
Appendix D 

 D-33 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• Total body dose: Sum of the dose received from external exposure to the total body, 

gonads, active blood-forming organs, head and trunk, or lens of the eye and the dose 

due to the intake of radionuclides by inhalation and ingestion where a radioisotope is 

uniformly distributed throughout the body tissues rather than being concentrated in 

certain parts. 

• Total effective dose equivalent: The sum of the deep-dose equivalent (for external 

exposure) and the committed effective dose equivalent (for internal exposure). 

• Weighting factor: The fraction of the overall health risk, resulting from uniform whole 

body irradiation, attributable to a specific organ or tissue. Table D.8-2 lists organ dose 

weighting factors. 

• Whole body dose: Same as total body dose. 

D.8.1.3 Biological Effects of Radiation 

Radiation interacts with the atoms that form the cells. 

There are two mechanisms by which radiation affects 

cells: direct action and indirect action. In a direct action, 

the radiation interacts directly with the atoms of the DNA 

molecule or some other component critical to the survival 

of the cell. Since the DNA molecules make up a small part 

of the cell, the probability of direct action is small. 

Because most of the cell is made up of water, there is a 

much higher probability that radiation would interact with 

water. In an indirect action, radiation interacts with water 

and breaks the bonds that hold the water molecule 

together and produces reactive free radicals that are 

chemically toxic and destroy the cell. The body has 

mechanisms to repair damage caused by radiation. 

Consequently, biological effects of radiation on living cells 

may result in three outcomes: (1) injured or damaged 

cells repair themselves, resulting in no residual damage; 

(2) cells die, much like millions of body cells do every day, 

being replaced through normal biological processes; or 

(3) cells incorrectly repair themselves, resulting in a 

biophysical change. Stochastic effects may occur when 

an irradiated cell is modified rather than killed. A modified 

cell may, after a prolonged delay, develop into a cancer. 

 

Table D.8-2. Organ Dose 

Weighting 

Factors

Organ or Tissue 

Weighting 

Factor 

Gonads 0.25 

Breast 0.15 

Red bone marrow 0.12 

Lung 0.12 

Thyroid 0.03 

Bone surfaces 0.03 

Remainder 0.30(a)

Whole body 1.00(b)

(a) 0.30 results from 0.06 for each of 

five ”remainder” organs (excluding the 

skin and the lens of the eye) that receive 

the highest doses. 

(b) For the purpose of weighting the external 

whole body dose (for adding it to the 

internal dose), a single weighting factor 

of 1 has been specified. 

Source: 10 CFR Part 20 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-34 

The biological effects on the whole body from exposure to radiation depend on many factors, 

such as the type of radiation, total dose, time interval over which the dose is received, and part 

of the body that is exposed. Not all organs are equally sensitive to radiation. The blood-forming 

organs are most sensitive to radiation; muscle and nerve cells are relatively insensitive to 

radiation. There could be two types of radiation exposure: (1) a single accidental exposure to 

high doses of radiation for a short period of time (acute exposure), which may produce 

biological effects within a short time after exposure, and (2) long-term, low-level overexposure, 

commonly called continuous or chronic exposure. High doses of radiation can cause death. 

Other possible effects of a high radiation dose include erythema, dry desquamation, moist 

desquamation, hair loss, sterility, cataracts, and acute radiation syndromes. Low doses of 

radiation can cause genetic effects and carcinogenic effects. 

D.8.1.4 Human Health Effects of Radiation 

Radiation can cause a variety of health effects. The most significant of these are induced 

cancer fatalities. The National Research Council’s Committee on the Biological Effects of 

Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) has prepared a series of reports on the health consequences of 

radiation exposure. In the 1996 GEIS (NRC 1996) the NRC staff summarized the risk estimates 

from different reports including BEIR-I, BEIR-III, and BEIR-V, the 1988 UNSCEAR 

(United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) reports, and 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 26 (ICRP 1977). 

In 1991, the ICRP issued a complete set of new recommendations based on new biological 

information (ICRP 1991). Table D.8-3 provides the nominal probability coefficients for 

stochastic effects. ICRP estimated the probability of fatal cancer by using the data on the 

Japanese survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs and their assessment by 

Table D.8-3. Nominal Probability Coefficients for Stochastic Effects 

Exposed 

Population 

Probability Coefficients (10-4 rem-1)

(a)

Fatal Cancer 

Nonfatal 

Cancer Total Cancer 

Severe 

Hereditary 

Effects 

Adult workers 4.0 0.8 4.8 0.8 

Whole population 5.0 1.0 6.0 1.3 

(a) Rounded values. 

Source: ICRP 1991 

 
Appendix D 

 D-35 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

BEIR and UNSCEAR committees. ICRP reviewed the available experimental data on doseresponse relationships for radiation of low linear energy transfer (LET) and the effect of dose 

and dose rate on this relationship and concluded that the dose-response relationship is most 

probably linear quadratic for low LET radiations. The BEIR-V risk estimate (eight cancer 

fatalities among 10,000 people exposed to 10,000 person-rem) was based on a high dose. 

ICRP in its 1991 recommendations used a dose and dose rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) of 

2 to convert the high-dose or high-dose-rate estimates of risk to low-dose or low-dose-rate 

estimates of risk. The estimates of severe hereditary effects were also based on the 

experimental data on genetic effects in animals, which were in assessments done by BEIR and 

UNSCEAR committees. 

In 1993, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) recommended 

that a lifetime risk of fatal cancer of 4 × 10-4/(person-rem) be used for a worker population and 

similarly, a lifetime risk of 5 × 10-4/(person-rem) be used for the general population. The NCRP 

also recommended a risk estimate of about 1 × 10-4/(person-rem) for severe hereditary effects in 

the total population and a somewhat lower risk estimate for the worker population (NCRP 1993). 

These recommendations are similar to the ICRP recommendations on the lifetime risk of fatal 

cancer. 

In 1999, the EPA issued Federal Guidance Report No. 13, which provides numerical factors for 

use in estimating the risk of cancer from low-level exposure to radionuclides. Risk coefficients 

are provided for the following modes of exposure to a given radionuclide: inhalation of air, 

ingestion of food, ingestion of tap water, external exposure from submersion in air, external 

exposure from the ground surface, and external exposure from soil contaminated to an infinite 

depth (EPA 1999). The risk coefficients are applicable to either chronic or acute exposure to a 

radionuclide. 

In 2006, the National Research Council’s Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing 

Radiation (BEIR) published its latest report BEIR-VII, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels 

of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR 2006). The committee had published its previous report on the 

same topic, BEIR-V, in 1990 (BEIR 1990). 

Three major changes have occurred after the BEIR V report was published. First, an additional 

12 years of follow-up medical data were available. Second, cancer incidence data for the cohort 

were available (for BEIR V, only mortality data were available). The impact of these two 

developments has reduced the uncertainty in the assessment of cancer risk among the atomic 

bomb survivors. Third, the dosimetry system used to assign radiation exposure to the atomic 

bomb survivors was replaced with an improved dosimetry system. These changes have 

improved the understanding of the health risks associated with radiation exposure (NRC 2005). 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-36 

In estimating the cancer risk, the committee used the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bomb 

survival data for the period 1958–1998 and a dose and dose rate effectiveness factor of 1.5 was 

used. Table D.8-4 lists the recommended risk coefficients for cancer incidence and fatality. 

Table D.8-4 shows the estimated cancer cases and deaths in the U.S. population that would be 

expected to result if each individual in a population of 100,000 was exposed to a single dose of 

10 rad. It also shows the number that would be expected in the absence of radiation. The 

95 percent confidence intervals are also shown. 

The BEIR VII committee’s preferred estimate of lifetime attributable risk for solid cancer 

incidence and mortality (Table D.8-4) suggests that females are more sensitive than males to 

radiation exposure at 10 rem, a level that is 100 times the NRC’s radiation protection standards 

specified in 10 CFR Part 20. The BEIR VII committee’s preferred estimate of lifetime 

attributable risk for leukemia cancer incidence and mortality (Table D.8-4), moreover, suggests 

that males are more sensitive than females. The BEIR VII committee uses the 95 percent 

confidence intervals associated with estimated lifetime cancer risk for males and females that 

suggest that the apparent gender difference may not be statistically significant. 

Table D.8-5 compares the BEIR VII risk estimates for whole population with estimates 

recommended by BEIR V, ICRP, EPA, and UNSCEAR in recent years. The overall difference in 

the risk estimates recommended by different organizations is statistically insignificant. In this 

regard, the BEIR VII report states: “in general the magnitude of estimated risks for total cancer 

mortality or leukemia has not changed greatly from estimates in past reports such as BEIR V 

and recent reports of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic 

Table D.8-4. Estimates of Lifetime Attributable Risk of Incidence and Mortality 

for All Solid Cancers and for Leukemia in the BEIR VII Report(a)

All Solid Cancers Leukemia 

Category Males Females Males Females 

Excess cases (including nonfatal 

cases) from exposure to 10 rad 

800 

(400–1,600) 

1300 

(690–2,500) 

 100 

(30–300) 

70 

(20–250) 

Number of cases in the absence 

of exposure 

45,500 36,900 830 590 

Excess deaths from exposure to 

10 rad 

410 

(200–830) 

610 

(300–1,200) 

 70 

(20–220) 

50 

(10–190) 

Number of deaths in the absence 

of exposure 

22,100 17,500 710 530 

(a) Number of cases or deaths per 100,000 exposed persons with 95 percent subjective confidence 

intervals shown in parentheses. 

Source: BEIR 2006 
Appendix D 

 D-37 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table D.8-5. Comparison of BEIR VII Lifetime Cancer Mortality Estimates with 

Those from Other Reports 

Cancer Category 

BEIR V(a)

(1990)

ICRP(b)

(1991) 

EPA(b)

(1999) 

UNSCEAR(c)

(2000) 

BEIR VII(d)

(2006)

Leukemia(e) 50 56 50 –(f) 61 

All cancer except leukemia 460 450 520 – – 

All solid cancers (sum) – – – 520 510 

NOTE: Excess deaths for population of 100,000 of all ages and both sexes exposed to 10 rad. 

(a) Average of estimates for males and females. The values show the results that would be obtained if the 

DDREF of 1.5, used by the BEIR VII committee, had been employed. 

(b) Except for the EPA breast and thyroid cancer estimates, the solid cancer estimates are linear estimates 

reduced by a DDREF of 2. 

(c) Average of estimates for males and females. The estimate is a combined estimate (using the same 

weights as used by the BEIR VII committee applied on a logarithmic scale) reduced by a DDREF of 1.5. 

(d) Average of the committee’s preferred estimates for males and females. 

(e) Estimates based on a linear-quadratic model. 

(f) Not reported. 

Source: BEIR 2006 

Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 

New data and analyses have reduced sampling uncertainty, but uncertainties related to 

estimating risk for exposure at low doses and dose rates and transporting risks from Japanese 

A-bomb survivors to the U.S. population remain large. Uncertainties in estimating risks of site 

specific cancers are especially large.” 

If the total fatal cancer risk is the sum of cancer deaths from all solid cancers and leukemia, 

then the fatal cancer risk coefficient for the general public would be 6 × 10-4/person-rem (see 

Table D.8-5). The fatal cancer risk for the general public based on ICRP is 5 × 10-4/person-rem 

(Table 3.9-20). There is a difference of approximately 20 percent in the fatal cancer risk 

coefficient based on the ICRP recommendation and the BEIR-VII report. The difference of 

20 percent is within the margin of uncertainty associated with these estimates. 

D.8.1.5 Methodology for Estimating Radiological Impacts 

Radiological exposures from nuclear power plants include offsite doses to members of the 

public and onsite doses to the workforce. Nuclear power plants must be licensed by the NRC 

and comply with NRC regulations and conditions specified in the license. The licensees are 

required to comply with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart C, “Occupational Dose Limits for Adults,” and 

10 CFR Part 20, Subpart D, “Radiation Dose Limits for Individual Members of the Public” 

(see Section 3.9.1.1). 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-38 

D.8.1.5.1 Methodology for Estimating Worker Doses 

Plant workers conducting activities involving radioactively contaminated systems or working in 

radiation areas can be exposed to radiation. Most of the occupational radiation dose to nuclear 

plant workers results from external radiation exposure rather than internal exposure from 

inhaled or ingested radioactive materials. Workers also receive radiation exposure during the 

storage and handling of radioactive waste and during the inspection of stored radioactive waste. 

However, these sources of exposure are small when compared with other sources of exposure 

at operating nuclear plants. 

Individual occupational doses are measured by NRC licensees as required by the basic NRC 

radiation protection standard, 10 CFR Part 20 (Section 3.9.1.1). This standard includes 

requirements for summing internal and external dose equivalents to yield the total effective dose 

equivalent (TEDE). 

Worker doses from external exposure at a nuclear power plant are measured by using either a 

thermoluminescence dosimeter (TLD) or a film badge. Workers at nuclear plants, in addition to 

wearing these, wear direct-reading dosimeters (electronic dosimeters) in order to monitor 

occupational doses related to specific jobs. A TLD may be a Teflon disc impregnated with 

lithium fluoride sealed in a polyethylene envelope. The TLD is the most widely used personal 

monitor for gamma radiation and charged particles. Direct-reading dosimeters are useful in 

situations where there is the potential for sudden or large increases in exposure rate. 

The potential external exposure for workers involved in radioactive waste management will likely 

result from gamma and beta radiation, and the use of the external monitoring devices discussed 

above is necessary. Internal dosimetry is used when there is a potential that the body may 

have taken in radioactive material. There are two methods to calculate the committed dose 

equivalent: (1) measurement of the airborne concentration and the time a worker spends in that 

area and (2) urinalysis and monitoring of feces or blood. At nuclear power plants, method 1 is 

generally used. However, for complex situations the mathematical models of the radionuclide’s 

retention and excretion are generally used, as are measurements of the radioactive material 

content in the excreta, to estimate the doses. Bioassay techniques, such as urinalysis, provide 

a screening tool to maintain and verify operational radiation protection and control. 

For this GEIS revision, worker dose information was obtained from the 38th annual report titled 

Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 

2005 (Burrows and Hagemeyers 2006). This report summarizes the occupational exposure 

data maintained by the NRC’s Radiation Exposure Information and Reporting System (REIRS). 

The licensees submit radiation exposure records for each monitored individual. 
Appendix D 

 D-39 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

D.8.1.5.2 Methodology for Estimating Public Doses 

Commercial nuclear power plants, under normal operations, release small amounts of 

radioactive materials to the environment. The effluent releases (gaseous and liquid) result in 

radiation doses to humans. Nuclear power plant licensees must comply with Federal 

regulations (e.g., 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR Part 50.36a, and 

40 CFR Part 190) and conditions specified in the operating license (see Section 3.9.1.1). 

Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 provides numerical values for radioactive effluent design 

objectives. In addition, each plant license contains technical specification requirements for 

controlling and limiting the discharge of radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents. 

Potential environmental pathways through which persons may be exposed to radiation 

originating in a nuclear power reactor include atmospheric and aquatic pathways. Radioactive 

materials released under controlled conditions include fission products and activation products. 

Fission product releases consist primarily of the noble gases and some of the more volatile 

materials like tritium, isotopes of iodine, and cesium. These materials are monitored carefully 

before release to determine whether the limits on releases can be met. Releases into aquatic 

systems are similarly monitored. When an individual is exposed through one of these 

pathways, the dose is determined in part by the exposure time, the amount of material ingested 

or inhaled, and in part by the amount of time that the radioactivity inhaled or ingested is retained 

in the individual’s body. The major exposure pathways include the following: 

• Inhaling contaminated air, 

• Drinking milk or eating meat from animals that graze on open pasture on which 

radioactive contamination may be deposited, 

• Eating vegetables grown near the site, and 

• Drinking (untreated) water or eating fish caught near the point of discharge of liquid 

effluents. 

Other less important exposure pathways include external irradiation from surface deposition; 

consumption of animals that drink water that may contain liquid effluents; consumption of crops 

grown near the site using irrigation water that may contain liquid effluents; shoreline, boating, 

and swimming activities; and direct offsite irradiation from radiation coming from the plant. 

To implement Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50, the NRC has developed a series of Regulatory 

Guides that present methods it finds acceptable for calculating effluent releases, the dispersion 

of effluent in the atmosphere and different water bodies, and the associated radiation doses. In 

general, licensees follow the guides developed by the NRC staff to calculate public doses. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-40 

Liquid effluent from a nuclear power plant may be released into a variety of surface water 

bodies (e.g., rivers, lakes, reservoirs, cooling ponds, estuaries, and open coastal waters). The 

released liquid effluent is dispersed by turbulent mixing and by stream flow in rivers, by tidal or 

nontidal coastal currents in estuaries and coastal waters, and by internal circulation or flowthrough in lakes, reservoirs, and cooling ponds. Many parameters (e.g., direction and speed of 

the flow of currents in the receiving water bodies; size, geometry, and bottom topography of the 

water body) influence dispersion and dilution. Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.113 

(NRC 1977a) describes calculational models for estimating the aquatic dispersion of routine or 

accidental releases of radioactive material from a nuclear power plant to a surface water body. 

Gaseous effluents from nuclear power plants are mostly released through tall stacks or vents 

near the top of buildings. In some cases, releases could occur near ground level; an example is 

when auxiliary equipment or a component such as a waste storage tank is housed outside the 

buildings. Effluent concentrations at downwind locations depend on many parameters (e.g., the 

initial release height, size and shape of the release point, initial vertical velocity of the effluent, 

heat content of the effluent, ambient wind speed and temperature, atmospheric stability, and 

effluent removal mechanisms). Geographic features such as hills, valleys, and large bodies of 

water greatly influence dispersion and airflow patterns. Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.111 

(NRC 1977b) describes basic features of the calculational models and assumptions used to 

estimate the atmospheric transport and dispersion of gaseous effluents in routine releases from 

nuclear power plants. 

Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.109 (NRC 1977c) provides methods for calculating radiation 

doses to the public. Appendix A of the regulatory guide describes methods for calculating 

doses from liquid effluent pathways. The appendix includes the method for calculating doses 

from potable water, aquatic food, shoreline deposits, and foods grown on land with 

contaminated water. Appendix B of the regulatory guide describes models and assumptions for 

calculating doses from noble gases discharged to the atmosphere. It includes the annual 

gamma and beta air dose calculations and the annual total body and skin dose calculations 

from noble gas effluents. Appendix C of the regulatory guide provides models and assumptions 

for calculating doses from radioiodines and other radionuclides released in the atmosphere. It 

includes the annual external dose calculation from direct exposure to radioactivity deposited on 

the ground surface, annual dose from inhalation of radionuclides in air, calculation of the 

radionuclide concentration in food from airborne activity, and calculation of the annual dose from 

contaminated foods. Appendix D of the regulatory guide provides models for calculating 

population doses from nuclear power plant effluents. 

Radiation doses to the public are calculated in two ways. The first calculation is for dose to the 

maximally exposed person (that is, the real or hypothetical individual potentially subject to 

maximum exposure). The second is for doses to the average individual and population. Doses 

are calculated by using site-specific data when available. For those cases in which site-specific 
Appendix D 

 D-41 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

data are not readily available, conservative (overestimating) assumptions are used to estimate 

doses to the public. For calculating the dose, Regulatory Guide 1.109 divides the population 

into four age groups: infants (0 to 1 year), children (1 to 11 years), teenagers (11 to 17 years), 

and adults (17 years and older). Doses are calculated for the maximum exposed individual from 

these four age groups and compared with the design objectives (Table 3.9-2). Regulatory 

Guide 1.109 includes the dose factors for these four age groups. 

Every year licensees submit two reports to the NRC: an annual radiological environmental 

monitoring report and an annual radioactive effluent release report. For this GEIS update, 

public doses from gaseous and liquid effluent releases were obtained from a series of annual 

radioactive effluent release reports. 

D.8.2 Chemical Hazards 

In nuclear power plants, chemical effects could result from discharges of chlorine or other 

biocides, small-volume discharges of sanitary and other liquid wastes, chemical spills, and 

heavy metals leached from cooling system piping and condenser tubing. Although information 

was provided about certain types of chemicals used at nuclear power plants, chemical hazards 

were not specifically addressed in the 1996 GEIS, but the human health impacts of chemicals 

are included in this GEIS update (Section 3.9.2). Impacts of chemical discharges on human 

health are considered to be SMALL if the discharges to water bodies are within effluent limits 

designed to ensure the protection of water quality. The methodology for assessing effects on 

water quality and aquatic biota are covered in other parts of this appendix. Human health 

impacts from chemicals were assessed on the basis of information provided in the 1996 GEIS, 

published literature, publically available SEISs, and the decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002). 

D.8.3 Microbiological Hazards 

Some microorganisms associated with cooling towers and the thermal discharges associated 

with nuclear power plants can have deleterious impacts on the health of plant workers and the 

public. The potential for adverse health effects on workers at nuclear power plants as a result of 

the enhancement of microorganisms is an issue for plants that use cooling towers. The 

potential for adverse health effects on the public from thermally enhanced microorganisms is an 

issue for nuclear plants with once-through cooling systems that use cooling ponds, lakes, or 

canals and that discharge to small rivers. These issues were evaluated by reviewing the 

information in the 1996 GEIS and published literature on organisms that could be enhanced by 

plant operation. All published SEISs were also reviewed for new and significant information 

pertaining to microbiological issues. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-42 

D.8.4 Electromagnetic Fields 

Nuclear power plants have power transmission systems associated with them that consist of 

switching stations (or substations) located on the plant site and transmission lines located 

primarily offsite. Electric and magnetic fields, collectively referred to as the electromagnetic field 

(EMF), are produced by operating transmission lines. The issue of potential chronic effects 

from exposure to EMF surrounding transmission lines was evaluated by reviewing the relevant 

literature. 

D.8.5 Other Hazards 

Nuclear power plants are industrial facilities that have many of the typical occupational hazards 

found at any other electric power generation facility. Workers at or around nuclear power plants 

would be involved in some maintenance activities, electrical work, electric power line 

maintenance, and repair work and subject to potentially hazardous physical conditions 

(excessive heat, cold, pressure, etc.). The human health impact from occupational hazards was 

not discussed in the 1996 GEIS but is considered in this GEIS update (Section 3.9.5). The 

occupational hazards were evaluated by comparing the rate of fatal injuries and nonfatal 

occupational injuries and illnesses in the utility sector with the rate in all industries combined. 

The workers and general public located at or around nuclear power plants and along the 

transmission lines are exposed to the potential for acute electrical shock from transmission 

lines. The shock hazard was evaluated by referral to the National Electric Safety Code (NESC). 

D.9 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention 

D.9.1 Description of Affected Resources and Region of Influence 

Similar to most industrial facilities, nuclear power plants and other fuel-cycle facilities generate 

waste during their operation. The waste materials are often shipped offsite by truck, train, or in 

some cases by barge either for disposal or for processing. The wastes that are sent to a 

processing facility may be reused or recycled or they may be sent to a disposal facility after 

processing. The processing and handling that occur at the site of generation, including any 

packaging and loading of the wastes onto conveyance vehicles for shipment offsite, are 

considered part of the normal operations at that site, and the impacts associated with them are 

assessed as part of the normal operational impacts. Impacts associated with transportation and 

offsite processing and disposal are considered under the waste management impacts. 

The primary resource that is affected by the disposal of waste materials is the land that is used 

for disposal. This land is assumed to be an irreversibly and irretrievably committed resource 
Appendix D 

 D-43 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

(see Section 4.4.3). The resources that are affected during processing and disposal of the 

wastes are similar to the resources affected during operation of any nuclear fuel cycle facility, 

including the nuclear power plants. As discussed in Chapter 4, these resources include land 

use and visual resources, air quality and noise, geology and soils, hydrology, ecology, cultural 

resources, socioeconomics, human health and safety, and environmental justice. During 

transportation, the main resources affected are human health and safety, air quality and noise, 

and socioeconomics. The impact assessment methodologies and the regions of influence for 

these resource areas are covered in other parts of this appendix. 

D.9.2 Description of Impact Assessment 

Historical data and experience were used to estimate the characteristics and quantities of 

wastes generated at nuclear power plants. These values are discussed in the main body of this 

document under waste management sections (see for example Sections 3.11, 4.1.1.10, 

4.1.3.10, and 4.1.4). Table S-3 in 10 CFR 51.51(b) was the main source for waste generation 

numbers at other nuclear fuel cycle facilities. The assessment of impacts associated with 

transportation of waste materials to and from a nuclear power plant relied on the information 

provided in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52, whereas the impacts of transportation among other fuelcycle facilities were addressed as part of Table S-3 as discussed Section 4.1.4. The impacts at 

the offsite processing and disposal facilities are not explicitly evaluated in this document 

because each of these facilities would be operated pursuant to a permit or license issued by 

either a Federal or State agency. The impacts at those facilities would be addressed as part of 

the permitting or licensing process for those facilities. All operations including disposal activities 

at the disposal facilities would be within the bounds of analyses conducted to obtain the facility’s 

permit or license. For example, the waste shipped to the disposal facility would have to meet 

that facility’s waste acceptance criteria. 

The issues associated with the availability of disposal facilities for low-level waste (LLW) are 

discussed in Section 4.1.1.10. Section 4.1.1.10 also discusses the onsite storage of spent 

nuclear fuel during the licensing term of a reactor. For all other waste types, it is assumed that 

permitted processing and/or disposal facilities will be available when needed. Historical 

evidence suggests that this assumption is valid. 

Pollution prevention and waste minimization practices generally employed at the nuclear power 

plant sites are discussed in Section 3.11. These practices are based on the requirements 

placed on the licensees by the NRC, EPA, or other Federal or State agencies and the licensee’s 

own efforts to minimize the emissions to the environment and minimize the quantities of wastes 

generated or sent offsite for treatment or disposal. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-44 

D.10 Alternatives 

D.10.1 Identification and Evaluation of Replacement Power Alternatives 

To ensure that the analysis of replacement power alternatives focused only on realistic options, 

data published by the DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) were used to identify the 

current and projected contributions made to the commercial electric power sector by various 

fossil fuel and renewable energy technologies. Federal and State regulations, as well as the 

Internet Web sites of Federal and State regulatory agencies and State coalitions were reviewed 

to identify current and anticipated environmental externalities that would most likely also 

influence alternative energy technology selections. As a result of these reviews, twelve fossil 

fuel technologies and eight renewable energy technologies were identified, together with a 

nuclear energy alternative, as likely replacements for a retiring nuclear reactor. In addition, 

demand-side management (DSM) and power purchases also were identified for consideration. 

The environmental consequence analyses for those fossil fuel, nuclear, and renewable energy 

technologies selected as likely alternatives were based on data from a variety of sources. 

Engineering and environmental performance data for fossil fuel technologies were obtained 

from reports published by DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) and the EPA. 

Published environmental impact statements (EISs), regulatory guidance, and early site permit 

applications provided the basis for the environmental consequence analysis of the nuclear 

energy alternative. Reports and technology overviews published by DOE’s Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

(NREL) served as the principal sources of data for environmental impacts of the selected 

renewable energy technologies. Resource maps developed by NREL were also used to show 

the geographic relationships between existing commercial nuclear power facilities and readily 

accessible renewable energy resources of sufficient size and quality to support utility-scale 

power production. Additional data regarding the environmental consequences of renewable 

energy technologies were obtained from EISs published by Federal and State agencies and 

from other sources within the open literature. Impact analyses for DSM and power purchases 

were supported by data from the EIA and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

D.10.2 Supporting Information 

Schematic diagrams of fossil energy technologies (Figures D.10-1 to D.10-12) and renewable 

energy technologies (Figures D.10-13 to D.10-15; D.10-19 to D.10-21; and D.10-23 to D.10-25) 

are presented in this section to aid in an understanding of the operational components of 

different energy alternatives. Many of the renewable energy technologies are not equally viable 

in all parts of the country because of the uneven distribution of the underlying energy source. 

To illustrate availability of renewable energy alternatives, resource distribution maps are also 

provided (Figures D.10-16 to D.10-18; D.10-22; D.10-26).
Appendix D

 D-45 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure D.10-1. Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Coal Power Plant with GE Gasifier without CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-46

Appendix D 

Figure D.10-2. IGCC Coal Power Plant with GE Gasifier with CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
Appendix D

 D-47 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure D.10-3. IGCC Coal Power Plant with Shell Gasifier without CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-48

Appendix D 

Figure D.10-4. IGCC Coal Power Plant with Shell Gasifier with CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
Appendix D

 D-49 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure D.10-5. IGCC Coal Power Plant with Conoco-Phillips (E-GasTM) Gasifier without CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-50

Appendix D 

Figure D.10-6. IGCC Coal Power Plant with Conoco-Phillips (E-GasTM) Gasifier with CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
Appendix D

 D-51 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure D.10-7. Subcritical Pulverized Coal Power Plant without CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-52

Appendix D 

Figure D.10-8. Subcritical Pulverized Coal Power Plant with CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
Appendix D

 D-53 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure D.10-9. Supercritical Pulverized Coal Power Plant without CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-54

Appendix D 

Figure D.10-10. Supercritical Pulverized Coal Power Plant with CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
Appendix D

 D-55 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 Figure D.10-11. Natural Gas IGCC Power Plant without CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-56

Appendix D 

Figure D.10-12. Natural Gas IGCC Power Plant with CO2 Capture (NETL 2007) 
Appendix D 

 D-57 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Figure D.10-13. Geothermal Hydrothermal Flashed Steam Power Plant Schematic 

(EERE 1997) 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-58 

Figure D.10-14. Geothermal Hydrothermal Binary Power Plant Schematic (EERE 1997) 
Appendix D 

 D-59 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Figure D.10-15. Geothermal Hot Dry Rock Power Plant Schematic (EERE 1997) 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-60 

Figure D.10-16. Geothermal Resources in the 48 Contiguous United States (Adapted from 

NREL 2011) 
Appendix D 

 D-61 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Figure D.10-17. Wind Resources in Onshore and Offshore Areas of the 

48 Contiguous United States (Adapted from NREL 2011) 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-62 

Figure D.10-18. Biomass Resources in the 48 Contiguous United States (Adapted from 

NREL 2011) 

 
Appendix D 

 D-63 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Figure D.10-19. Direct-Fire Biomass Power Plant Schematic (EERE 1997) 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-64 

Figure D.10-20. Biomass-Coal Co-Fire Power Plant Schematic (EERE 1997) 
Appendix D 

 D-65 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Figure D.10-21. Biomass Gasification Power Plant Schematic (EERE 1997) 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-66 

Figure D.10-22. Landfills Currently Enrolled in and Candidate Landfills for Landfill Gas-toEnergy Programs (Adapted from EPA 2011b) 
Appendix D 

 D-67 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Figure D.10-23. Solar Thermal Power Trough Power Plant Schematic (EERE 1997) 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-68 

Figure D.10-24. Solar Photovoltaic Fixed Flat Plate Power Plant Schematic (EERE 1997)

Figure D.10-25. Solar Photovoltaic Flat Plate with Concentrating Mirror Power Plant Schematic 

(EERE 1997) 
Appendix D 

 D-69 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Figure D.10-26. Solar Radiation Intensity in the 48 Contiguous United States (direct normal 

solar radiation with two-axis tracking concentrator) (Adapted from NREL 2011) 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-70 

D.11 References 

10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for 

Protection Against Radiation.” 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

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 190. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, 

“Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.” 

Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). 1990. BEIR-V, 

Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. National Research Council, 

Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, National Academy of 

Sciences, Washington, D.C. 

Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). 2006. Health Risk 

from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. BEIR-VII. National Research Council, 

National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 

Burrows, S., and D.A. Hagemeyer. 2006. Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial 

Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2005. NUREG-0713, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. December. 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). 1997. Ecological Regions of North 

America, Toward a Common Perspective. 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). 2006. Ecoregions of North America, 

Level 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division. Available URL: 

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/na_eco.htm#Level%20I (Accessed November 6, 

2007). 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.
Appendix D 

 D-71 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Office of Biological Services. FWS/OBS-79/31. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). 1997. Renewable Energy Technology 

Characterizations. Topical Report TR-109496. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Utility 

Technologies, Washington, D.C. December. Available URL: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

ba/pba/tech_characterizations.html (Accessed November 1, 2007). 

Executive Order 12898. 1994. “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

and Low-Income Populations.” Federal Register 59(32). February 16. 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1977. Recommendations of the 

International Commission on Radiological Protection. Publication 26. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 

U.K. 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of 

the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Pergamon 

Press, Oxford, England. 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP). 1993. Risk Estimates for 

Radiation Protection. Report No. 115. Bethesda, Maryland. December 31. 

National Energy Technology (NETL). 2007. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy 

Plants. DOE/NETL2007/1281, Vol. 1, Final Report, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2011. Dynamic Maps, GIS Data, and Analysis 

Tools—Maps. Available URL: http://www.nrel.gov/renewable_resources, last updated May 20, 

2011 (Accessed February 16, 2012). 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2007. Renewable Resources Maps & Data. 

Available URL: http://www.nrel.gov/renewable_resources (Accessed November 8, 2007). 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2003. Economic Benefits of Millstone Power Station: An 

Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. July. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2004a. Economic Benefits of Diablo Canyon Power Plant: An 

Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute in Cooperation with Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company. February. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-72 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2004b. Economic Benefits of Indian Point Energy Center: An 

Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. April. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2004c. Economic Benefits of the Duke Power-Operated 

Nuclear Power Plants: An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. December. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2004d. Economic Benefits of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 

Station: An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. November. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2005a. Economic Benefits of Three Mile Island Unit 1: An 

Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. November. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2005b. Economic Benefits of Wolf Creek Generating Station: 

An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. July. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2006a. Economic Benefits of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station : An 

Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute in Cooperation with Entergy. 

December. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2006b. Economic Benefits of the Exelon Pennsylvania Nuclear 

Fleet: An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute. August. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2006c. Economic Benefits of PPL Susquehanna Nuclear Power 

Plant: An Economic Impact Study by the Nuclear Energy Institute in Cooperation with PPL 

Corporation. November. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2007. Industry Ground Water Protection Initiative—Final 

Guidance Document: NEI 07-07 [Final]. Washington, D.C. Available URL: http://adams 

websearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&ID=072670589 

(Accessed November 5, 2007). 

United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). 2000. 

Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, 

with Scientific Annexes. Vol. II: Effects. New York, New York. Available URL: http://www. 

unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html (Accessed January 31, 2008). 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2002. A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses 

to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota. DOE Voluntary Consensus Technical Standard DOE-STD1153-2002. Washington, D.C. 
Appendix D 

 D-73 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2004. RESRAD-BIOTA: A Tool for Implementing a Graded 

Approach to Biota Dose Evaluation, User’s Guide, Version 1. DOE/EH-0676, ISCORS 

Technical Report 2004-02. Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards, Office of 

Air, Water and Radiation Protection Policy and Guidance, Washington, D.C. January. Available 

URL: http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/RESRAD-BIOTA_Manual_Version_1.pdf 

(Accessed November 26, 2007). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Cancer Risk Coefficients for 

Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides. Federal Guidance Report No. 13, EPA 402-R-99-

001. Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, D.C. September. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Level III Ecoregions of the Conterminous 

United States. National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. Available 

URL: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm (Accessed November 6, 2007). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html, last updated November 8, 2011 

(Accessed February 3, 2012). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011b. Energy Projects and Candidate Landfills. 

Available URL: http://www.epa.gov/lmop/projects-candidates/index.html#map-area, last 

updated July 25, 2011 (Accessed February 17, 2012). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Department 

of the Interior. Available URL: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html 

(Accessed November 7, 2007). 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. National Land Cover Database. Sioux Falls, 

South Dakota. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977a. Estimating Aquatic Dispersion of 

Effluents from Accidental and Routine Reactor Releases for the Purpose of Implementing 

Appendix I. Regulatory Guide 1.113, Revision 1. Office of Standards Development. April. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977b. Method of Estimating Atmospheric 

Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled 

Reactors. Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1. Office of Standards Development. July. 
Appendix D 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 D-74 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977c. Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from 

Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1. Office of Standards Development. 

October. 

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

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

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, Supplement 1, Regarding the 

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Vols. 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005. Staff Review of the National Academies 

Study of the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII). 

Commission Paper SECY-05-0202. October 29. ADAMS Accession No. ML052640532. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006. Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons 

Learned Task Force Final Report. Available URL: http://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/idmws/ 

doccontent.dll?library=PU_ADAMS^PBNTAD01&ID=062770207 (Accessed October 17, 2007). 
Appendix E 

Environmental Impact of Postulated Accidents 

 

 E-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Appendix E 

Environmental Impact of Postulated Accidents 

E.1 Introduction 

Chapter 5 of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants (GEIS), Volumes 1 and 2 (NRC 1996, 1999)(a)

 assessed the impacts of postulated 

accidents at nuclear power plants on the environment. The postulated accidents included 

design-basis accidents and severe accidents (e.g., those with core damage). The impacts 

considered included: 

• Dose and health effects of accidents (Sections 5.3.3.2 through 5.3.3.4); 

• Economic impacts of accidents (Section 5.3.3.5); and 

• Effect of uncertainties on the results (Section 5.3.4). 

The estimated impacts were based on the analysis of severe accidents at 28 nuclear power 

plant sites(b)

 as reported in the environmental impact statements (EISs) and/or final 

environmental statements (FESs) prepared for each of the 28 plants in support of their 

operating licenses. With few exceptions, the severe accident analyses were limited to 

consideration of reactor accidents caused by internal events. The 1996 GEIS addressed the 

impacts from external events qualitatively.(c)

 The severe accident analysis for the 28 sites was 

extended to the remainder of plants whose EISs did not consider severe accidents (since such 

analyses were not required at the time the other plants’ EISs were prepared). The estimates of 

environmental impact contained in the 1996 GEIS used 95th percentile upper confidence bound 

(UCB) estimates whenever available. This approach provides conservatism to cover 

 

(a) The GEIS was originally issued in 1996. Addendum 1 to the GEIS was issued in 1999. Hereafter, all 

references to the “1996 GEIS” include the original GEIS and Addendum 1. 

(b) The 28 sites are listed in Table 5.1 of the 1996 GEIS. There are a total of 44 units included in this list 

(at the 28 sites), but 4 of these units never operated (Grand Gulf 2, Harris 2, Perry 2, and 

Seabrook 2). For the purpose of this appendix, this list will be referred to as containing 28 nuclear 

power plants, but when mean values are calculated for this subset of nuclear power plants, all 

40 units that operated are considered. 

(c) See Section 5.3.3.1 of the 1996 GEIS, including a brief discussion of the external event risk 

assessments conducted by the staff prior to 1996, which included assessments for Zion 1 & 2, Indian 

Point 2 & 3, Limerick 1 & 2, Surry 1, Peach Bottom 2, and Millstone 3. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-2 

uncertainties, as described in Section 5.3.3.2.2 of the 1996 GEIS. The 1996 GEIS concluded 

that the probabilistically weighted impacts were small compared to other risks to which the 

populations surrounding nuclear power plants are routinely exposed. 

The focus of this revision is on severe accidents since the impacts from design-basis accidents 

are SMALL and, as stated in Section E.3 of this revision, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’s (NRC’s) assessment remains unchanged. Since the NRC’s understanding of 

severe accident risk has evolved since issuance of the 1996 GEIS, this appendix assesses 

more recent information on severe accidents that might alter the conclusions in Chapter 5 of the 

1996 GEIS. This revision considers how these developments would affect the conclusions in 

the 1996 GEIS and provides comparative data where appropriate. This revision does not 

attempt to provide new quantitative estimates of severe accident impacts. In addition, the 

revision only covers one initial license renewal period for each plant (as did the 1996 GEIS). 

Thus, the population projections, meteorology, and exposure indices used in the 1996 GEIS are 

assumed to remain unchanged for purposes of this analysis. 

Finally, the format of this appendix follows the same format as used in Chapter 5 of the 

1996 GEIS, including a discussion on uncertainties and severe accident mitigation alternatives 

(SAMAs). 

E.2 Plant Accidents 

A general description of plant accidents is contained in Section 5.2 of the 1996 GEIS. This 

description covered: 

• The general characteristics of accidents; 

• Fission product characteristics; 

• Meteorological considerations; 

• Exposure pathways; 

• Adverse health effects; 

• Avoiding adverse health effects; 

• Accident experience and observed impacts; 

 
Appendix E

 E-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• Mitigation of accident consequences; and 

• Emergency preparedness. 

This description is still valid and thus remains unchanged. Section 5.2 of the 1996 GEIS also 

mentions that as of 1990, there have been approximately 1,300 reactor-years of experience to 

support the safety of U.S. nuclear power plants. As with any technology, experience generally 

leads to improved plant performance and public safety. As of 2011, there has been 

approximately an additional 2,000 reactor-years of experience in the United States. This 

additional experience has contributed to improved plant performance (e.g., as measured by 

trends in plant-specific performance indicators), a reduction in operating events, and lessons 

learned that improve the safety of all of the operating nuclear power plants. Other examples of 

items contributing to improved safety include: 

• Implementation of plant improvements identified through the Individual Plant 

Examination (IPE) and Individual Plant Examination: External Events (IPEEE) programs 

(e.g., strengthening of seismic supports; enhanced fire brigade training) (NRC 2003); 

• Identification of specific aging mechanisms (e.g., cables; irradiation-assisted stress 

corrosion cracking) and development of programs to monitor and control these 

mechanisms (NRC 2001c); 

• NRC staff actions on generic safety issues (e.g., Generic Safety Issue 191 on sump 

performance) (NRC 2008e); and 

• Implementation of the NRC’s Interim Compensatory Measures (ICMs) Order following 

the September 2001 terrorist attacks.(d)

Thus, the performance and safety record of nuclear power plants operating in the United States 

continues to improve. This is also confirmed by analysis which indicates that, in many cases, 

improved plant performance and design features have resulted in reductions in initiating event 

frequency, core damage frequency, and containment failure frequency.(e)

 

(d) The safety evaluations (SEs) for the operating license amendments associated with implementation 

of Section B.5.b. of Commission Order EA-02-026 provide background related to the implementation 

of particular portions of the ICMs. As an example, the reader is referred to the SE associated with 

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2 (NRC 2007a). 

(e) This statement is based on industry performance data provided in the NRC’s 2007-2008 Information 

Digest (NRC 2007b) and on the NRC’s website (NRC 2008c), as well as information contained in 

Chapter 5 of site-specific EISs (the NUREG-1437 series of supplements). 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-4 

E.2.1 Fukushima Earthquake and Tsunami 

On March 11, 2011, a massive earthquake off the east coast of Honshu, Japan, produced a 

devastating tsunami that struck the coastal town of Fukushima. The six-unit Fukushima Dai-ichi 

nuclear power plant was directly impacted by these events. The resulting damage caused the 

failure of several of the units’ safety systems needed to maintain cooling water flow to the 

reactors. As a result of the loss of cooling, the fuel overheated, and there was a partial 

meltdown of the fuel contained in several of the reactors. Damage to the systems and 

structures containing reactor fuel resulted in the release of radioactive material to the 

surrounding environment. 

In response to the earthquake, tsunami, and resulting reactor accidents at Fukushima Dai-ichi 

(hereafter referred to as the “Fukushima events”), the Commission directed the staff to convene 

an agency task force of senior leaders and experts to conduct a methodical and systematic 

review of the relevant NRC regulatory requirements, programs, and processes, including their 

implementation, and to recommend whether the agency should make near-term improvements 

to its regulatory system. As part of the short-term review, the task force concluded that, while 

improvements are expected to be made as a result of the lessons learned from the Fukushima 

events, the continued operation of nuclear power plants and licensing activities for new plants 

do not pose an imminent risk to public health and safety (NRC 2011). 

During the time that the task force was conducting its review, groups of individuals and nongovernmental organizations petitioned the Commission to suspend all licensing decisions in 

order to conduct a separate, generic National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis to 

determine whether the Fukushima events constituted “new and significant information” under 

NEPA that must be analyzed as part of environmental reviews. The Commission found the 

request premature and noted, “In short, we do not know today the full implications of the 

[Fukushima] events for U.S. facilities.”(f)

 However, the Commission found that if “new and 

significant information comes to light that requires consideration as part of the ongoing 

preparation of application-specific NEPA documents, the agency will assess the significance of 

that information, as appropriate.”(g)

 The Federal courts of appeal and the Commission have 

interpreted NEPA such that an EIS must be updated to include new information only when that 

 

 

(f) Union Electric Co. d/b/a Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit 2), CLI-11-05, 74 NRC141, 167 (Sept. 

9, 2011). 

(g) Id. 
Appendix E

 E-5 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

new information provides “a seriously different picture of the environmental impact of the 

proposed project from what was previously envisioned.”(h)

In the context of the GEIS, the Fukushima events are considered a severe accident (i.e., a type 

of accident that may challenge a plant’s safety systems at a level much higher than expected) 

and more specifically, a severe accident initiated by an event external to the plant. The 

1996 GEIS concluded that risks from severe accidents initiated by external events (such as an 

earthquake) could have potentially high consequences but found that external events are 

adequately addressed through a consideration of a severe accident initiated by an internal event 

(such as a loss of cooling water). Therefore, an applicant for license renewal need only analyze 

the environmental impacts from an internal event in order to adequately characterize the 

environmental impacts from either type of event. Prior to the Fukushima events, this GEIS 

examined more recent and up-to-date information regarding external events and concluded that 

the analysis in the 1996 GEIS remains valid. 

As of the publication date of this GEIS, the NRC’s evaluation of the consequences of the 

Fukushima events is ongoing. As such, the NRC will continue to evaluate the need to make 

improvements to existing regulatory requirements based on the task force report and additional 

studies and analyses of the Fukushima events as more information is learned. To the extent 

that any revisions are made to NRC regulatory requirements, they would be made applicable to 

nuclear power reactors regardless of whether or not they have a renewed license. Therefore, 

no additional analyses have been performed in this GEIS as a result of the Fukushima events. 

In the event that the NRC identifies information from the Fukushima events that constitutes new 

and significant information with respect to the environmental impacts of license renewal, the 

NRC will discuss that information in its site-specific supplemental EISs (SEISs) to the GEIS, as 

it does with all such new and significant information. 

E.3 Accident Risk and Impact Assessment 

The environmental impacts from design-basis accidents and severe accidents are assessed in 

Sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 of the 1996 GEIS, respectively. As stated in Section 5.3.2, the 

environmental impact from design-basis accidents was assessed in the individual plant-specific 

EISs at the time of the initial license application review. Since the licensee is required to 

 

(h) Id. at 167-68 quoting Hydro Resources, Inc. (2929 Coors Road, Suite 101, Albuquerque, NM 87120), 

CLI-99-22, 50 NRC 3, 14 (1999) (citing Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 

373 (1989)). The Commission also noted that it can modify a facility’s operating license outside of a 

renewal proceeding and made clear that “it will use the information from these activities to impose 

any requirement it deems necessary, irrespective of whether a plant is applying for or has been 

granted a renewed operating license.” Id. at 164 quoting Pilgrim & Indian Point: Entergy's Answer 

Opposing Petition to Suspend Pending Licensing Proceedings (May 2, 2011) at 3. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-6 

maintain the plant within acceptable design and performance criteria, including during any 

license renewal term, these impacts are not expected to change. Therefore, additional 

assessment of the environmental impacts from design-basis accidents is not necessary, and the 

bulk of the 1996 GEIS evaluation focused on the environmental impact of severe accidents. 

To assess the impacts from the airborne pathway, the 1996 GEIS relied on severe accident 

analyses provided in the EISs for the more recent sites. Table 5-1 in the 1996 GEIS lists the 

28 nuclear power plants that included severe accident analyses in their plant-specific EISs. 

These plant-specific EISs used site-specific meteorology, land topography, population 

distributions, and offsite emergency response parameters, along with generic or plant-specific 

source terms, to calculate offsite health and economic impacts. The offsite health effects 

included those from airborne releases of radioactive material and contamination of surface 

water and groundwater. 

The 1996 GEIS used the environmental impact information from the 28 plant-specific EISs and 

a metric called the exposure index to (1) scale up the radiological impact of severe accidents on 

the population due to demographic changes from the time the original EIS(i)

 was done until the 

year representing the mid-license renewal period and (2) estimate the severe accident 

environmental impacts for the earlier plants (whose EISs did not include a quantitative 

assessment of severe accidents). The exposure index method uses the projected population 

distribution around each nuclear power plant site at the middle of its license renewal period and 

meteorology data for each site to provide a measure of the degree to which the population 

would be exposed to the release of radioactive material resulting from a severe accident 

(i.e., the exposure index method weights the population in each of 16 sectors around a nuclear 

power plant by the fraction of time the wind blows in that direction on an annual basis). The 

exposure index metric was also used to project economic impacts at the mid-year of the license 

renewal period. A more detailed description of the exposure index method is contained in 

Appendix G of the 1996 GEIS. The use of the exposure index method remains valid. 

Since 1996, developments in plant operation and accident analysis have taken place that could 

affect the assumptions made in the 1996 GEIS. These changes are grouped into the following 

areas and are each covered in the indicated section of this revision: 

• Internal event risk (Section E.3.1); 

• External event risk (Section E.3.2); 

 

(i) The term “original EIS” describes an EIS issued by the NRC that is associated with the issuance of a 

plant’s initial operating license. This term is used in this appendix to differentiate it from an EIS 

prepared in conjunction with a license renewal environmental review. 
Appendix E

 E-7 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• Updates in the quantification of accident source terms (Section E.3.3); 

• Increases in licensed reactor power levels, i.e., power uprates (Section E.3.4); 

• Increases in fuel burnup levels (Section E.3.5); 

• Consideration of reactor accidents at low power and shutdown conditions 

(Section E.3.6); 

• Consideration of accidents in spent fuel pools (Section E.3.7); and 

• The BEIR VII report on the risk of fatal cancers posed by exposure to radiation 

(Section E.3.8). 

Sections discussing uncertainties, SAMAs, and conclusions are also provided. 

As discussed in the Section 5.3.3.1 of the 1996 GEIS, the environmental impacts from securityrelated events were not considered in that document. As stated, these types of events are 

addressed via deterministic criteria in Title 10, Part 73, of the Code of Federal Regulations

(10 CFR Part 73), rather than by risk assessments. The regulatory requirements under 10 CFR 

Part 73 provide reasonable assurance that the risk from sabotage is small. This section goes 

on to state: 

Although the threat of sabotage events cannot be accurately quantified, the 

Commission believes that acts of sabotage are not reasonably expected. 

Nonetheless, if such events were to occur, the Commission would expect that 

resultant core damage and radiological releases would be no worse than those 

expected from internally initiated events. 

The NRC continues to take this position. As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 

2001, the NRC conducted a comprehensive review of the agency’s security program and made 

further enhancements to security at a wide range of NRC-regulated facilities. These 

enhancements included significant reinforcement of the defense capabilities for nuclear 

facilities, better control of sensitive information, enhancements in emergency preparedness to 

further strengthen NRC’s nuclear facility security program, and implementation of mitigating 

strategies to deal with postulated events potentially causing loss of large areas of the plant due 

to explosions or fires, including those that an aircraft impact might create. These measures are 

outlined in greater detail in NUREG/BR-0314 (NRC 2004), NUREG-1850 (NRC 2006a), and 

Sandia National Laboratory’s “Mitigation of Spent Fuel Loss-of-Coolant Inventory Accidents and 

Extension of Reference Plant Analyses to Other Spent Fuel Pools” (NRC 2006b). 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-8 

The NRC routinely assesses threats and other information provided by a variety of Federal 

agencies and sources. The NRC also ensures that licensees meet appropriate security-level 

requirements. The NRC will continue to focus on prevention of terrorist acts for all nuclear 

facilities and will not focus on site-specific evaluations of speculative environmental impacts 

resulting from terrorist acts. While these are legitimate matters of concern, the NRC will 

continue to address them through the ongoing regulatory process as a current and generic 

regulatory issue that affects all nuclear facilities and many of the activities conducted at nuclear 

facilities. The issue of security and risk from malevolent acts at nuclear power facilities is not 

unique to facilities that have requested a renewal of their licenses (NRC 2006a). 

Malevolent acts remain speculative and beyond the scope of a NEPA review. NEPA requires 

that there be a “reasonably close causal relationship” between the federal agency action and 

the environmental consequences. The environmental impact of a terrorist attack is too far 

removed from the natural, or expected, consequences of a license renewal action to warrant 

consideration under NEPA. However, as noted above, in the event of a terrorist attack, the 

consequences of such an attack would be no worse than an internally initiated severe accident, 

which has already been analyzed. 

In a decision dated June 2, 2006, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016, 

1028 (9th Cir. 2006) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that NRC could not 

categorically refuse to consider the consequences of a terrorist attack under NEPA and 

remanded the case to NRC. On remand, the Commission adjudicated the intervenors’ claim 

that the NRC staff had not adequately assessed the environmental consequences of a terrorist 

attack on the Diablo Canyon Power Plant’s proposed facility for storing spent nuclear fuel in 

dry casks. See, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent 

Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-08-26, 68 NRC 509 (2009). The Commission ultimately 

determined that an EIS was not required in order to address land contamination and latent 

health effect issues (Diablo Canyon, CLI-08-26, 68 NRC at 521). Further, the Commission 

concluded that the staff’s final, supplemental environmental assessment and finding of no 

significant impact, the adjudicatory record of the case, and its supervisory review of the nonpublic information underlying portions of the staff’s analyses, satisfied the agency’s NEPA 

obligations. Id. 525-26. The staff had found that even the most severe, plausible terrorist 

attack of those examined would not cause immediate or latent health effects. The staff also 

found that such an attack was improbable, but if one occurred, the likelihood of significant 

radioactive release was very low because the nature of the Diablo Canyon casks and site. 

Id. at 521. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the Commission’s 

determination on appeal. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 645 F.3d 1109, 

1120-21 (9th Cir. 2011). 
Appendix E

 E-9 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

The Commission stated that it will adhere to the Ninth Circuit decision when considering 

licensing actions for facilities subject to the jurisdiction of that Circuit. See Pacific Gas and 

Electric Co., (Diablo Canyon Power Plant Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), 

CLI-07-11, 65 NRC 118 (2007). However, the Commission decided against applying that 

holding to all licensing proceedings nationwide. In one such proceeding, Amergen Energy 

Co. LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-07-8, 65 NRC 124, 128-29 (2007), 

the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection contended that NEPA requires an 

analysis of a terrorist attack. The NRC found that NEPA “imposes no legal duty on the NRC to 

consider intentional malevolent acts” because such acts are “too far removed from the natural 

or expected consequences of agency action.” Id. at 129 (quoting the Board decision). The 

NRC also found that a terrorism review would be redundant because (1) “the NRC has 

undertaken extensive efforts to enhance security at nuclear facilities,” which it characterized as 

the best mechanism to protect the public; id. at 130; (2) the GEIS had addressed the issue and 

concluded that “the core damage and radiological release from [terrorist] acts would be no 

worse than the damage and release to be expected from internally initiated events.” On 

appeal, the Third Circuit agreed with the NRC and denied the petition. See NJDEP v. NRC 

and Amergen Energy Co, LLC, (Case No. 07-2271), 561 F.3rd 132 (3rd Cir. 2009). The Court 

found that, “the NRC correctly concluded that the relicensing of Oyster Creek does not have a 

‘reasonably close causal relationship’ with the environmental effects that would be caused in 

the event of a terrorist attack.” 561 F.3d at 143. 

The Third Circuit disagreed with the Ninth Circuit’s application of the relevant Supreme Court 

decisions. Instead, as the Commission had originally held, the Third Circuit concluded that the 

issuance of a facility license—here, the issuance of the 20-year extension for the Oyster Creek 

license—would not be the “proximate cause” of a terrorist attack on the facility. 

Moreover, the Third Circuit noted that the GEIS for License Renewal had reviewed the possible 

impacts of a sabotage event, which is a form of terrorism. The GEIS found that the 

consequences of a sabotage event would be no worse than those expected from an internally 

initiated severe accident. The Third Circuit noted that the petitioner in the case before it (the 

State of New Jersey) had failed to demonstrate that the results of a terrorist attack would be any 

different than those of a severe accident, which had already been analyzed. The Third Circuit 

also noted that the NRC had prepared a site-specific EIS addressing the mitigation of severe 

accidents at Oyster Creek. As a result, the Third Circuit found that, even if the Commission 

were required to analyze the impacts of a terrorist attack, the NRC had prepared both generic 

and site-specific analyses of the impacts of a terrorist attack at Oyster Creek, and that the 

Petitioner had not shown that the NRC could evaluate the risks more meaningfully than it had 

already done. 

Subsequent to the Third Circuit’s determination, the Commission overturned the Board’s 

decision to admit a NEPA terrorism contention in the Diablo Canyon License Renewal 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-10 

proceeding, a facility located in the Ninth Circuit. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon 

Nuclear Power Plant), CLI-11-11, 74 NRC (slip op. at 40) (2011). The Commission reaffirmed 

that “the staff’s determination in the GEIS that the environmental impacts of a terrorist attack 

were bounded by those resulting from internally-initiated events, was sufficient to address the 

environmental impacts of terrorism.” Id. 

In sum, the Commission has found that the issuance of a facility license is not the “proximate 

cause” of a terrorist attack at that facility. Thus, it is not required to prepare an EIS discussion 

on the potential impacts of a terrorist attack. However, due to the decision of the Ninth Circuit, 

the NRC will prepare an analysis of the environmental impacts of a terrorist attack for licensing 

actions of facilities within the geographical boundaries of the Ninth circuit. In addition, the 

Third Circuit has held that the GEIS for License Renewal constitutes such an analysis for 

license renewals. 

E.3.1 Impact of New Information on Accidents Initiated by Internal Events 

With few exceptions, the severe accident analyses formulating the basis for the 1996 GEIS 

were limited to consideration of reactor accidents caused by internal events. The GEIS 

addressed the impacts from external events qualitatively, and external events are covered in 

more detail in Section E.3.2 of this revision. The impacts from the 1996 GEIS were based on 

the original license EISs for the 28 nuclear power plant sites listed in Table 5.1 of the GEIS. 

The source terms and their likelihood used in the plant-specific original EISs to calculate the 

airborne pathway environmental impacts of accidents were, in turn, usually based upon 

information contained in NUREG-0773 (NRC 1982). NUREG-0773 is an update of the original 

Reactor Safety Study (NRC 1975). These source terms and frequencies were used along with 

site-specific meteorology, population distributions, and emergency planning characteristics to 

calculate the airborne pathway environmental impacts. These EISs were issued in the 1981 to 

1986 time frame. Thus, while the GEIS was published in 1996, it was primarily based on 

information from the 1980s. 

Since the publication of NUREG-0773, many additional studies have been completed on the 

likelihood and consequences of reactor accidents initiated by internal events at full power. 

These studies include NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b), NUREG/CR-5305 (NRC 1992), and licensee 

responses to Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 1 (i.e., the IPE program). Licensees have 

further developed their IPE-vintage probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) models to support riskinformed licensing actions, including license renewal SAMA analysis. In addition, the NRC has 

developed standardized plant analysis risk (SPAR) models for all operating plants which can be 

used to calculate core damage frequencies (CDFs) for internal events. 

The purpose of this section is to assess how results from more up-to-date internal event 

information compare to those on which the 1996 GEIS was based. The evaluation contained in 
Appendix E

 E-11 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

this section compares the CDFs that formed the basis for the 1996 GEIS, and offsite doses 

directly from the 1996 GEIS, to the newer information. The comparison is done for pressurized 

water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs) and covers each of the plants listed 

in Table 5.1 of the 1996 GEIS. Changes in source terms (i.e., the quantity, form, and timing of 

radioactive material released to the environment) are assessed in Section E.3.3. 

E.3.1.1 Airborne Pathway Impacts 

As a first step in the comparison, the CDFs from the original EISs are compared to the CDFs 

reported in the plant-specific IPEs for the PWRs and BWRs considered by the 1996 GEIS. 

Tables E-1 and E-2 show these comparisons. As can be seen in Tables E-1 and E-2, for many 

plants, the IPE CDFs are smaller than those from the original EISs, particularly for BWRs. The 

mean of the IPE CDFs listed in Tables E-1 and E-2 are lower than the corresponding mean EIS 

CDF by 30 percent for PWRs and by more than a factor of 3 for BWRs. Accordingly, the 

likelihood of an accident that leads to core damage would be comparable to or less for PWRs, 

and significantly less for BWRs, than that used as the basis for the 1996 GEIS. 

Additional comparisons can be made using information from NUREG-0773 (NRC 1982), the 

original EISs, NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b), the IPEs, NUREG/CR-5305 (NRC 1992), recent 

analysis using SPAR models, and license renewal applications received to date. These 

comparisons are shown in Table E-3. In general, the Level 1 (CDF) results are comparable to 

or less than the corresponding Level 1 information from the GEIS. Furthermore, the newer 

estimates (license renewal and SPAR) are up to a factor of 2.5 lower than the mean IPE CDFs 

from Tables E-1 and E-2. 

The comparison of Level 3 (offsite consequences) information is made difficult due to 

differences in the values reported between older and newer assessments. Older assessments 

tended to provide mean and/or upper bound population doses for the entire region surrounding 

the nuclear power plant (as far as 1000 mi). Newer assessments tend to provide mean values 

within 50 mi. NUREG-1150 provided distributions for both within 50 mi and the site region and 

is used as a bridge in this comparison. 

The mean of population dose results from the original EISs of the 28 sites that considered 

severe accidents are a factor of 2 to 4 lower than the mean of the plant-specific upper bound 

estimates used in the 1996 GEIS for those same 28 sites. The mean population doses from 

NUREG-1150 (site region results) are, in turn, a factor of 10 to 100 less than the original EIS 

mean value. In actuality, the difference is even larger, because the NUREG-1150 estimate 

covers a larger area (site region for NUREG-1150 versus 150 mi for the EISs). The 

NUREG-1150 results for a 50-mi radius are a factor of 4 to 10 lower than the site region results. 

The mean of license renewal results (for a 50-mile region) are somewhat higher than the mean 

results reported in NUREG-1150 for a 50-mile region, but are still well below the population 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-12 

dose values reported in the original environmental impact statements for the 28 sites and used 

in the 1996 GEIS. 

Table E-1. PWR Internal Event (Full Power) Comparison 

Plant 

Original EIS Estimated 

CDF(a)

IPE 

CDF(b)

Beaver Valley 2 1.0  10-4/yr 1.9  10-4/yr 

Braidwood 1, 2 1.0  10-4/yr 2.7  10-5/yr 

Byron 1, 2 4.8  10-5/yr 3.1  10-5/yr 

Callaway 1 4.8  10-5/yr 5.9  10-5/yr 

Catawba 1, 2 4.8  10-5/yr 5.8  10-5/yr 

Comanche Peak 1, 2 4.8  10-5/yr 5.7  10-5/yr 

Shearon Harris 1 4.8  10-5/yr 7.0  10-5/yr 

Indian Point 2, 3 3.5  10-4/yr, 3.4  10-4/yr 3.1  10-5/yr, 4.4  10-5/yr 

Millstone 3 2.0  10-4/yr 5.6  10-5/yr 

Palo Verde 1, 2, 3 4.8  10-5/yr 9.0  10-5/yr 

San Onofre 2, 3 4.8  10-5/yr 3.0  10-5/yr 

Seabrook 1 4.8  10-5/yr 6.1  10-5/yr(c)

South Texas 1, 2 4.4  10-5/yr 4.3  10-5/yr 

St. Lucie 2 4.8  10-5/yr 2.6  10-5/yr 

Summer 1 4.9  10-5/yr 2.0  10-4/yr 

Vogtle 1, 2 1.0  10-4/yr 4.9  10-5/yr 

Waterford 3 4.8  10-5/yr 1.8  10-5/yr 

Wolf Creek 1 4.8  10-5/yr 4.2  10-5/yr 

 Mean value 8.4  10-5/yr 5.9  10-5/yr 

 Median value 4.8  10-5/yr 4.9  10-5/yr 

(a) Obtained by summing individual atmospheric release sequences, including intact 

containment sequences. 

(b) Source: NRC 2003, unless otherwise noted. 

(c) Obtained from the licensee’s IPEEE submittal. 

To summarize, the general contribution to decreased estimated doses are a factor of 2 to 

4 simply due to the conservatism built into the 1996 GEIS values. An additional decrease in 

estimated doses of 10 to 100 is seen when comparing the EIS results to the NUREG-1150 

results and a factor of 5 to 33 when comparing the EIS results to license renewal SAMA results. 
Appendix E

 E-13 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

E.3.1.2 Other Pathway Impacts 

Any change in the likelihood of accidents that release substantial amounts of radioactive 

material to the environment not only affects the airborne pathway, but also the surface water 

and groundwater pathways and the resulting economic impacts from any pathway. The 

information in Tables E-1, E-2, and E-3 indicate that the likelihood and impacts of airborne 

pathway releases is smaller than that used in the 1996 GEIS. Since this pathway directly 

Table E-2. BWR Internal Event (Full Power) Comparison 

Plant 

Original EIS Estimated 

CDF(a)

IPE 

CDF(b)

Clinton 1 2.4  10-5/yr 2.7  10-5/yr 

Fermi 2 2.4  10-5/yr 5.7  10-6/yr 

Grand Gulf 1 2.4  10-5/yr 1.7  10-5/yr 

Hope Creek 1.0  10-4/yr 4.6  10-5/yr 

Limerick 1 ,2 8.9  10-5/yr 4.3  10-6/yr 

Nine Mile Point 2 1.1  10-4/yr 3.1  10-5/yr 

Perry 1 2.4  10-5/yr 1.3  10-5/yr 

River Bend 9.5  10-5/yr 1.6  10-5/yr 

Susquehanna 1, 2 2.4  10-5/yr 5.6  10-7/yr(c)

WNP-2(d) 2.4  10-5/yr 1.8  10-5/yr 

 Mean value 5.4  10-5/yr 1.5  10-5/yr 

 Median value 2.4  10-5/yr 1.45  10-5/yr 

(a) Obtained by summing individual atmospheric release sequences, including 

intact containment sequences. 

(b) Source: NRC 2003, unless otherwise noted. 

(c) Revised 1998 IPE; obtained from NUREG-1437, Supp. 35, Appendix G. 

(d) WNP-2 = Washington Nuclear Project 2 (i.e., Columbia). 

affects the surface water pathway, it is reasonable to conclude that the likelihood of the surface 

pathway impacts would also be smaller and would continue to be bounded by the airborne 

pathway. The decreased likelihood of any pathway impacts would indicate the reduced 

likelihood of any subsequent economic impacts. This assumption is consistent with the results 

of the 1996 GEIS. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-14 

Furthermore, some information is available regarding basemat melt-through sequences, which 

could impact the groundwater pathway: 

• WASH-1400 (NRC 1975) used a frequency of 4  10-5/yr for basemat melt-through 

sequences; 

• NUREG-0773 (NRC 1982) used a generic frequency of 3  10-5/yr and a site-specific 

frequency of 1.1  10-5/yr for Indian Point Units 2 and 3; 

• NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b) calculated the basemat melt-through frequencies for Surry 

and Sequoyah to be 2.4  10-6/yr and 1  10-5/yr, respectively; 

Table E-3. Comparisons with Other Risk Information (Full Power Internal Events)

Reactor 

Type Comparison Information Source 

CDF 

(mean/point 

estimate) 

Person-Rem per Year 

(Mean, except as noted) 

Region(a) 50-mi 

PWR GEIS Basis 

NUREG-0773(b) 

Original EIS(c) 

1996 GEIS(c) 

6  10-5/yr 

8.4  10-5/yr 932

2,200(d) 

Update NUREG-1150 Plants 

- Surry 

- Sequoyah 

4  10-5/yr 

5.6  10-5/yr 

~30 

~80 

~6 

~10 

IPE 

- Catawba 

- McGuire 

- Surry 

- Sequoyah 

5.8  10-5/yr 

4  10-5/yr 

1.25  10-4/yr 

1.7  10-4/yr 

15.66 

4.6 

License Renewal(e) 3.9  10-5/yr 18.1 

SPAR (v3.45)(c) 2.3  10-5/yr 

BWR GEIS Basis NUREG-0773(b)

Original EIS(c) 

1996 GEIS(c) 

2  10-5/yr 

5.4  10-5/yr 577

2,720(d) 

Update NUREG-1150 Plants 

- Grand Gulf 

- Peach Bottom 

4  10-6/yr 

4.4  10-6/yr 

~5 

~30 

~0.5 

~7 

NUREG/CR-5305 

- LaSalle 4  10-5/yr 1,500(f) 66(e)

IPE 

- Peach Bottom 

- LaSalle 

- Grand Gulf 

5.5  10-6/yr 

4.7  10-5/yr 

1.7  10-5/yr 
Appendix E

 E-15 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Reactor 

Type Comparison Information Source 

CDF 

(mean/point 

estimate) 

Person-Rem per Year 

(Mean, except as noted) 

Region(a) 50-mi 

License Renewal(e) 1.4  10-5/yr 14.5

SPAR (v3.45)(b) 8  10-6/yr 

(a) For the EISs and GEIS, the employed distance is 150 mi; for NUREG-1150 and NUREG/CR-5305, 

the employed distance is 1,000 mi. 

(b) Based on Table 22 (CDF) of that document; PWR CDF cited is for Surry and BWR corresponds to 

Peach Bottom. 

(c) Values are for those plants listed in Tables E-1 and E-2. 

(d) Note that this is the mean of the distribution of 95th percent UCB values. 

(e) Mean values for all plants that have applied for license renewal as of August 2008; in a few cases 

(Beaver Valley, Calvert Cliffs, Ginna, and Nine Mile Point), the site-specific population dose values 

used included both internal and external events. 

(f) Includes both internal and external events. 

 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-16 

• A sample of IPE results showed basemat melt-through frequencies ranging from 

1  10-6/yr to 4  10-6/yr; and 

• A sample of license renewal application results showed basemat melt-through 

frequencies ranging from 2  10-7/yr to 6  10-6/yr. 

For the 1996 GEIS, a conservative value of 1  10-4/yr was used (see Section 5.3.3.4 of the 

1996 GEIS), which is higher than any of the values cited above. As such, it is concluded that 

the basemat melt-through frequencies used in the 1996 GEIS to assess the groundwater 

pathway are bounding. 

For BWRs, no quantitative basemat melt-through information was available. It is expected that 

for BWRs, containment failure by overpressure would occur before basemat melt-though. In 

addition, if basemat melt-through sequences do occur, their frequency would be less than that 

for PWRs due to the lower CDFs for BWRs. 

E.3.1.3 Conclusion 

The PWR and BWR accident frequencies that form the basis for the environmental impacts 

shown in the 1996 GEIS are, in most cases, comparable to or higher than the updated accident 

frequencies shown in Tables E-1, E-2, and E-3. In addition, the population dose estimates 

presented in Table E-3 demonstrate the conservatism in the 1996 GEIS values, both from the 

standpoint of reduced population dose from more recent estimates and the conservatism built 

into the GEIS methodology. 

E.3.2 Impact of Accidents Initiated by External Events 

The 1996 GEIS included a qualitative assessment of the environmental impacts of accidents 

initiated by external events (see Section 5.3.3.1 of that document). The purpose of this section 

is to consider updated information regarding potential external event impacts. The sources of 

information used in this assessment are (1) NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b) (and the supporting 

documentation in NUREG/CR-4551 [NRC 1990a]), which assessed seismic and fire events for 

two plants (Surry and Peach Bottom); (2) NUREG/CR-5305 (NRC 1992), which analyzed the 

risk from seismic and fire events for one plant (LaSalle); and (3) the results from the IPEEE 

program, as documented in NUREG-1742 (NRC 2003). The IPEEE program was initiated in the 

early 1990s and required all operating plants in the United States to do an assessment to 

identify vulnerabilities to severe accidents initiated by external events and report the results to 

the NRC, along with any identified improvements and/or corrective actions. NUREG-1742 

documents the perspectives derived from the technical reviews of the IPEEE results. 
Appendix E

 E-17 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Typically, the external events that contribute the most to plant risk are seismic and fires. In 

some cases, high winds, floods, and tornados may contribute to plant risk; however, these 

contributions are generally much lower than those from seismic and fire events. Therefore, the 

assessment of the environmental impact from external events provided here focuses on seismic 

and fire events. This is consistent with the results obtained from the IPEEEs and the 

perspectives articulated in NUREG-1742. 

E.3.2.1 Airborne Pathway Impacts 

The assessment in this section is based upon a comparison of the risks and environmental 

impacts from severe accidents initiated by external events to those initiated by internal events, 

based on the aforementioned information sources. 

Level 1 Comparison (CDF) 

From the IPEEE the following insights can be drawn: 

(1) For a majority of plants, fire and/or seismic events are important contributors to risk. 

(2) The contributions to CDFs from fire events are comparable to the contribution to CDFs 

from internal events. The IPEEE CDF values for fire-initiated events are shown in 

Tables E-4 and E-5 along with the IPE internal event CDFs. For the plants listed in 

Tables E-4, the PWR fire CDF is about half the internal event CDF. For the BWR 

plants in Table E-5, the fire CDF is roughly 50 percent higher than the internal events 

CDF. Section 3.3.1.1 of NUREG-1742 (NRC 2003) provides a comparison of fire and 

internal events for the entire fleet of plants, and similarly concludes that BWR results 

are comparable, while PWR results are slightly lower for fire CDF. 

However, the IPEEE fire event CDFs are much lower than the internal event CDFs 

from the original EISs (basis for the 1996 GEIS). The mean value of the PWR fire 

event CDFs in Table E-4 is one-third of the PWR internal event CDF from the EISs 

(see Table E-1), and the mean value of the BWR fire event CDFs in Table E-5 is less 

than half the BWR internal event CDF from the original EISs (see Table E-2). 

(3) The contributions to CDF from seismic events are comparable to the contribution from 

internal events. For plants listed in Tables E-1 and E-2 that reported seismic CDFs as 

part of their IPEEE submittals, these CDFs are contained in Tables E-4 and E-5. 

Although sparse, these values suggest seismic CDFs are lower than or comparable to 

internal event CDFs. Section 2.6.1 of NUREG-1742 considers all reporting plants, and 

states that the largest group of reported seismic CDFs were in the range of 1  10-5 to 

1  10-4 (same order of magnitude as the basis for the 1996 GEIS), with the next largest 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-18 

Table E-4. PWR Internal, Fire, and Seismic Event CDF Comparison (Full Power)(a)

Plant 

IPE Internal 

Events CDF 

IPEEE Fire 

CDF 

IPEEE Seismic CDF 

(EPRI/Other/Update) 

IPEEE Seismic CDF 

(LLNL) 

Beaver Valley 2 1.9  10-4/yr 1.1  10-5/yr 1  10-5/yr 2.3  10-5/yr 

Braidwood 1, 2 2.7  10-5/yr 3.9  10-6/yr 

3.8  10-6/yr 

 

Byron 1, 2 3.1  10-5/yr 4.2  10-6/yr 

5.3  10-6/yr 

 

Callaway 1 5.9  10-5/yr 8.9  10-6/yr 

Catawba 1, 2 5.8  10-5/yr 4.6  10-6/yr 1.6  10-5/yr 

Comanche Peak 1, 2 5.7  10-5/yr 2.1  10-5/yr 

Shearon Harris 1 7.0  10-5/yr 1.3  10-5/yr 

Indian Point 2, 3 3.1  10-5/yr 

4.4  10-5/yr 

1.8  10-5/yr 

5.6  10-5/yr 

1.3  10-5/yr 

5.9  10-5/yr 

1.5  10-5/yr 

4.4  10-5/yr 

Millstone 3 5.6  10-5/yr 4.8  10-6/yr 9.1  10-6/yr 

Palo Verde 1, 2, 3 9.0  10-5/yr 8.7  10-5/yr 

San Onofre 2, 3 3.0  10-5/yr 1.6  10-5/yr 1.7  10-5/yr 

Seabrook 1 6.1  10-5/yr(b) 1.2  10-5/yr 1.2  10-5/yr 1.3  10-4/yr 

South Texas 1, 2 4.3  10-5/yr 5.1  10-7/yr 1.9  10-7/yr 2.2  10-5/yr 

St. Lucie 2 2.6  10-5/yr 1.9  10-4/yr 

Summer 1 2.0  10-4/yr 8.5  10-5/yr 

Vogtle 1, 2 4.9  10-5/yr 1.0  10-5/yr 

Waterford 3 1.8  10-5/yr 7.0  10-6/yr 

Wolf Creek 1 4.2  10-5/yr 7.6  10-6/yr 

Mean Value 5.9  10-5/yr 2.8  10-5/yr 1.5  10-5/yr 4.3  10-5/yr 

(a) Source: NRC 2003, unless otherwise stated. 

(b) Obtained from the licensee’s IPEEE submittal. 

group being 1  10-6 to 1  10-5 (one order of magnitude lower than the basis for the 

1996 GEIS). 

(4) As a result of the IPEEE program, most licensees have made improvements to plant 

hardware, procedures, or training programs. Although not generally quantified as part 

of the IPEEE, those improvements are, in many cases, considered to have lowered the 

reported risk estimates. 

Table E-6 compares CDFs from NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b) and NUREG/CR-5305 (NRC 1992) 

for internal, fire, and seismic events with the internal events from the original EISs (which 
Appendix E

 E-19 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table E-5. BWR Internal, Fire, and Seismic Event CDF Comparison (Full Power)(a)

Plant 

IPE Internal 

Events CDF 

IPEEE Fire 

CDF 

IPEEE Seismic CDF 

(EPRI/Other/Update) 

IPEEE Seismic CDF 

(LLNL) 

Clinton 1 2.7  10-5/yr 3.6  10-6/yr 

Fermi 2 5.7  10-6/yr 2.2  10-5/yr 

Grand Gulf 1 1.7  10-5/yr 8.9  10-6/yr 

Hope Creek 4.6  10-5/yr 8.1  10-5/yr 1.1  10-6/yr 3.6  10-6/yr 

Limerick 1, 2 4.3  10-6/yr NA(b) 

Nine Mile Point 2 3.1  10-5/yr 1.4  10-6/yr 2.5  10-7/yr 1.2  10-6/yr 

Perry 1 1.3  10-5/yr 3.3  10-5/yr 

River Bend 1.6  10-5/yr 2.3  10-5/yr 

Susquehanna 1, 2 5.6  10-7/yr(c) 3.6  10-8/yr 

WNP-2(d) 1.8  10-5/yr 5.5  10-5/yr 2.1  10-5/yr 

Mean Value 1.5  10-5/yr 2.3  10-5/yr 7.5  10-6/yr 2.4  10-6/yr 

(a) Source: NRC 2003, unless otherwise stated. 

(b) NA = not available. 

(c) Revised 1998 IPE; obtained from NUREG-1437, Supp. 35, Appendix G. 

(d) WNP-2 = Washington Nuclear Project 2 (i.e., Columbia). 

Table E-6. NUREG-1150 and NUREG/CR-5305 Fire and Seismic CDFs 

Plant 

Internal Events 

(mean value) 

Fire Events 

(mean value) 

Seismic Events 

(mean value)(a)

1996 GEIS Basis 

Internal Events 

(mean value) 

Surry (NUREG-1150) 4  10-5/yr 1.1  10-5/yr 1.9  10-4/yr 8.4  10-5/yr(b)

Peach Bottom 

(NUREG-1150) 

4.4  10-6/yr 2  10-5/yr 7.5  10-5/yr 5.4  10-5/yr(c) 

LaSalle 

(NUREG/CR-5305) 

4  10-5/yr 5.5  10-5/yr 8  10-7/yr 5.4  10-5/yr(c) 

(a) Based on the LLNL seismic hazard distribution results. 

(b) This value is the mean of the CDFs of all PWRs listed in Table 5.1 of the 1996 GEIS. 

(c) This value is the mean of the CDFs of all BWRs listed in Table 5.1 of the 1996 GEIS. 

 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-20 

formed the basis for the 1996 GEIS). As can be seen in this table, the NUREG-1150 and 

NUREG/CR-5305 fire and seismic CDFs are comparable to those supporting the 1996 GEIS, 

with a number of both relatively lower and higher comparisons.(j)

In support of early site permits for new reactors, the NRC staff reviewed updates to seismic 

source and ground motion models provided by applicants. The updates to seismic data and 

models could result in estimated seismic hazard levels at some current central and eastern 

U.S. operating sites that would be higher than seismic hazard values used in design and 

previous evaluations (such as the IPEEEs). Due to its relevance for other licensing actions, the 

issue is being pursued as part of the Generic Issues Program, as Generic Issue 199 (GI-199). 

A preliminary assessment performed for the affected plants as part of GI-199 indicates that the 

average increase in seismic CDF relative to the IPEEE-era estimates would be about 1  10-5

per year. However, this assessment also indicates that on average, the updated seismic CDF 

remains slightly (approximately 30 percent) less than the internal events CDF. 

Level 3 Comparison (Offsite Consequences) 

To obtain quantitative information on the airborne pathway environmental impacts of severe 

accidents caused by external events, IPEEE, NUREG-1150, and NUREG/CR-5305 results can 

be used to compare against the internal event airborne pathway impacts contained in the 1996 

GEIS. The following discussion summarizes the airborne pathway environmental impact 

information available. 

The IPEEE provided external event environmental impact information (i.e., early fatalities, latent 

fatalities, and population dose) for Catawba and McGuire. This information showed the impacts 

of external events to be much less (i.e., one to two orders of magnitude) than those estimated 

for internally initiated events at full power in the 1996 GEIS for Catawba and McGuire (see 

Table E-7). Recall that while this is a comparison of mean values versus 95 percent upper 

confidence bound (UCB) values, the 95 percent UCB values are the ones used for the basis of 

the 1996 GEIS. Thus, this comparison shows that more realistic estimates are significantly 

lower than the conservative estimates used in the GEIS. 

 

(j) The NUREG-1150 values represented best-estimate values at the time they were completed. For 

Surry, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) NUREG-1150 curve is uniformly higher 

than other seismic hazard estimates (e.g., the Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI] and LLNL 

curves used for the IPEEEs, recent United States Geological Survey curves). For Peach Bottom, the 

EPRI NUREG-1150 curve is uniformly lower. 
Appendix E

 E-21 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table E-7. Catawba and McGuire Results for Internal and External Events 

Impact 

Catawba 

External 

Events 

Catawba 

Internal 

Events 

Catawba 

1996 GEIS 

Internal Events 

(95 percent UCB) 

McGuire 

External 

Events 

McGuire 

Internal 

Events 

McGuire 

1996 GEIS 

Internal Events 

(95 percent UCB) 

Total personrem per year 43.6 15.6 1,880 10.7 4.6 1,806 

Total early 

fatality risk 7.8  10-6/yr 5.9  10-6/yr 1.7  10-2/yr 2.2  10-6/yr 8.2  10-7/yr 1.0  10-2/yr 

Total latent 

fatality risk 2.7  10-3/yr 9.4  10-4/yr 1.4/yr(a) 7.4  10-4/yr 3.2  10-4/yr 1.4/yr(a)

(a) These values include the factor of 10 adjustment made in the 1996 GEIS (see Section 5.3.3.2.3 of the 1996 GEIS). 

Fire Events

NUREG-1150 provides quantitative information on the airborne pathway environmental impact 

from fires for Surry and Peach Bottom. This information is shown in Tables E-8 and E-9 along 

with the full power, internal event environmental impact information from NUREG-1150 and the 

1996 GEIS. NUREG/CR-5305 provides similar information for LaSalle, as presented in 

Table E-10. Tables E-8 through E-10 present 95th percentile results for all values. As can be 

seen from these tables, even 95th percentile values from NUREG-1150 and NUREG/CR-5305 

are significantly lower (at least by 1 order of magnitude) than the conservative values used in 

the 1996 GEIS. 

Seismic Events

Table E-11 presents mean results from the second-tier NUREG-1150 study documentation 

(NUREG/CR-4551; NRC 1990a) for impacts due to seismic initiators at Surry and Peach 

Bottom. As can be seen from this table, the mean results from the NUREG-1150 study are, in 

most cases, significantly smaller than the 95th percentile estimates used in the 1996 GEIS. 

E.3.2.2 Other Pathway Impacts 

With respect to the other pathways (open bodies of water and groundwater), the IPEEE, 

NUREG-1150, and NUREG/CR-5305 analysis did not address their impacts on human health. 

The 1996 GEIS estimated these impacts for reactor accidents from full power (internal events 

only) using the results from site-specific information on surface water and groundwater areas, 

volumes, flow-rates, and geology to assess contamination of water by comparing the sitespecific information to that used in NUREG-0440 (NRC 1978), which assessed the 

contamination of surface water and groundwater from reactor accidents. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-22 

Table E-8. Impacts of Accidents Caused by Fire Events (Surry)

Impact 

NUREG-1150 

Fire Events 

(95th percentile) 

NUREG-1150 

Internal Events 

(95th percentile) 

1996 GEIS 

Internal Events 

(95th percentile) 

Individual risk 

 - EF(a) (1 mi) 

 - LF(b) (10 mi) 

~1.5  10-10/yr 

~1.5  10-10/yr

~5  10-8/yr 

~1  10-8/yr

Not available 

Not available 

Total person-rem per year (entire 

region) ~2 ~150 1,200 

Total early fatality risk ~1  10-8/yr ~4  10-6/yr 1.6  10-2/yr 

Total latent fatality risk ~6  10-4/yr ~3  10-2/yr 0.9/yr 

(a) EF = early fatality risk. The individual early fatality risk within one mile (1.6 km) is the frequency (per year) that a person 

living within one mile (1.6 km) of the site boundary will die within a year due to the accident. The entire population within 

one mile is considered to obtain an average value. 

(b) LF = latent fatality risk. The individual latent cancer fatality risk within 10 miles (16 km) is the frequency (per year) that a 

person living within 10 miles (16 km) of the plant will die many years later from cancer due to radiation exposure received 

from the accident. The entire population within 10 miles (16 km) is considered to obtain an average value.

Table E-9. Impacts of Accidents Caused by Fire Events (Peach Bottom) 

Impact 

NUREG-1150 

Fire Events 

(95th percentile) 

NUREG-1150 

Internal Events 

(95th percentile) 

1996 GEIS 

Internal Events 

(95th percentile) 

Individual risk 

 - EF(a) (1 mi) 

 - LF(b) (10 mi) 

~1.5  10-9/yr 

~1  10-8/yr

~2.5  10-10/yr 

~1.5  10-9/yr

Not available 

Not available 

Total person-rem per year 

(entire region) ~700 ~100 2,950 

Total early fatality risk ~1.5  10-6/yr ~1  10-7/yr 4.2  10-3/yr

Total latent fatality risk ~0.15/yr ~2  10-2/yr 2.0/yr

(a) EF = early fatality risk. The individual early fatality risk within one mile (1.6 km) is the frequency (per year) that a person 

living within one mile (1.6 km) of the site boundary will die within a year due to the accident. The entire population within 

one mile is considered to obtain an average value. 

(b) LF = latent fatality risk. The individual latent cancer fatality risk within 10 miles (16 km) is the frequency (per year) that a 

person living within 10 miles (16 km) of the plant will die many years later from cancer due to radiation exposure received 

from the accident. The entire population within 10 miles (16 km) is considered to obtain an average value. 
Appendix E

 E-23 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table E-10. Impacts of Accidents Caused by Fire Events (LaSalle) 

Impact 

NUREG/CR-5305 

Fire Events 

(95th percentile) 

NUREG/CR-5305 

Internal Events 

(95th percentile) 

1996 GEIS 

Internal Events 

(95th percentile) 

Individual risk 

 - EF(a) (1 mi) 

 - LF(b) (10 mi) 

~1.1  10-10/yr 

~1.0  10-8/yr 

~1.5  10-10/yr 

~1.3  10-8/yr 

Not available 

Not available 

Total person-rem per year ~1,920 ~2,600 2,898 

Total early fatality risk ~9  10-9/yr ~1.2  10-8/yr 3.6  10-3/yr 

Total latent fatality risk ~0.3/yr ~0.4/yr 2.0/yr 

(a) EF = early fatality risk. The individual early fatality risk within one mile (1.6 km) is the frequency (per year) that a person 

living within one mile (1.6 km) of the site boundary will die within a year due to the accident. The entire population within 

one mile is considered to obtain an average value. 

(b) LF = latent fatality risk. The individual latent cancer fatality risk within 10 miles is the frequency (per year) that a person 

living within 10 miles (16 km) of the plant will die many years later from cancer due to radiation exposure received from the 

accident. The entire population within 10 miles (16 km) is considered to obtain an average value. 

Table E-11. Impacts of Accidents Caused by Seismic Events 

Impact 

Surry Peach Bottom 

NUREG/CR-4551 

Surry(a) 

LLNL (EPRI) Hazard Curve 

1996 GEIS 

(95th 

percentile)

NUREG/CR-4551 

Peach Bottom(a) 

LLNL (EPRI) Hazard Curve 

1996 GEIS 

(95th 

percentile)

Individual risk 

 - EF(b) (1 mi) 

 - LF(c) (10 mi) 

1.8  10-7/yr (1.8  10-8/yr) 

3.1  10-8/yr (3.8  10-9/yr) 

 

1.6  10-6/yr (5.3  10-8/yr) 

3.4  10-7/yr (1.1  10-8/yr) 

Total person-rem 

per year 45 (6.7) 1,200 460 (17) 2,950 

Total early fatality 

risk 9.3  10-5/yr (1.4  10-5/yr) 1.6  10-2/yr 3.0  10-3/yr (8.8  10-5/yr) 4.2  10-3/yr

Total latent fatality 

risk 3.9  10-2/yr (5.6  10-3/yr) 0.9/yr 2.5  10-1/yr (9.9  10-3/yr) 2.0/yr

(a) Mean values. 

(b) EF = early fatality risk. The individual early fatality risk within one mile (1.6 km) is the frequency (per year) that a person living 

within one mile (1.6 km) of the site boundary will die within a year due to the accident. The entire population within one mile is 

considered to obtain an average value. 

(c) LF = latent fatality risk. The individual latent cancer fatality risk within 10 miles (16 km) is the frequency (per year) that a 

person living within 10 miles (16 km) of the plant will die many years later from cancer due to radiation exposure received from 

the accident. The entire population within 10 miles (16 km) is considered to obtain an average value. 

 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-24 

With the airborne pathway impacts from external events much less than the internal event 

airborne pathway impacts in the 1996 GEIS, it is reasonable to conclude that the impact of 

accidents caused by external events on surface water and groundwater contamination will also 

be much less than the impacts contained in the 1996 GEIS. Due to the longer time before the 

population is exposed and the effects of interdiction of contaminated food, only latent fatalities 

are expected to result from these pathways. Therefore, the environmental impacts of surface 

and groundwater contamination caused by accidents initiated by external events are bounded 

by the impacts stated in the 1996 GEIS. This same conclusion can also be drawn with respect 

to the economic impacts that are caused by the environmental contamination. 

E.3.2.3 Conclusion 

In summary, it is concluded that the CDFs from severe accidents initiated by external events, as 

quantified in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b) and the other sources cited above, are comparable to 

those from accidents initiated by internal events but lower than the CDFs that formed the basis 

for the 1996 GEIS. The environmental impacts from externally initiated events are generally 

significantly lower (one or more orders of magnitude) than those used in the 1996 GEIS. 

E.3.3 Impact of New Source Term Information 

The 1996 GEIS used information from 28 plant-specific EISs to project the environmental 

impact from all 118 plants analyzed (see Table 5.5 in the 1996 GEIS). The 28 sites chosen 

were those for which the impacts from severe accidents were analyzed in their plant-specific 

EISs. As stated in Section 5.3.3.1 of the 1996 GEIS, the source terms (i.e., the magnitude, 

timing, and characteristics of the radioactive material released to the environment) used in the 

EIS analyses for the 28 sites (and subsequently used to estimate the environmental impacts 

from all plants) were generally based on those documented in NUREG-0773 (NRC 1982). The 

NUREG-0773 source terms represented an update (re-baseline) of the source terms used in 

WASH-1400 (NRC 1975). The source terms in NUREG-0773 were developed for PWRs and 

BWRs and are shown in Tables 13 and 14A of that document. NUREG-0773 states that the 

provided source terms are based on models that have “known deficiencies which would tend to 

give overestimates of the magnitude of the releases.” 

Since completion of NUREG-0773, additional information on source terms has been developed 

through experimental and analytical programs. The purpose of this section is to assess the 

impact of new source term information on the environmental impacts described in the 1996 

GEIS. The new source term information assessed is that used in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b) 

as updated and simplified in NUREG/CR-6295 (NRC 1997b). 
Appendix E

 E-25 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

E.3.3.1 Airborne Pathway Impact 

Tables E-12 and E-13 present a comparison of the results for large release sequences from 

NUREG-0773 (NRC 1982) and NUREG/CR-6295 (NRC 1997b). These sequences typically 

dominate the total risk from all severe accidents. In this case, large release sequences have 

been selected from the full set of sequences in each study based on a total iodine release 

fraction of 10 percent or higher. These tables present release frequencies, timings, and release 

fractions for iodine and cesium, which are the elements that contribute the most to early (iodine) 

and latent (cesium) fatalities. Only limited comparisons between the studies are possible due to 

differences in the sequences analyzed in each study and their associated release modes. 

Nevertheless the following observations can be made: 

• The sum of the release frequencies from NUREG/CR-6295 is lower than those from 

NUREG-0773 for all containment types, with the exception of the NUREG/CR-6295 

LaSalle sequences. However, the higher release frequency for LaSalle is offset by lower 

release fractions at LaSalle. 

Table E-12. NUREG-0773 and NUREG/CR-6295 Large Source Terms (PWRs) 

Source Sequence Frequency 

Release 

Time 

(hr) 

Release 

Duration 

(hr) 

Post Core 

Uncovery 

Delta (hr)(a)

Iodine 

Release 

Fraction 

Cesium 

Release 

Fraction 

NUREG0773 Surry Event V (Bypass) 4  10-6/yr 1 1 0.5 0.64 0.82 

TMLB’-δ (CF during CD) 3  10-6/yr 2.5 0.5 1 0.31 0.39 

PWR-3 (CR during CD) 3  10-6/yr 5 1.5 2 0.2 0.2 

Sum 1  10-5/yr 

NUREG/ 

CR-6295 

Surry RSUR1(b) (CF at VB) 2.9  10-7/yr 6 2 1 0.35 0.31 

RSUR4(b) (Bypass) 1.6  10-6/yr 1 2.5 0.7 0.12 0.12 

Sum 1.9  10-6/yr 

Sequoyah RSEQ1(b) (CF during CD) 2.8  10-7/yr 5.5 2 0.5 0.59 0.62 

RSEQ2(b) (CF at VB) 3.6  10-6/yr 6 2 1 0.18 0.19 

RSEQ5(b) (Bypass) 3.1  10-6/yr 1 2.5 0.7 0.12 0.12 

Sum 7  10-6/yr 

(a) For NUREG-0773, this represents the interval of time between the decision to take protective measures and the start of the release; for 

NUREG/CR-6295, this represents the time between core uncovery and the start of the release. 

(b) These source terms have multiple plumes, which have been summed here for ease of comparison. 

 Bypass = fission product released from the reactor bypass the containment. 

 CF = containment failure. 

 CD = core damage. 

 VB = reactor vessel branch. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-26 

Table E-13. NUREG-0773 and NUREG/CR-6295 Large Source Terms (BWRs) 

Source Sequence Frequency 

Release 

Time (hr) 

Release 

Duration 

(hr)(a)

Post Core 

Uncovery 

Delta (hr)(a)

Iodine 

Release 

Fraction 

Cesium 

Release 

Fraction 

NUREG0773 Peach 

Bottom 

AEα’ (CF before VB) 2  10-9/yr 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 

AEα (CF before VB, scrub) 1  10-9/yr 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.4 

TCγ’ (CF before CD) 2  10-6/yr 1.5 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 

TW γ’ (CF before CD) 3  10-6/yr 50 2.0 40 0.1 0.3 

Sum 5  10-6/yr 

NUREG/ 

CR-6295 

Peach 

Bottom 

RPB1(b) (CF at VB) 1.2  10-6/yr 11.5 4.3 3.5 0.11 0.1 

RPB2(b) (CF at VB) 1.0  10-6/yr 7.3 4.3 2.5 0.11 0.1 

RPB6(b) (CF at VB) 3  10-8/yr 11.5 4.3 3.5 0.44 0.4 

Sum 2.2  10-6/yr 

LaSalle RLAS1(b) (CF before VB) 6.3  10-6/yr 58 13.5 4.8 0.16 0.17 

RLAS2(b) (CF at VB) 6.2  10-6/yr 3.8 7.3 2.5 0.15 0.03 

RLAS3(b) (CF at VB) 1.2  10-6/yr 16.9 6.3 5.8 0.11 0.07 

RLAS4(b) (CF before VB) 2.4  10-6/yr 23.7 1.8 0.5 0.18 0.12 

Sum 1.6  10-5/yr 

Grand 

Gulf 

RGG1(b) (CF at VB) 8.4  10-7/yr 3.6 4 2.6 0.23 0.11 

RGG3(b) (Late CF) 1.2  10-6/yr 14 4 13 0.15 0.01 

Sum 2  10-6/yr 

(a) For NUREG-0773, this represents the interval of time between the decision to take protective measures and the start of the release; for NUREG/

CR-6295, this represents the time between when the water level reaches 2 feet above the bottom of the active fuel and the start of the release. 

(b) These source terms have multiple plumes, which have been summed here for ease of comparison. 

 CF = containment failure. 

 CD = core damage. 

 VB = reactor vessel branch. 

• Where direct comparisons can be made (i.e., for bypass sequences in PWRs and 

containment failures before vessel breach in BWRs) the release fractions from 

NUREG/CR-6295 are significantly lower than those from NUREG-0773. 

• For several sequences in NUREG/CR-6295, the release fractions appear to be 

comparable to or slightly greater than those from NUREG-0773 (e.g., PWR sequence 

RSEQ1 and BWR sequence RPB6 which have a release magnitude comparable to the 

largest PWR release and BWR release from NUREG-0773, respectively. However, the 

release frequencies reported in NUREG/CR-6295 for these sequences are one to two 

orders of magnitude lower than those from NUREG-0773, resulting in a lower risk 

impact. 

• The release times and the difference in time between core uncovery and release to the 

atmosphere are generally comparable between the two studies. 
Appendix E

 E-27 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Based on the comparisons provided above, the expected impacts, i.e., the frequency-weighted 

consequences, from the airborne pathway using the updated source term information would be 

much lower than previously predicted. 

E.3.3.2 Other Pathway Impacts 

Since the comparison of the new source term information to that used in the 1996 GEIS 

environmental impact projection shows that the amount of release of radioactive material in a 

severe accident is estimated to be less than estimated in the 1996 GEIS, the environmental 

impacts from the other pathways (contamination of open bodies of water, groundwater 

contamination, and the resulting economic impacts from any pathway) will also be less than 

estimated in the 1996 GEIS. 

E.3.3.3 Conclusion 

More recent source term information indicates that the timing from dominant severe accident 

sequences, as quantified in NUREG/CR-6295 (NRC 1997b), is comparable to the analysis 

forming the basis of the 1996 GEIS. In most cases, the release frequencies and release 

fractions are significantly lower for the more recent estimate. Thus, the environmental impacts 

used as the basis for the 1996 GEIS (i.e., the frequency-weighted consequences) are higher 

than the impacts that would be estimated using the more recent source term information. 

It is worth noting that a significant effort is ongoing to re-quantify realistic severe accident source 

terms under the State-of-the Art Reactor Consequence Analysis (SOARCA) Project. 

Preliminary results indicate that source term timing and magnitude may be significantly lower 

than quantified in previous studies (NRC 2008a). This information will be incorporated, as 

appropriate, in future revisions of this document. 

E.3.4 Impact of Power Uprates 

Power uprates are defined as the process of increasing the maximum power level at which a 

nuclear power plant may operate. Although power uprates have been approved by the NRC 

since 1977, the effects of power uprates since 1996 were not taken into account for the GEIS. 

Extended power uprates began to be approved in 1998. For BWRs, it became common for a 

power uprate to be between 10 and 20 percent, and for PWRs, up to 5 percent. The purpose of 

this section is to provide an assessment of the impacts of power uprates on severe accident 

scenarios and their environmental impacts. 

The process of license amendments for power uprates requires licensees to evaluate the effects 

of the uprate on the safety of the plant. Design-basis accidents were analyzed to determine the 

change in possible dose, should an accident occur. Most commonly, loss of coolant accidents, 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-28 

control rod drop accidents and fuel handling accidents were assessed. Whole body and thyroid 

doses were determined for the exclusion area boundary, the outer edge of the low population 

zone, and the main control room. These values must meet 10 CFR Part 100 and 10 CFR 

Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 dose limits. The effects of power 

uprates on CDF and large early release frequency (LERF) are also assessed. 

E.3.4.1 Airborne Pathway Impacts 

Power uprates require using fuel with a higher percentage of uranium-235 or additional fresh 

fuel in order to derive more energy from the operation of the reactor. This results in a larger 

radionuclide inventory (particularly short-lived isotopes, assuming no change in burnup limits) in 

the core, than the same core at a lower power level. The larger radionuclide inventory 

represents a larger source term for accidents and can result in higher doses to offsite 

populations in the event of a severe accident. Typically, short-lived isotopes are the main 

contributor to early fatalities. As stated in NUREG-1449 (NRC 1993), short-lived isotopes make 

up 80 percent of the dose following early release. 

LERF represents the frequency of sequences that result in early fatalities. Thus, the impact of a 

power uprate on early fatalities can be gauged by considering the impact of the uprate on the 

LERF metric. To this end, Table E-14 presents the change in LERF calculated by each licensee 

who has been granted a power uprate of greater than 10 percent. As can be seen, the increase 

in LERF ranges from a minimal impact to an increase of 30 percent (with a mean of 

10.5 percent). This change is judged to be small to moderate. 

Table E-14. Changes in LERF for Extended Power 

Uprates >10 Percent 

Plant 

Percent Increase in 

Power 

Percent Increase in 

Internal Event LERF 

Brunswick 1, 2 15 4.5 

Clinton 20 5.5 

Dresden 2, 3 17 10 

Duane Arnold 15.3 16 

Ginna 16.8 19 

Hope Creek 15 30 

Quad Cities 1, 2 17.8 4 

Susquehanna 1, 2 13 <1 

Vermont Yankee 20 5 

 Mean 16.4 10.5 
Appendix E

 E-29 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

E.3.4.2 Other Pathway Impacts 

As discussed in previous sections, the change in impacts due to other pathways is viewed to be 

bounded by the change in the airborne pathway, consistent with the results obtained in the 

1996 GEIS. 

E.3.4.3 Conclusion 

Power uprates would result in a small to (in some cases) moderate increase in the 

environmental impacts from a postulated accident. However, taken in combination with the 

other information presented in this appendix, the increases would be bounded by the 95 percent 

UCB values in Tables 5.10 and 5.11 of the 1996 GEIS. 

E.3.5 Impact of Higher Fuel Burnup 

There has been continued movement toward higher fuel burnup, to allow for more efficient 

utilization of the fuel and longer operating cycles. An environmental assessment (EA) was 

published by the NRC in 1988 on the effects of increased peak burnup (to 60 GWd/MT, 

5 percent by weight uranium-235). NUREG/CR-5009 (NRC 1988) is the basis for the EA. 

NUREG/CR-6703 (NRC 2001a) is a more current analysis using updated designs and data, and 

peak burnup to 75 GWd/MT. 

The purpose of this section is to include the updated information from NUREG/CR-6703 into the 

GEIS to account for the effect of current and possible future increased fuel burnup on postulated 

accidents. Future peak burnups being considered are 62 GWd/MT for PWRs and 70 GWd/MT 

for BWRs. 

E.3.5.1 Airborne Pathway Impacts 

The environmental impacts of accidents where high burnup fuel is being used (assuming no 

change in plant power level) are due to the effects of an increased inventory of long-lived fission 

products. Long-lived fission products contribute primarily to latent health effects, and thus latent 

fatalities are used here as a measure of the impact of higher burnup fuel. Since latent fatalities 

are directly scalable to dose, the assessment is based upon the increase in population dose due 

to the use of high burnup fuel. 

NUREG/CR-6703 (NRC 2001a) analyzed design-basis accidents from full power for PWR and 

BWR reactors at different levels of fuel burnup. A PWR steam generator tube rupture and a 

BWR main steam line break were analyzed. Burnup was analyzed to 75 GWd/MT, at which 

point, fuel with more than 5 percent by weight uranium-235 would be required. As described on 

page 25 of that document, the models used do not account for natural processes and 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-30 

engineered safety features, so “more attention should be paid to trends in doses than to 

absolute values.” 

Table E-15 shows doses at the exclusion area boundary (EAB) and the total population dose 

stated in NUREG/CR-6703. The EAB dose includes contributions from inhalation, and external 

dose. The total population dose also includes contributions from contaminated foods as well. 

The increase in population dose is moderate (~38 percent) from 42 to 75 GWd/MT for PWRs. 

For BWRs, the net increase in population dose is small (~8 percent). Although the analysis in 

NUREG/CR-6703 is for design-basis accidents, the percentage increase in impacts would be 

generally similar for severe accidents. 

Table E-15. LOCA Consequences as a Function of Fuel Burnup 

Reactor 

Type 

Peak-Rod Burnup

(GWd/MT) 

Individual Dose at

 0.8 km(a) (rem)(b)

Mean Total Population 

Dose (person-rem)(b)

PWR 42 10 940,000 

50 10 1,100,000 

60 10 1,200,000 

62 10 1,200,000 

65 11 1,200,000 

70 11 1,300,000 

75 11 1,300,000 

BWR 60 10 1,300,000 

62 10 1,300,000 

65 10 1,300,000 

70 11 1,400,000 

75 11 1,400,000 

(a) 0.8 km = 0.5 mi. 

(b) Note that these doses are on a per event basis, not a frequency (per year) basis. 

E.3.5.2 Other Pathway Impacts 

As discussed in previous sections, the change in impacts due to other pathways is viewed to be 

bounded by the change in the airborne pathway, consistent with the results obtained in the 1996 

GEIS. 

E.3.5.3 Conclusion 

Increased peak fuel burnup from 42 to 75 GWd/MT for PWRs, and 60 to 75 GWd/MT for BWRs, 

results in small to moderate increases (up to 38 percent) in the environmental impacts in the 

event of a severe accident. However, taken in combination with the other information presented 
Appendix E

 E-31 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

in this appendix, the increases would be bounded by the 95 percent UCB values in Tables 5.10 

and 5.11 of the 1996 GEIS. 

 

E.3.6 Impact from Accidents at Low Power and Shutdown Conditions 

 

The 1996 GEIS did not include an assessment of the environmental impacts of accidents 

initiated at low power or shutdown conditions. These conditions include power levels less than 

5 percent, shutdown (with or without maintenance or plant modifications under way), and fuel 

handling. The safety concern under these conditions is that plant configurations may be 

established where not all plant safety systems and features would be operable 

(e.g., containment integrity may not be required), and activities (e.g., plant modification) could 

be under way that could not be done while at full power. Accordingly, accidents initiated at such 

conditions may have different initiators, progress differently, and have different consequences 

than those initiated at full power conditions. In addition, operating experience has shown that 

events affecting fuel cooling do occur during shutdown operation. Accordingly, the industry 

implemented a number of voluntary measures in response to NRC generic letters and bulletins, 

and in 1991 developed guidelines for the assessment of shutdown management and 

implementation of safety improvements (NUMARC 1991). As discussed in SECY-97-168 

(NRC 1997c), these voluntary industry initiatives resulted in improved safety. 

The purpose of this section is to provide an assessment of the risk from postulated severe 

accidents at low power and shutdown conditions relative to the risk from postulated severe 

accidents at full power conditions, including a comparison against the findings in the 1996 GEIS. 

The conditions assessed are: 

• Plant operation at power levels between 0 and 5 percent; 

• Shutdown with containment open; and 

• Fuel handling inside the containment structure. 

Several sources of information are available to support this assessment. These include studies 

that have been done assessing actual events and the risk from accidents at low power and 

shutdown conditions. These studies are: (1) NUREG-1449 (NRC 1993); (2) NUREG/CR-6143 

(NRC 1995b); and (3) NUREG/CR-6144 (NRC 1995a). In addition, in 1997, the NRC staff 

recommended a proposed rule be considered to address shutdown conditions. Although the 

Commission did not approve going forward with the proposed rule (see SRM-97-168, 

NRC 1997d), the technical basis for the proposed rule provides additional useful information. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-32 

E.3.6.1 Airborne Pathway Impacts 

NUREG-1449 (NRC 1993) presents an analysis of actual events that have occurred at low 

power and shutdown conditions. This analysis includes an estimate of the conditional core 

damage frequency associated with each event and an overall assessment of the range of total 

core damage frequencies (mean value) that could result from events at low power and 

shutdown conditions. This range was from 10-5/yr to 10-4/yr. 

NUREG/CR-6143 (NRC 1995b) and NUREG/CR-6144 (NRC 1995a) provide low power and 

shutdown risk assessments for two plants (Grand Gulf and Surry). For Grand Gulf, the mean 

core damage frequency stated in NUREG/CR-6143 is approximately 2  10-6/yr and for Surry 

(NUREG/CR-6144) it is 4  10-6/yr. However, such core damage frequencies need to be 

considered with respect to their consequences. Due to the decay time associated with low 

power and shutdown conditions (i.e., decay of short-lived isotopes and lower decay heat) and, 

in most cases, longer times available to take mitigative action, the offsite consequences would 

be less than for accidents from full power. However, in certain plant operating states, the 

containment in those states may be open. Thus, a higher conditional probability for containment 

bypass might exist. 

NUREG/CR-6143 and NUREG/CR-6144 also provide estimates of the offsite airborne pathway 

consequences on human health from accidents (internal events only) at low power and 

shutdown conditions. Tables E-16 and E-17 list these estimates for Grand Gulf and Surry, 

respectively. Also shown for each plant are the airborne pathway offsite consequence results 

for accidents from full power from NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b) (for internal events) and from the 

1996 GEIS. As can be seen, the airborne impacts (airborne pathway risk and probabilityweighted consequences) from accidents at low power and shutdown are comparable to those 

from full power, as quantified in these studies. Although the impacts for low power and 

shutdown conditions are somewhat greater (by about a factor of 2 to 5) for certain metrics, 

these differences are small in an absolute sense. Moreover, the airborne impacts of accidents 

from low power and shutdown are significantly less than those stated in the 1996 GEIS (by 

more than an order of magnitude). Thus, even though the 1996 GEIS estimates regarding the 

airborne pathway environmental impact are for internal events at full power only, their 

conservatism causes them to bound the impacts from accidents at low power and shutdown. 

E.3.6.2 Other Pathway Impacts 

For the impacts from surface water and groundwater contamination from accidents at low power 

and shutdown, the estimates for accidents from full power (internal events only) in the 1996 

GEIS can be used for comparison. In the 1996 GEIS, for the surface water pathways, it was 

estimated that the impacts from the drinking water pathway would be a small fraction of those 

for the airborne pathway. The risk associated with the aquatic food pathway was found to be 
Appendix E

 E-33 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table E-16. Airborne Impacts of Low Power and Shutdown Accidents (Grand Gulf) 

Impact 

Low Power/Shutdown 

Accidents 

NUREG/CR-6143 

(95th percentile values)

Full Power Accidents 

Internal Events 

NUREG-1150 

(95th percentile values)

Full Power Accidents 

Internal Events 

1996 GEIS 

(95th percentile values)

Individual risk 

 EF(a) (1 mi) 

 LF(b) (10 mi) 

~3  10-10/yr 

~5  10-9/yr 

~1.5  10-10/yr 

~1  10-9/yr 

Total person-rem per year 

(entire region) ~28 ~15 1,441 

Total early fatality risk ~4  10-8/yr ~2.5  10-8/yr 2.8  10-3/yr 

Total latent fatality risk ~1  10-2/yr ~2.5  10-3/yr 1.0/yr 

CDF 5.6  10-6/yr 1.2  0-5/yr 2.4  10-5/yr(c)

(a) EF = early fatality risk. The individual early fatality risk within one mile (1.6 km) is the frequency (per year) that a person 

living within one mile (1.6 km) of the site boundary will die within a year due to the accident. The entire population within 

one mile is considered to obtain an average value. 

(b) LF = latent fatality risk. The individual latent cancer fatality risk within 10 miles (16 km) is the frequency (per year) that a 

person living within 10 miles (16 km) of the plant will die many years later from cancer due to radiation exposure received 

from the accident. The entire population within 10 miles (16 km) is considered to obtain an average value. 

(c) This is the CDF from the Grand Gulf original EIS. 

Table E-17. Airborne Impacts of Low Power and Shutdown Accidents (Surry) 

Impact 

Low Power/Shutdown 

Accidents 

(NUREG/CR-6144) 

(95th percentile values)

Full Power Accidents 

Internal Events 

NUREG-1150 

(95th percentile values)

Full Power Accidents 

Internal Events 

1996 GEIS 

(95th percentile values)

Individual risk 

 EF(a) (1 mi) 

 LF(b) (10 mi) 

~7  10-9/yr 

~7  10-9/yr 

~4  10-8/yr 

~1  10-8/yr 

Total person-rem per year 

(entire region) ~1.3 ~150 1,200 

Total early fatality risk ~2  10-7/yr ~4  10-6/yr 1.6  10-2/yr 

Total latent fatality risk ~5  10-2/yr ~2.5  10-2/yr 0.9/yr 

CDF 1.9  10-5/yr 1.3  10-4/yr 

(a) EF = early fatality risk. The individual early fatality risk within one mile (1.6 km) is the frequency (per year) that a person 

living within one mile (1.6 km) of the site boundary will die within a year due to the accident. The entire population within 

one mile is considered to obtain an average value. 

(b) LF = latent fatality risk. The individual latent cancer fatality risk within 10 miles (16 km) is the frequency (per year) that a 

person living within 10 miles (16 km) of the plant will die many years later from cancer due to radiation exposure received 

from the accident. The entire population within 10 miles (16 km) is considered to obtain an average value. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-34 

also relatively small compared to the risks associated with the airborne pathway for most sites 

and essentially the same as the atmospheric pathway for the few sites with large annual aquatic 

food harvests. With the airborne impacts from accidents at low power and shutdown in 

NUREG/CR-6143, -6144, and NUREG-1150 estimated to be considerably less than the impacts 

from accidents at full power in the 1996 GEIS, the surface water pathway impacts should 

likewise be less, and thus, the risks portrayed in the 1996 GEIS should be bounding. 

Section 5.3.3.4 of the 1996 GEIS concluded that the contribution of risk from the groundwater 

pathway for at-power accidents “generally contributes only a small fraction of that risk 

attributable to the atmospheric pathway but in a few cases may contribute a comparable risk.” 

Groundwater contamination due to basemat melt-through would be less likely than for accidents 

at full power, due to the lower decay heat associated with low power and shutdown events. 

Thus, the risks portrayed in the 1996 GEIS are considered to be bounding. 

With respect to the economic impacts regardless of contamination pathway, the lower estimated 

person-rem/yr from accidents at low power and shutdown should also result in lower economic 

impacts than from accidents at full power. 

E.3.6.3 Conclusion 

In summary, it is concluded that the environmental impacts from accidents at low power and 

shutdown conditions are generally comparable to those from accidents at full power when 

comparing the NUREG/CR-6143 (NRC 1995b) and NUREG/CR-6144 (NRC 1995a) values to 

NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b) values. Although the impacts for low power and shutdown 

conditions could be somewhat greater than for full power (for certain metrics), the 1996 GEIS 

estimates of the environmental impact of severe accidents bound the potential impacts from 

accidents at low power and shutdown with margin. Finally, as cited above and discussed in 

SECY-97-168 (NRC 1997c), industry initiatives taken during the early 1990s have also 

contributed to the improved safety of low power and shutdown operation. 

E.3.7 Impact from Accidents at Spent Fuel Pools 

The 1996 GEIS did not include an explicit assessment of the environmental impacts of 

accidents at the spent fuel pools (SFPs) located at each reactor site. The 1996 GEIS did, 

however, discuss qualitatively (see Section 5.2.3.1) the reasons why the impact of accidents at 

SFPs would be much less than that from reactor accidents. Thus, in Table B-1 of 10 CFR 

Part 51, it was concluded that accidents at SFPs could be classified as Category 1 and not 

require further analysis in support of license renewal. This was primarily due to the fact that the 

resolution of Generic Safety Issue 82, “Beyond Design Basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools,” 

concluded that the risk from accidents at SFPs was low and, accordingly, no additional 
Appendix E

 E-35 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

regulatory action was necessary. The analysis supporting this conclusion is contained in 

NUREG-1353 (NRC 1989). 

Since issuance of the 1996 GEIS, additional analysis of the risk from spent fuel pool accidents 

has been performed and documented. For example, in 2001, the NRC published NUREG-1738 

(NRC 2001b), which evaluated SFP risk during decommissioning. As a result of the 

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, additional analysis has been performed on spent fuel 

pool (SFP) security, although much of this work is security-related information and not publically 

available. In addition, there are two other major activities of note: (1) a 2004 to 2005 study 

performed by the National Academies (National Research Council 2006b), and (2) a 2006 

Petition for Rulemaking (see NRC 2008d). 

The purpose of this section is to consider the risk from severe accidents in SFPs relative to the 

risk from severe accidents in reactors, including a comparison against the findings in the 

1996 GEIS. The impacts considered are only those from spent fuel in the pool. Spent fuel 

assembly dry cask safety is not included, since cask safety is addressed under 10 CFR Part 72. 

E.3.7.1 Airborne Pathway Impacts 

The analysis contained in NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001b) assesses the impacts from accidents at a 

typical SFP at decommissioning nuclear power plants. The impacts assessed are those 

associated with the airborne pathway impact on human health. The analysis covers a range of 

decay times for the fuel stored in the pool, a number of initiating events, and some variations in 

emergency evacuation times, fission product releases, and seismic hazard. The initiating 

events included in the analysis are listed below. 

• Seismic (for central and eastern U.S. sites)(k) 

• Cask drop 

• Loss of offsite power 

• Internal fire 

 

(k) The seismic risk analysis performed in NUREG-1738 was based on site-specific seismic hazard 

estimates for nuclear power plants in the central and eastern United States found in NUREG-1488, 

“Revised Livermore Seismic Hazard Estimates for 69 Nuclear Power Plant Sites East of the Rocky 

Mountains.” As such, nuclear power plants in the western United States, such as Diablo Canyon, 

San Onofre, and Columbia, were not specifically considered in this study. Nothing in NUREG-1738, 

or the staff’s reliance on it here, undermines the staff’s initial conclusion in the 1996 GEIS that the 

impacts of SFP severe accidents will be comparable to reactor severe accidents for all facilities. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-36 

• Loss of pool cooling 

• Loss of pool coolant inventory 

• Accidental aircraft impact (although not deliberate impacts) 

• Tornado missile 

The SFP inventory assumed was 31⁄2 core loads with an average fuel burnup of 60 GWd/MT. 

Although intended to be representative of the SFP in a typical decommissioning PWR or BWR, 

the assumed core inventory, burnup, and decay time range is also reasonably representative of 

that for operating PWRs and BWRs while at power. In addition to the above results, NUREG1738 also assessed the risk from recriticality in the SFP and concluded that, given licensee 

surveillance and monitoring programs, the potential risk of such events is small. 

The analysis conducted in NUREG-1738 assumed the plant was in its decommissioning phase 

and, thus, has fewer protective features for the prevention or mitigation of SFP accidents. 

Therefore, the impact analysis contained in NUREG-1738 is considered conservative. In 

addition, the NUREG-1738 impact analysis assumed that the zirconium fuel cladding would start 

to burn and the event would be nonrecoverable when the water level in the pool falls to within 

3 feet (1 m) above the top of the assemblies’ active fuel region. This is also conservative and 

does not credit potential operator actions to prevent or mitigate SFP accidents beyond that 

point, or the fact that for a wide range of conditions spent fuel can be air-cooled. Table E-18 

summarizes the airborne pathway impact on human health from a severe accident in a SFP 

(from the NUREG-1738 analysis) for a time period of 1 month to 2 years (i.e., a typical operating 

reactor fuel cycle). Ranges are given to account for differences in emergency planning and 

seismic hazard assumptions. The site characteristics used in NUREG-1738 were those from 

the Surry plant. Thus Table E-18 also presents Surry’s site-specific results from NUREG-1150 

(NRC 1990b) and the 1996 GEIS. 

As can be seen in Table E-18, the impacts from SFP accidents at Surry (as calculated in 

NUREG-1738) are generally comparable to or smaller than the analogous NUREG-1150 

internal event reactor accidents when using the low ruthenium release source term.(l) For the 

high ruthenium release source term, the NUREG-1738 results are generally higher than the 

accompanying reactor results from NUREG-1150. For either source term, the NUREG-1738 

 

 

(l) Due to a concern about the potential release of ruthenium isotopes from the spent fuel stored in the 

SFP, two sensitivity cases were analyzed in NUREG-1738: one with a ruthenium release fraction of 

2  10-5 (called the base case or the low ruthenium release case) and another with a ruthenium 

release fraction of 1.0 (called the high ruthenium release case). 
Appendix E

 E-37 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table E-18. Impacts of Accidents at SFPs from NUREG-1738(a) 

Spent Fuel Pools(b) 

(1 month to 2 years decay time) Reactors 

NUREG-1738 

Low Ru Release 

(range of means) 

NUREG-1738 

High Ru Release 

(range of means) 

NUREG-1150 

Surry 

(mean) 

NUREG-1150 

Surry 

(95th 

percentile) 

1996 GEIS 

Surry 

(95th 

percentile) 

Individual risk 

 EF(c) (1 mi) 

 LF(d) (10 mi) 

2  10-9 to 7  10-9/yr 

1  10-8/yr 

6  10-8 to 1  10-7/yr 

2  10-7/yr 

 

1.5  10-8/yr 

1.5  10-9/yr 

4  10-8/yr 

1  10-8/yr 

Total person-rem 

 per year 

2.5 to 12 

(50 mi) 

8 to 60 

(50 mi) 

 6 (50 mi) 

30 (entire region) 

30 (50 mi) 

150 (150 mi) 

1,200 

(150 mi) 

Total early fatality 

 risk 2  10-7 to 6  106

/yr 1  10-5 to 5  10-4/yr 1  10-6/yr 3  10-6/yr 1.6  10-2/yr 

(a) All values are approximate. 

(b) Values are obtained from Figures 3.7-3, 3.7-4, 3.7-7, and 3.7-8 of NUREG-1738. 

(c) EF = early fatality risk. The individual early fatality risk within one mile (1.6 km) is the frequency (per year) that a person 

living within one mile (1.6 km) of the site boundary will die within a year due to the accident. The entire population within one 

mile (1.6 km) is considered to obtain an average value. 

(d) LF = latent fatality risk. The individual latent cancer fatality risk within 10 miles (16 km) is the frequency (per year) that a 

person living within 10 miles (16 km) of the plant will die many years later from cancer due to radiation exposure received 

from the accident. The entire population within 10 miles (16 km) is considered to obtain an average value. 

impacts are much less than the conservative estimates of full power reactor accidents at Surry 

as estimated in the 1996 GEIS. 

The impacts stated in NUREG-1738 are also similar to those calculated for the resolution of 

Generic Safety Issue 82, in which NUREG-1353 (NRC 1989) calculated a best-estimate 

population dose of 16 person-rem per year.(m) While the NUREG-1738 results are for the Surry 

site, individual risk metrics for early fatalities and latent fatalities should be relatively insensitive 

to the site-specific population (see pg. 3-28 of NUREG-1738) because these metrics reflect 

doses to the close-in population. In addition, while results are presented for both the low and 

high ruthenium source term, the low ruthenium source term is still viewed as the more accurate 

representation. Therefore, the risk and environmental impact from fires in SFPs as analyzed in 

NUREG-1738 are expected to be comparable to or lower than those from reactor accidents and 

are bounded by the 1996 GEIS. 

Since the issuance of NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001b), and subsequent to the terrorist attacks of 

September 11, 2001, significant additional analyses have been performed that support the view 

that the risk of a successful terrorist attack (i.e., one that results in a zirconium fire) is very low at 

all plants. These analyses were conducted by the Sandia National Laboratories and are 

 

(m) Taken from the Executive Summary of that report: total dose = 8  106 person-rem; event 

frequency = 2  10-6 per year. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-38 

collectively referred to herein as the “Sandia studies.” The Sandia studies are sensitive, 

security-related information and are not available to the public. The Sandia studies considered 

spent fuel loading patterns and other aspects of a pressurized-water reactor SFP and a boilingwater reactor SFP, including the role that the circulation of air plays in the cooling of spent fuel. 

The Sandia studies indicated that there may be a significant amount of time between the 

initiating event (i.e., the event that causes the SFP water level to drop) and the spent fuel 

assemblies becoming partially or completely uncovered. In addition, the Sandia studies 

indicated that for conditions where air cooling may not be effective in preventing a zirconium 

fire, there is a significant amount of time between the spent fuel becoming uncovered and the 

possible onset of such a zirconium fire, thereby providing a substantial opportunity for both 

operator and system event mitigation. 

The Sandia studies, which more fully account for relevant heat transfer and fluid flow 

mechanisms, also indicated that air cooling of spent fuel would be sufficient to prevent SFP 

zirconium fires at a point much earlier following fuel offload from the reactor than previously 

considered (e.g., in NUREG-1738). Thus, the fuel is more easily cooled, and the likelihood of a 

zirconium fire is therefore reduced. 

Furthermore, additional mitigation strategies implemented subsequent to September 11, 2001, 

enhance spent fuel coolability and the potential to recover SFP water level and cooling prior to a 

potential zirconium fire. The Sandia studies also confirmed the effectiveness of these additional 

mitigation strategies to maintain spent fuel cooling in the event the pool is drained and its initial 

water inventory is reduced or lost entirely. Based on the more rigorous accident progression 

analyses, the recent mitigation enhancements, and NRC site evaluations of every SFP in the 

United States, the risk of an SFP zirconium fire initiation is expected to be less than reported in 

NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001b) and previous studies. For additional information on SFP safety and 

security, the reader is referred to the NRC’s response to a National Academy of Sciences study 

on the topic (NRC 2005a) and the NRC’s response to a petition for rulemaking (NRC 2008d). 

E.3.7.2 Other Pathway Impacts 

The NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001b) analysis did not address the impacts with respect to the other 

pathways (open bodies of water and groundwater). The 1996 GEIS estimated these impacts for 

reactor accidents from full power (internal events only) using the results from plant-specific 

reactor accident analysis to assess contamination of open bodies of water and from the Liquid 

Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440; NRC 1978) to assess the contamination of groundwater 

from basemat melt-through accidents. 

In both cases, the impacts on human health from surface water and groundwater contamination 

are only a small fraction of those impacts from the airborne pathway, except in a few cases 

where the impacts are comparable. With the impacts from the airborne pathway associated 
Appendix E

 E-39 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

with spent fuel pool accidents (as stated in NUREG-1738) being comparable to the impacts 

from reactor accidents, as stated in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b), the impacts from SFP-related 

surface water and groundwater contamination may also be comparable, even though the SFP 

fuel inventory is several times that of the reactor. This is due to the lower probability of 

occurrence of SFP accidents, the effects of decay of the fission products on the radionuclide 

inventory, and the lower energy density of the fuel inventory, which makes basemat meltthrough more unlikely. 

The same conclusion can also be drawn with respect to the economic impacts. These impacts 

are related to the likelihood of the accidents and the cost of cleanup and food interdiction. Even 

with higher fuel inventories, the lower likelihood of accidents in the SFP reduces the economic 

impacts. For example, the UCB economic impact identified in Table 5.31 in the 1996 GEIS from 

full power reactor accidents at Surry is approximately $1.1 million/yr. The worst-case economic 

impacts estimated in past studies for SFP accidents ranged from approximately $18,000/yr to 

$120,000/yr.(n) 

An issue related to the groundwater pathway that has received significant attention since the 

issuance of the 1996 GEIS is leakage of water from SFPs (or related systems) at Salem Unit 1, 

Indian Point Units 1 and 2, and Seabrook. Instances of this kind are adequately monitored and 

addressed via existing regulatory programs, and do not fall within the scope of this section. For 

more information on this topic, the reader is referred to NUREG-0933, Supplement 31, 

Section 3, Issue 202 (NRC 2007c) and NRC 2008b. 

E.3.7.3 Conclusion 

In summary, it is concluded that the environmental impacts from accidents at SFPs (as 

quantified in NUREG-1738 [NRC 2001b]) can be comparable to those from reactor accidents at 

full power (as estimated in NUREG-1150 [NRC 1990b]). Subsequent analyses performed, and 

mitigative measures employed since 2001, have further lowered the risk of this class of 

accidents. In addition, even the conservative estimates from NUREG-1738 are much less than 

the impacts from full power reactor accidents as estimated in the 1996 GEIS. Therefore, the 

environmental impacts stated in the 1996 GEIS bound the impact from SFP accidents. 

E.3.8 Impact of the Use of BEIR VII Risk Coefficients 

Section 5.3.3.2.2 from the 1996 GEIS discussed adverse health effects from exposure to 

radiation and referenced several National Academy of Sciences reports (BEIR I, III, and V) 

 

(n) The former estimate uses information from Tables C.95 and C.101 of NUREG/BR-0184 

(NRC 1997a), while the latter uses information from Tables 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of NUREG-1353 

(NRC 1989). 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-40 

(National Research Council 1972, 1980, 1990) as sources of risk coefficients for fatal cancers 

(i.e., latent fatalities) associated with radiation exposure. Benchmark evaluations of the 

exposure index methodology employed by the 1996 GEIS were conducted using the MELCOR 

Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS), as described in Section 5.3.3.2.3 of the original 

GEIS. MACCS is the predecessor of the currently used MACCS2 code, and represented the 

state-of-the-art for assessing risks associated with postulated severe reactor accidents at the 

time of the original GEIS. That study used a linear cancer model based on the BEIR V report 

(National Research Council 1990). The code-to-code comparisons suggest that latent fatality 

values in the FESs are an order of magnitude too low. Therefore, to account for this, the latent 

fatality results predicted from the FES values were multiplied by a factor of 10 to obtain the final 

predicted latent fatality results in the 1996 GEIS. This adjustment in combination with the use of 

95th percentile UCB values ensured that the basis for health effects would be conservative. 

In 2006, the National Research Council’s Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing 

Radiation (BEIR) published BEIR VII, entitled Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of 

Ionizing Radiation (National Research Council 2006a). BEIR VII provides estimates of the risk 

of incidence and mortality for males and females (see Section 3.9.1.4 and Appendix D of this 

report for more information). The BEIR VII report estimates that the fatal cancer risk coefficient 

is approximately 20 percent higher than the International Commission on Radiological 

Protection (ICRP) recommendation (as described in ICRP 1991). The difference of 20 percent 

is within the margin of uncertainty associated with these estimates (see Appendix D.8.1.4 for a 

detailed discussion of the BEIR VII report). 

The NRC staff completed a review of the BEIR VII report and documented its findings in 

NRC 2005b. In this paper, the NRC staff concluded that the findings presented in the BEIR VII 

report agree with the NRC’s current understanding of the health risks from exposure to ionizing 

radiation. The NRC staff agreed with the BEIR VII report’s major conclusion that current 

scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose 

response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in 

humans. This conclusion is consistent with the process the NRC uses to develop its standards 

of radiological protection. Therefore, the NRC’s regulations continue to be adequately 

protective of public health and safety and the environment. This general topic is discussed 

further in a 2007 denial of a Petition for Rulemaking, as discussed in NRC 2007d. 

E.3.9 Uncertainties 

Section 5.3.5 in the 1996 GEIS provides a discussion of the uncertainties associated with the 

analysis in the GEIS and in the individual plant EISs used to estimate the environmental impacts 

of severe accidents. The uncertainties discussed covered: 

• The probability of an accident. 
Appendix E

 E-41 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

• The quantity and chemical form of radioactivity released. 

• Atmospheric dispersion modeling for the radioactive plume transport, including: 

– duration, energy release, and in-plant radionuclide decay time; 

– meteorological sampling scheme used; 

– emergency response effectiveness and warning time; 

– dose conversion factors and dose-response relationships for early health 

consequences; 

– dose conversion factors and dose-response relationships for latent health 

consequences; 

– chronic exposure pathways; and 

– economic data and modeling. 

• Assumption of normality for random error components. 

• The exposure-index method, and 

– selection of exposure index parameters; 

– selection of distances; 

– regressing early fatalities for only large plants; and 

– normalization of plants for latent fatalities, costs, and dose. 

The 1996 GEIS recognized that the uncertainties in the estimated impacts could be large 

(i.e., from a factor of 10 to 1000). Reference was made to NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b) as 

providing more state-of-the-art risk analysis that also considered uncertainties and that the 

cumulative effect of this analysis shows a reduction in risk. 

In an attempt to help compensate for uncertainties, the 1996 GEIS used very conservative 

estimates of environmental impacts. These included: 

• Use of the 95th percentile confidence values in estimating airborne pathway and 

economic impacts; 

• Use of site-specific analysis for estimating surface water pathway impacts; and 

 

• Use of NUREG-0440 (NRC 1978) results to bound the estimated groundwater pathway 

impacts. 

It was generally concluded that even with uncertainties, the environmental impacts estimated in 

the 1996 GEIS were adequate for use. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-42 

Many of these same uncertainties also apply to the analysis used in this update. However, as 

discussed in Sections E.3.1 through E.3.8 of this revision, more recent information is used to 

supplement the estimate of the environmental impacts contained in the 1996 GEIS. In effect, 

the assessments contained in Sections E.3.1 through E.3.8 of this revision provide additional 

information and insights into items that could be considered areas of uncertainty associated with 

the 1996 GEIS. 

This more recent information also provides insights on additional sources of uncertainty from 

those discussed in the 1996 GEIS. Each of these insights on additional sources of uncertainty 

is discussed below. 

E.3.9.1 Emergency Planning (EP) 

The 1996 GEIS (in Section 5.3.5.3) included a discussion on uncertainties associated with EP. 

However, no quantitative information on the magnitude of these uncertainties was presented. 

To provide a perspective on the magnitude of the uncertainty, the following information is 

provided. 

NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b) and the SFP accident analysis in NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001b) 

specifically assessed the effect of different EP assumptions on the airborne pathway impacts. 

NUREG-1150 assessed four alternative emergency response modes in addition to its base case 

(99.5 percent of the population within 10 mi was evacuated in 4.5 hours with no sheltering). 

These alternatives were assessed for reactor accidents from full power, with the Surry and 

Peach Bottom analyses including seismic and fire initiated events as well as internal events. 

For the worst case (no evacuation, no sheltering, and early relocation), the estimated early 

fatalities per year were approximately a factor of 10 higher than the base case. 

The SFP accident analysis in NUREG-1738 also specifically assessed the effect of variations in 

emergency evacuation. The variations were assessed against the base case used in the 

NUREG-1150 risk analysis. Doses beyond 20 mi were not calculated. Cases where the 

evacuation was faster, slower, and where fewer people were evacuated were assessed. As can 

be expected, improved evacuation scenarios resulted in smaller impacts, and relaxed 

evacuation scenarios resulted in additional impacts. The impacts associated with relaxed 

evacuation scenarios did go up, but only a few percent in societal dose (i.e., person-rem) and 

up to a factor of 10 in early fatalities. However, these impacts are still far below the 

conservative characterization of the impacts for reactor accidents contained in the original 

GEIS. 
Appendix E

 E-43 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

E.3.9.2 Population Increase 

The assessments of environmental impacts contained in NUREG-1150 (NRC 1990b), 

NUREG-1738 (NRC 2001b), NUREG-1449 (NRC 1993), NUREG/CR-5305 (NRC 1992), 

NUREG/CR-6143 (NRC 1995b) and NUREG/CR-6144 (NRC 1995a) are all based on 

populations that existed in the mid-1980s to mid-1990s. The 1996 GEIS estimated impacts at 

the mid-year of each plant’s license renewal period (i.e., 2030 to 2050). To adjust the impacts 

estimated in the NUREGs and NUREG/CRs to the mid-year of the assessed plant’s license 

renewal period, the information (i.e., exposure indexes [EIs]) in the 1996 GEIS can be used. 

The EIs adjust a plant’s airborne and economic impacts from the year 2000 to its mid-year 

license renewal period based on population increases. These adjustments result in anywhere 

from a 5 to a 30 percent increase in impacts, depending upon the plant being assessed. Given 

the range of uncertainty in these types of analyses, a 5 to 30 percent change is not considered 

significant. Therefore, the effect of increased population around the plant does not generally 

result in significant increases in impacts. 

E.4 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMAs) 

In Section 5.4 of the 1996 GEIS, the purpose and role of severe accident mitigation design 

alternatives (SAMDAs) in the license renewal process are discussed. Severe accident 

mitigation alternatives (SAMAs) include design alternatives (SAMDAs) and alternatives that 

involve changes in procedures and training. With respect to this revision of the GEIS, the 

purpose and objectives of SAMAs remain unchanged. 

The purpose of this section is to discuss the impacts on SAMA analyses of the assessments 

presented in this revision. It should be noted that since publication of this 1996 GEIS, many 

improvements have occurred that have enhanced reactor safety. These are discussed in 

Section E.2 of this revision and, as can be seen in improved plant performance measures, have 

been effective. Even so, the SAMA analyses that have been performed to date have found 

SAMAs that were cost-beneficial, or at least possibly cost-beneficial subject to further analysis, 

in approximately half of the plants. However, none of the SAMAs identified related to managing 

the effects of aging during the period of extended operation. Therefore, they did not need to be 

implemented as part of license renewal, pursuant to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 54. In 

general, the cost-beneficial SAMAs were identified for further evaluation by the licensee under 

the current operating license. In several cases, the applicant has decided to implement the 

modifications even though they were not related to license renewal (NRC 2006a). 

The SAMA analysis performed in support of license renewal has focused on those areas of 

greatest risk (accidents initiated by internal and external events) and on measures that could 

result in the greatest risk reduction in a cost-beneficial fashion. Even though the 1996 GEIS did 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-44 

not explicitly consider accidents initiated by external events in estimating the environmental 

impacts from severe accidents, the environmental impacts from external events are included in 

an applicant’s SAMA analysis for license renewal by following the guidance contained in NEI 

05-01, Revision A (NEI 2005). This guidance (which is endorsed by the NRC in Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power 

Plant License Renewal Applications,” [NRC 2013]) calls for the consideration of external events 

in assessing SAMAs. External events are considered by multiplying the internal event risk by a 

factor that accounts for any increase in risk caused by external events. The multiplication factor 

is determined on a plant-specific basis considering previous and current external event analyses 

(e.g., IPEEE). Given the existing information on the contribution to risk from external events, 

the approach described in NEI 05-01 continues to be a reasonable approach to address the 

external event risk contribution. 

This GEIS revision has assessed other potential contributors to risk. Therefore, it is reasonable 

to assess whether those contributors should be included in the SAMA analysis. Specifically, 

these contributors are: 

• Power uprates; 

• The use of higher burnup fuel; 

• Accidents from low power and shutdown conditions; and 

• Accidents at SFPs. 

With respect to power uprates and the use of higher burnup fuel, the increased impacts are 

small compared to the impacts in the 1996 GEIS, and these factors are included in any severe 

accident assessment for license renewal. Therefore, no additional SAMA analysis is required. 

With respect to accidents from low power and shutdown conditions (which are not currently 

included in SAMA analysis), the CDFs are generally lower and the risks are comparable to 

those of accidents from full power. In addition, there have been industry initiatives to improve 

low power and shutdown safety. It is also likely that some SAMAs identified as a result of 

assessing risks from accidents at full power would provide benefits to accidents from low power. 

Therefore, the potential for cost-beneficial SAMAs related to low power and shutdown accidents 

is considered to be less than for accidents at full power. Accordingly, it is reasonable to 

continue to exclude low power and shutdown conditions from SAMA analysis consideration. 

With respect to accidents in SFPs, the additional mitigative measures implemented following the 

attacks of September 11, 2001, have further lowered the risk of this class of accidents, and 

therefore make the potential for finding cost-effective SAMAs related to SFP accidents 
Appendix E

 E-45 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

substantially less than for reactor accidents. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 

accidents at SFPs do not need to be considered in the SAMA analysis. 

With respect to which plants must submit a SAMA analysis, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) states 

that, “[i]f the staff has not previously considered severe accident mitigation alternatives for the 

applicant’s plant, in an environmental impact statement or related supplement or in an 

environmental assessment, a consideration of alternatives to mitigate severe accidents must be 

provided.” Applicants for plants that have already had a SAMA analysis considered by the NRC 

as part of an EIS, supplement to an EIS, or EA, do not need to have a SAMA analysis 

reconsidered for license renewal. In forming its basis for determining which plants needed to 

submit a SAMA, the Commission noted that all licensees had undergone, or were in the process 

of undergoing, more detailed site-specific severe accident mitigation analyses through 

processes separate from license renewal, specifically the Containment Performance 

Improvement (CPI), Individual Plant Examination (IPE), and IPE for external events (IPEEE) 

programs (61 FR 28467). In light of these studies, the Commission stated that it did not expect 

future SAMA analyses to uncover “major plant design changes or modifications that will prove to 

be cost-beneficial.” (61 FR 28467). The NRC’s experience in completed license renewal 

proceedings has confirmed this prediction. As a result, the totality of these studies (the former 

SAMA analyses, the IPE, the IPEEE, and the CPI) provides a strong basis for the Commission’s 

decision to not require applicants to perform an additional SAMA analysis in a license renewal 

application if the NRC had previously evaluated one for that plant. Therefore, applicants for 

license renewal of those plants that have already had a SAMA analysis considered by the NRC 

as part of an EIS, supplemental to an EIS or EA, need not perform an additional SAMA analysis 

for license renewal. 

E.5 Summary and Conclusion 

The 1996 GEIS estimated the environmental impacts on human health and economic factors 

from full power severe reactor accidents initiated by internal events. Sections E.3.1 through 

E.3.8 of this revision assessed the impacts of new information and additional accident 

considerations on the environmental impact of severe accidents contained in the 1996 GEIS. In 

addition, the impact of uncertainties associated with the new information is assessed in 

Section E.3.9. The purpose of this section is to discuss the aggregate effect of the new 

information on the environmental impacts and uncertainties stated in the 1996 GEIS and to 

state what conclusions can be drawn. 

The different sources of new information can be generally categorized by their effect of 

decreasing, not affecting, or increasing the best-estimate environmental impacts associated with 

postulated severe accidents. Those areas where a decrease in best-estimate impacts would be 

expected are: 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-46 

• New internal events information (decreases by an order of magnitude) 

• New source term information (significant decreases) 

Areas likely leading to either a small change or no change include: 

• Use of BEIR VII risk coefficients 

Lastly, those areas leading to an increase in best-estimate impacts would consist of: 

• Consideration of external events (comparable to internal event impacts) 

• Power uprates (small to moderate increase) 

• Higher fuel burnup (small to moderate increases) 

• Low power and shutdown events (could be comparable to full power event impacts) 

• Spent fuel pool accidents (could be comparable to full power event impacts) 

Given the difficulty in conducting a rigorous aggregation of these results (due to the differences 

in the information sources utilized), a fairly simple approach is taken. The latter group contains 

three areas where the increase could be comparable to the current risk and two areas where 

the increase could approach 30 to 40 percent. The net increase from these five areas would 

therefore be approximately 470 percent(o)

 (increase by a factor of 4.7). The reduction in risk due 

to newer internal event information would account for a decrease by a factor of 5 to 100. The 

net effect of an increase on the order of 500 percent and a decrease on the order of 500 percent 

to 10,000 percent would be a reduction in estimated impacts (as compared to the 1996 GEIS 

assessment). 

Furthermore, even if one assumed that the net effect of the new information was no change in 

risk, the information provided throughout this appendix has demonstrated that the level of 

conservatism in the upper bound estimates utilized in the 1996 GEIS is much larger than the 

individual (or cumulative) deltas from the updated information. In particular, Section E.3.1 

demonstrates that the GEIS values were a factor of 2 to 4 higher than the underlying EIS 

values. 

 

(o) This approximation simply assumes that each comparable area results in an increase of 100 percent 

and the other two areas (uprates and burnup) each result in an increase of 35 percent. 
Appendix E

 E-47 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

With respect to uncertainties, the 1996 GEIS contained an assessment of uncertainties in the 

information used to estimate the environmental impacts. Section 5.3.5 of the 1996 GEIS 

discusses the uncertainties and concludes that they could cause the impacts to vary anywhere 

from a factor of 10 to a factor of 1,000. This range of uncertainties bounds the uncertainties 

discussed in Section E.3.9 above, which ranged from a factor of 3 to 10, as well as the 

uncertainties brought in by the other sources of new information. 

Given the discussion in this appendix, the staff concludes that the reduction in environmental 

impacts from the use of new information (since the 1996 GEIS analysis) outweighs any 

increases resulting from this same information. As a result, the findings in the 1996 GEIS 

remain valid. Therefore, design-basis accidents remain a Category 1 issue, and although the 

probability-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL for all plants, severe 

accidents remain a Category 2 issue to the extent that only the alternatives to mitigate severe 

accidents must be considered for all plants that have not previously considered such 

alternatives. 

In addition, it is reasonable that in license renewal applications, the impacts from reactor 

accidents at full power, including internal and external events, should continue to be considered 

in assessing SAMAs. The impacts of all other new information do not contribute sufficiently to 

the environmental impacts to warrant their inclusion in the SAMA analysis since the likelihood of 

finding cost-effective plant improvements is small. Alternatives to mitigate severe accidents still 

must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives. Table E-19 

provides a summary of the conclusions discussed above. 

Table E-19. Summary of Conclusions 

Topic (Section) Conclusions 

New Internal Events 

Information 

(Section E.3.1) 

New information on the risk and environmental impacts of severe accidents caused 

by internal events indicates that PWR and BWR CDFs are generally comparable to 

or less than those forming the basis of the 1996 GEIS. In some cases, these 

differences are significant (approaching one order of magnitude). Comparison of 

population dose from newer assessments illustrates a reduction in impact by a 

factor of 5 to 100 when compared to older assessments, and an additional factor of 

2 to 4 due to the conservatism built into the 1996 GEIS values. This would also 

mean that contamination of open bodies of water and economic impacts would, in 

most cases, be significantly less. Additionally, the likelihood of basemat meltthrough accidents is less than that used in the analysis supporting the 1996 GEIS. 

Consideration of External 

Events 

(Section E.3.2) 

The 1996 GEIS did not quantitatively consider severe accidents initiated by external 

events in assessing environmental impacts. When the environmental impacts of 

external events are considered, they can be comparable to those from internal 

events; however, they are generally lower than the estimates used in the 1996 

GEIS for internal events. This conclusion would also apply to the contamination of 

open bodies of water and groundwater and economic impacts. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-48 

Table E-19. (cont.) 

Topic (Section) Conclusions 

New Source Term 

Information 

(Section E.3.3) 

More recent source term information indicates that the timing from dominant severe 

accident sequences, as quantified in NUREG/CR-6295, is comparable to the 

analysis forming the basis of the 1996 GEIS. In most cases, the release 

frequencies and release fractions are significantly lower for the more recent 

estimate. Thus, the environmental impacts used as the basis for the 1996 GEIS 

are higher than the impacts that would be estimated using the more recent source 

term information. 

Power Uprates 

(Section E.3.4) 

Based on a comparison of the change in LERF for extended power uprates, a small 

to moderate increase in environmental impacts results from the increase in 

operating power level. 

Higher Fuel Burnup 

(Section E.3.5) 

Increased peak fuel burnup from 42 to 75 GWd/MT for PWRs, and 60 to 

75 GWd/MT for BWRs, is estimated to result in small to moderate increases in the 

environmental impacts in the event of a severe accident. 

Consideration of Low 

Power and Shutdown 

Events 

(Section E.3.6) 

The environmental impacts from accidents at low power and shutdown conditions 

are generally comparable to those from accidents at full power when comparing the 

values in NUREG/CR-6143 and NUREG/CR-6144 to those in NUREG-1150. Even 

so, the 1996 GEIS estimates of the environmental impact of severe accidents 

bound the potential impacts from accidents at low power and shutdown. Finally, as 

cited above and discussed in SECY-97-168, industry initiatives taken during the 

early 1990s have also contributed to the improved safety of low power and 

shutdown operation. 

Consideration of Spent 

Fuel Pool Accidents 

(Section E.3.7) 

The environmental impacts from accidents at SFPs (as quantified in NUREG-1738) 

can be comparable to those from reactor accidents at full power (as estimated in 

NUREG-1150). Subsequent analyses performed, and mitigative measures 

employed, since 2001 have further lowered the risk of this class of accidents. In 

addition, the conservative estimates from NUREG-1738 are much less than the 

impacts from full power reactor accidents that are estimated in the 1996 GEIS. 

Use of BEIR VII 

Risk Coefficient 

(Section E.3.8) 

Use of newer risk coefficients such as in BEIR VII is expected to have a small 

impact on the results presented in the 1996 GEIS. 

Uncertainties 

(Section E.3.9) 

The impact and magnitude of uncertainties, as estimated in the 1996 GEIS, bound 

the uncertainties introduced by the new information and considerations. 

SAMAs 

(Section E.4) 

The current process and scope of SAMA analysis are sufficient for determining the 

need for additional mitigative measures. 

Summary and Conclusion 

(Section E.5) 

Given the new and updated information, the reduction in estimated environmental 

impacts from the use of new internal event and source term information outweighs 

any increases from the consideration of external events, power uprates, higher fuel 

burnup, low power and shutdown risk, and SFP risk. 
Appendix E

 E-49 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

E.6 References 

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of 

Production and Utilization Facilities.” 

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

Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

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

Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.” 

10 CFR Part 72. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, “Licensing 

Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive 

Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste.” 

10 CFR Part 73. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 73, “Physical Protection of 

Plants and Materials.” 

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site 

Criteria.” 

61 FR 28467. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Environmental Review for Renewal of 

Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses. June 5, 1996. 

International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1991. 1990 Recommendations of 

the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60, Pergamon 

Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 1969. 

National Research Council. 1972. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of 

Ionizing Radiation (BEIR I). National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 1980. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of 

Ionizing Radiation (BEIR III). National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 1990. Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing 

Radiation (BEIR V). National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-50 

National Research Council. 2006a. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing 

Radiation, BEIR VII. Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). National 

Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Research Council. 2006b. Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel 

Storage. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2005. SAMA Analysis Guidance Document. Revision A, 

NEI-05-01. November. 

Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC). 1991. Guidelines for Industry 

Actions to Assess Shutdown Management. NUMARC 91-06. December. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1975. Reactor Safety Study—An Assessment of 

Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1400, NUREG-75/014. 

October. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1978. Liquid Pathway Generic Study. 

NUREG-0440. February. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1982. The Development of Severe Reactor 

Accident Source Terms: 1957–1981. NUREG-0773. November. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. Assessment of the Use of Extended Burnup Fuel in Light Water Power Reactors. NUREG/CR-5009. February. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1989. Regulatory Analysis for the Resolution of 

Generic Issue 82. NUREG-1353. April. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990a. Evaluation of Severe Accident Risks: 

Surry Unit 1. NUREG/CR-4551 Volume 3, Revision 1. October. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990b. Severe Accident Risk: An Assessment 

for Five U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1150. December. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1992. Integrated Risk Assessment for the 

LaSalle Unit 2 Nuclear Power Plant. NUREG/CR-5305. August. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1993. Shutdown and Low Power Operation at 

Commercial NPPs in the United States. NUREG-1449. September. 
Appendix E

 E-51 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995a. Evaluation of Potential Severe Accidents 

During Low Power and Shutdown Operations at Surry, Unit 1. NUREG/CR-6144. May. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995b. Evaluation of Potential Severe Accidents 

During Low Power Shutdown Operation at Grand Gulf, Unit 1. NUREG/CR-6143. July. 

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). 1997a. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

Handbook. NUREG/BR-0184. January. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Reassessment of Selected Factors 

Affecting Siting of Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG/CR-6295. February. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997c. Issuance for Public Comment of 

Proposed Rulemaking Package for Shutdown and Fuel Storage Pool Operation. SECY-97-168. 

July 30. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997d. Issuance for Public Comment of 

Proposed Rulemaking Package for Shutdown and Fuel Storage Pool Operation. 

SRM-SECY-97-168. December 11. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1999. Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, “Section 6.3—Transportation, Table 9.1, 

Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, Final 

Report.” NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Addendum 1. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 

Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001a. Environmental Impact of Extending Fuel 

Burn-up Above 60 GWd/MT. NUREG/CR-6703. January. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001b. Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool 

Accident Risk and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1738. February. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2001c. Generic Aging Lessons Learned Report. 

NUREG-1801. July. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2003. Perspectives Gained from the Individual 

Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE). NUREG-1742. April. 
Appendix E 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 E-52 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Protecting Our Nation—Since 9-11-01. 

NUREG/BR-0314. September. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005a. Letter from Nils J. Diaz (NRC Chairman) 

to Senator Pete V. Domenici (Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development), 

dated March 14, 2005. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2005b. Staff Review of the National Academies 

Study of the Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII). SECY05-0202. October 29. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006a. Frequently Asked Questions on License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-1850. March. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2006b. Mitigation of Spent Fuel Loss-of-Coolant 

Inventory Accidents and Extension of Reference Plant Analyses to Other Spent Fuel Pools. 

Sandia Letter Report, Revision. November 2. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007a. Memorandum from Stewart Bailey (NRC) 

to James Scarola (Brunswick Steam Electric Plant) entitled, “Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 

Units 1 and 2—Conforming License Amendments to Incorporate the Mitigation Strategies 

Required by Section B.5.b. of Commission Order EA-02-026 and the Radiological Protection 

Mitigation Strategies Required by Commission Order EA-06-137 (TAC Nos. MD4516 and 

MD4517).” August 9. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007b. 2007–2008 Information Digest. 

NUREG-1350, Vol. 19. August. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007c. A Prioritization of Generic Safety Issues. 

NUREG-0933, Supplement 31. September. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007d. Denial of Petition for Rulemaking 

PRM-51-11. Federal Register 72(240):71083. December 14. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008a. “State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence 

Analyses (SOARCA) Project Accident Analysis,” Randall Gauntt and Charles Tinkler, presented 

at the 2007 Regulatory Information Conference (RIC), Rockville, Maryland. March 11. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008b. Letter from M. Gamberoni (NRC) to 

J. Pollock (Entergy Nuclear Operations) entitled, “Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 1 & 2—

NRC Inspection Report Nos. 05000003/2007010 and 05000247/2007010.” May 13. 
Appendix E

 E-53 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008c. Industry Performance Data. Available 

URL: http://nrcoe.inel.gov/results/index.cfm?fuseaction=IndustryPerf.showMenu (Accessed 

August 4, 2008). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008d. Denial of Petition for Rulemaking 

PRM-51-10 and PRM-51-12. Federal Register 73(154):46204. August 8. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2008e. Resolution of Generic Safety Issues. 

NUREG-0933, Main Report and Supplements 1–32. August. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2011. Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor 

Safety in the 21st Century, the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima 

Dai-ichi Accident.” July 12. ADAMS Accession No. ML111861807. 

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

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

Revision 1. 

Appendix F 

Laws, Regulations, 

and Other Requirements 

 F-1 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Appendix F 

Laws, Regulations, 

and Other Requirements 

F.1 Introduction 

This appendix presents a brief discussion of Federal and State laws, regulations, and other 

requirements that may be affected by the renewal and continued operation of U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC)-licensed nuclear power plants. It provides additional information 

about environmental laws and regulations, applicable to license renewal, that were introduced in 

Chapter 3, “Affected Environment.” These include Federal and State laws, regulations, and 

other requirements designed to protect the environment, including land and water use, air 

quality, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, radiological impacts, waste management, 

chemical impacts, and socioeconomic conditions. 

Applicable Federal and State laws and regulations presented in this part include: 

(1) laws and regulations that could require the NRC or the applicant to undergo a new 

authorization or consultation process with Federal or State agencies outside the NRC 

or, 

(2) laws and executive orders that could require the NRC or the applicant to renew

authorizations currently granted or hold additional consultations with Federal or State 

agencies outside the NRC. 

This appendix is provided as a basic overview to assist the applicant in identifying 

environmental and natural resources laws that may affect the license renewal process. The 

descriptions of each of the laws, regulations, executive orders, and other directives are general 

in nature and are not intended to provide a comprehensive analysis or explanation of any of the 

items listed. In addition, the list itself is not intended to be comprehensive, and an applicant for 

license renewal is reminded that a variety of additional Federal, State, or local requirements 

may apply to a license renewal application for a particular plant site. 

Section F.3 identifies Federal laws and regulations applicable to license renewal. Section F.4 

discusses Executive Orders. Section F.5 identifies applicable NRC regulations. Section F.6 

discusses State laws, regulations, and agreements. Section F.7 discusses emergency 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-2 

management and response laws, regulations, and executive orders. Section F.8 discusses 

consultations with agencies and Federally recognized American Indian Nations. These 

regulatory requirements address issues such as protection of public health and the 

environment, worker safety, historic and cultural resources, and emergency planning. 

F.2 Background 

The NRC is required to ensure that licensed nuclear power plants are operated in a manner that 

ensures the protection of public health and safety and the environment. 

There are a number of Federal laws and regulations that affect environmental protection, health, 

safety, compliance, and/or consultation at every NRC-licensed nuclear power plant. In addition, 

certain Federal environmental requirements have been delegated to State authorities for 

enforcement and implementation. Furthermore, States have also enacted laws to protect public 

health and safety and the environment. It is NRC’s policy to make sure nuclear power plants 

are operated in a manner that ensures the protection of public health and safety and the 

environment through compliance with applicable Federal and State laws, regulations, and other 

requirements. 

F.3 Federal Laws and Regulations 

The requirements that may be applicable to the operation of NRC-licensed nuclear power plants 

encompass a broad range of Federal laws and regulations, addressing environmental, historic 

and cultural, health and safety, transportation, and other concerns. Generally, these laws and 

regulations are relevant to how the work involved in performing a proposed action would be 

conducted to protect workers, the public, and environmental resources. Some of these laws 

and regulations require permits or consultation with other Federal agencies or state, tribal, or 

local governments. The Federal laws and regulations that are identified and briefly discussed in 

this section are presented in alphabetical order. 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978 (42 United States Code [USC] 

1996)—The American Indian Religious Freedom Act protects Native Americans’ rights of 

freedom to believe, express, and exercise traditional religions. 

Antiquities Act of 1906, as amended (16 USC 431433)—The Antiquities Act protects historic 

and prehistoric ruins, monuments, and antiquities, including paleontological resources, on 

Federally controlled lands from appropriation, excavation, injury, and destruction without 

permission. 
Appendix F 

 F-3 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1960, as amended (16 USC 469 et seq.)—

The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act establishes procedures for preserving 

historical and archeological resources. Analysis of environmental compliance included 

assessing the energy alternatives for possible impacts on prehistoric, historic, and traditional 

cultural resources. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, as amended (16 USC 470aa et seq.)—

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act requires a permit for any excavation or removal of 

archaeological resources from Federal or American Indian lands. Excavations must be 

undertaken for the purpose of furthering archaeological knowledge in the public interest and 

resources removed are to remain the property of the United States. Consent must be obtained 

from the American Indian Tribe or the Federal agency having authority over the land, on which a 

resource is located, before issuance of a permit. The permit must contain terms and conditions 

requested by the Tribe or Federal agency. 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2011 et seq.)—The 1954 Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as 

amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 USC 5801 et seq.) gives the NRC the 

licensing and regulatory authority for nuclear energy uses within the commercial sector. It gives 

NRC responsibility for licensing and regulating commercial uses of atomic energy and allows 

the NRC to establish dose and concentration limits for protection of workers and the public for 

activities under NRC jurisdiction. NRC implements its responsibilities under the AEA through 

regulations set forth in Title 10 of the CFR. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 USC 668668d)—The Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act makes it unlawful to take, pursue, molest, or disturb bald and 

golden eagles, their nests, or their eggs anywhere in the United States. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS) may issue take permits to individuals, government agencies, or other 

organizations to authorize limited, non-purposeful disturbance of eagles, in the course of 

conducting lawful activities such as operating utilities or conducting scientific research. 

Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended (42 USC 7401 et seq.)—The Clean Air Act (CAA) is 

intended to “protect and enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources so as to promote the 

public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population.” The CAA establishes 

regulations to ensure maintenance of air quality standards and authorizes individual States to 

manage permits. Section 118 of the CAA requires each Federal agency, with jurisdiction over 

properties or facilities engaged in any activity that might result in the discharge of air pollutants, 

to comply with all Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements with regard to the control 

and abatement of air pollution. Section 109 of the CAA directs the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for criteria 

pollutants. The EPA has identified and set NAAQS for the following criteria pollutants: 

particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and lead. 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-4 

Section 111 of the CAA requires establishment of national performance standards for new or 

modified stationary sources of atmospheric pollutants. Section 160 of the CAA requires that 

specific emission increases must be evaluated prior to permit approval in order to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality. Section 112 requires specific standards for release of 

hazardous air pollutants (including radionuclides). These standards are implemented through 

plans developed by each State and approved by the EPA. The CAA requires sources to meet 

standards and obtain permits to satisfy those standards. Nuclear power plants may be required 

to comply with the CAA Title V, Sections 501–507, for sources subject to new source 

performance standards or sources subject to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants. Emissions of air pollutants are regulated by the EPA in 40 CFR Parts 50 to 99. 

Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.)—The Clean Water Act (CWA; formerly the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act) was enacted to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the Nation’s water.” The Act requires all branches of the Federal 

Government, with jurisdiction over properties or facilities engaged in any activity that might 

result in a discharge or runoff of pollutants to surface waters, to comply with Federal, State, 

inter-State, and local requirements. 

As authorized by the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge 

pollutants into waters of the United States. The NPDES program requires all facilities that 

discharge pollutants from any point source into waters of the United States obtain an NPDES 

permit. An NPDES permit is developed with two levels of controls: technology-based limits and 

water quality-based limits. NPDES permit terms may not exceed 5 years, and the applicant 

must reapply at least 180 days prior to the permit expiration date. A nuclear power plant may 

also participate in the NPDES General Permit for Industrial Stormwater due to stormwater runoff 

from industrial or commercial facilities to waters of the United States. EPA is authorized under 

the CWA to directly implement the NPDES program; however, EPA has authorized many States 

to implement all or parts of the national program. Section 401 of the CWA requires States to 

certify that the permitted discharge would comply with all limitations necessary to meet 

established State water quality standards, treatment standards, or schedule of compliance. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead agency for enforcement of CWA 

wetland requirements (33 CFR Part 320). Under Section 401 of the CWA, the EPA or a 

delegated State agency has the authority to review and approve, condition, or deny all permits 

or licenses that might result in a discharge to waters of the State, including wetlands. 

A Section 404 permit would need to be obtained from the USACE before implementing any 

action, such as earthmoving activities and certain erosion controls, which could disturb 

wetlands. Federal and State permits/certification are obtained using the same form and permit 

applications for activities affecting waterways and wetlands are reviewed by the USACE in 
Appendix F 

 F-5 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

consultation with the USFWS, the Soil Conservation Service, the EPA, and the delegated State 

agency. 

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

enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972 to address the increasing 

pressures of over-development upon the nation’s coastal resources. The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administers the Act. The CZMA encourages States to 

preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance valuable natural coastal 

resources such as wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral 

reefs, as well as the fish and wildlife using those habitats. Participation by States is voluntary. 

To encourage States to participate, the CZMA makes Federal financial assistance available to 

any coastal State or territory, including those on the Great Lakes, which are willing to develop 

and implement a comprehensive coastal management program. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as amended 

by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (42 USC 9601 et seq.)—The 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) includes 

an emergency response program to respond to a release of a hazardous substance to the 

environment. Releases of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material from a nuclear incident 

are excluded from CERCLA requirements if the releases are subject to the financial protection 

requirements of the AEA. CERCLA is intended to provide a response to, and cleanup of, 

environmental problems that are not covered adequately by the permit programs of the many 

other environmental laws, including the CAA, CWA, Safe Drinking Water Act, Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and AEA. Under 

Section 120 of CERCLA, each department, agency, and instrumentality (e.g., a municipality) of 

the United States is subject to, and must comply with, CERCLA in the same manner as any 

nongovernmental entity (except for requirements for bonding, insurance, financial responsibility, 

or applicable time period). Under CERCLA, the EPA would have the authority to regulate 

hazardous substances at a facility in the event of a release or a “substantial threat of a release” 

of those materials. Releases greater than reportable quantities would be reported to the 

National Response Center. Assessment of alternatives for environmental compliance includes 

consideration of whether hazardous substances, in reportable quantity amounts, could be 

present at power plants during the license renewal term. 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 USC 11001 et seq.) 

(also known as “SARA Title III”)—The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 

Act of 1986 (EPCRA), which is the major amendment to CERCLA (42 USC 9601), establishes 

the requirements for Federal, State, and local governments, Indian Tribes, and industry 

regarding emergency planning and “Community Right-to-Know” reporting on hazardous and 

toxic chemicals. The “Community Right-to-Know” provisions increase the public’s knowledge 

and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities, their uses, and releases into the 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-6 

environment. States and communities working with facilities can use the information to improve 

chemical safety and protect public health and the environment. This Act requires emergency 

planning and notice to communities and government agencies concerning the presence and 

release of specific chemicals. The EPA implements this Act under regulations found in 

40 CFR Parts 355, 370, and 372. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 15311544)—The Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

was enacted to prevent the further decline of endangered and threatened species and to restore 

those species and their critical habitats. Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to 

consult with the USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for Federal actions 

that may affect listed species or designated critical habitats. 

Environmental Standards for Uranium Fuel Cycle (40 CFR Part 190, Subpart B)—These 

regulations establish maximum doses to the body or organs of members of the public as a result 

of normal operational releases from uranium fuel cycle activities, including uranium enrichment. 

These regulations were promulgated by the EPA under the authority of the AEA, as amended, 

and have been incorporated by reference in the NRC regulations in 10 CFR 20.1301(e). 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended (7 USC 135 et seq.)—

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended, by the Federal 

Environmental Pesticide Control Act and subsequent amendments, requires the registration of 

all new pesticides with the EPA before they are used in the United States. Manufacturers are 

required to develop toxicity data for their pesticide products. Toxicity data may be used to 

determine permissible discharge concentrations for an NPDES permit. 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC 2901 et seq.)—The Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act (FWCA) provides Federal technical and financial assistance to States for the 

development of conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. FWCA 

conservation plans identify significant problems that may adversely affect non-game fish and 

wildlife species and their habitats and appropriate conservation actions to protect the identified 

species. The Act also encourages Federal agencies to conserve and promote the conservation 

of nongame fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended (16 USC 661666e)—The Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act requires Federal agencies that construct, license, or permit water 

resource development projects to consult with the USFWS (or NMFS, when applicable) and 

State wildlife resource agencies for any project that involves an impoundment of more than 

10 acres (4 hectares), diversion, channel deepening, or other water body modification regarding 

the impacts of that action to fish and wildlife and any mitigative measures to reduce adverse 

impacts. 
Appendix F 

 F-7 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975, as amended (49 USC 1801 et seq.)—The 

Hazardous Materials Transportation Act regulates the transportation of hazardous material 

(including radioactive material) in and between States. According to the Act, States may 

regulate the transport of hazardous material as long as their regulation is consistent with the Act 

or the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) regulations provided in 49 CFR Parts 171 

through 177. Other regulations regarding packaging for transportation of radionuclides are 

contained in 49 CFR Part 173, Subpart I. 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended (42 USC 2021 et seq.)—The 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act amended the AEA to improve the procedures for the 

implementation of compacts providing for the establishment and operation of regional low-level 

radioactive waste disposal facilities. It also allows for Congress to grant consent for certain 

inter-State compacts. The amended Act sets forth the responsibilities for disposal of low-level 

waste by States or inter-State compacts. The Act states the amount of waste that certain lowlevel waste recipients can receive over a set time period. The amount of low-level radioactive 

waste generated from both pressurized and boiling water reactor types is allocated over a 

transition period until a local waste facility is operational. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended 

(16 USC 1801-1884)—The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(MSA) governs marine fisheries management in U.S. Federal waters. The Act created eight 

regional fishery management councils and includes measures to rebuild overfished fisheries, 

protect essential fish habitat, and reduce bycatch. Under Section 305 of the Act, Federal 

agencies are required to consult with NMFS for any Federal actions that may adversely affect 

essential fish habitat. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 USC 1361 et seq.)—The Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted to protect and manage marine mammals and their 

products (e.g., the use of hides and meat). The primary authority for implementing the Act 

belongs to the USFWS and NMFS. The USFWS manages walruses, polar bears, sea otters, 

dugongs, marine otters, and the West Indian, Amazonian, and West African manatees. The 

NMFS manages whales, porpoises, seals, and sea lions. The two agencies may issue permits 

under MMPA Section 104 (16 USC 1374) to persons, including Federal agencies, that authorize 

the taking or importing of specific species of marine mammals. 

After the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce approves a State’s program, 

the State can take over responsibility for managing one or more marine mammals. The MMPA 

also established a Marine Mammal Commission whose duties include reviewing laws and 

international conventions relating to marine mammals, studying the condition of these 

mammals, and recommending steps to Federal officials (e.g., listing a species as endangered) 

that should be taken to protect marine mammals. Federal agencies are directed by MMPA 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-8 

Section 205 (16 USC 1405) to cooperate with the commission by permitting it to use their 

facilities or services. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 USC 703 et seq.)—The Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act is intended to protect birds that have common migration patterns between the 

United States and Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. The Act stipulates that, except as 

permitted by regulations, it is unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to pursue, 

hunt, take, capture, or kill any migratory bird. 

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

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to integrate environmental 

values into their decision-making process by considering the environmental impacts of proposed 

Federal actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. NEPA establishes policy, sets 

goals (in Section 101), and provides means (in Section 102) for carrying out the policy. 

Section 102(2) contains action-forcing provisions to ensure that Federal agencies follow the 

letter and spirit of the Act. For major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment, Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare a 

detailed statement that includes the environmental impacts of the proposed action and other 

specified information. This generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) has been prepared 

in accordance with NEPA requirements and NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 51) for implementing 

NEPA to ensure compliance with Section 102(2). 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470aa et seq.)—The 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was enacted to create a national historic preservation 

program, including the National Register of Historic Places and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation. Section 106 of the Act requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects 

of their undertakings on historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

regulations implementing Section 106 of the Act, are found in 36 CFR Part 800. The regulations 

call for public involvement in the Section 106 consultation process, including Indian Tribes and 

other interested members of the public, as applicable. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (25 USC 3001)—The 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act establishes provisions for the 

treatment of inadvertent discoveries of American Indian remains and cultural objects. When 

discoveries are made during ground-disturbing activities, the activity in the area must 

immediately stop, and reasonable protective efforts, proper notifications, and appropriate 

disposition of the discovered items must be pursued. 

Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC 4901 et seq.)—The Noise Control Act delegates the 

responsibility of noise control to State and local governments. Commercial facilities are 

required to comply with Federal, State, inter-State, and local requirements regarding noise 
Appendix F 

 F-9 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

control. Section 4 of the Noise Control Act directs Federal agencies to carry out programs in 

their jurisdictions “to the fullest extent within their authority” and in a manner that furthers a 

national policy of promoting an environment free from noise that jeopardizes health and welfare. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission License Termination Rule (10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E)—

The AEA assigns NRC the responsibility for licensing and regulating commercial uses of atomic 

energy. When a licensed facility has completed its mission, the facility must meet standards for 

cleanup in order to terminate its license. The License Termination Rule establishes that NRC 

will consider a site acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual radioactivity, that is 

distinguishable from background radiation, results in a total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) to 

an average member of the critical group does not exceed 25 millirem per year, including that 

from groundwater sources of drinking water, and the residual radioactivity has been reduced to 

levels that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The critical group is the group of 

individuals reasonably expected to receive the greatest exposure to residual radioactivity for any 

applicable set of circumstances. 

The License Termination Rule also provides for land use restrictions or other types of 

institutional controls to allow terminating NRC licenses and releasing sites under restricted 

conditions if decommissioning criteria for unrestricted use cannot be met. Plus, the License 

Termination Rule establishes alternate criteria for license termination if the licensee provides 

assurance that public health and safety would continue to be protected, and that it is unlikely 

that the dose from all manmade sources combined, other than medical, would be more than 

100 millirem per year. 

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 USC 10101 et seq.)—The Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

provides for the research and development of repositories for the disposal of high-level 

radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, and low-level radioactive waste. Title I includes the 

provisions for the disposal and storage of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. 

Subtitle A of Title I delineates the requirements for site characterization and construction of the 

repository and the participation of States and other local governments in the selection process. 

Subtitles B, C, and D of Title I deal with the specific issues for interim storage, monitored 

retrievable storage, and low-level radioactive waste. 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC 651 et seq.)—The Occupational Safety 

and Health Act establishes standards to enhance safe and healthy working conditions in places 

of employment throughout the United States. The Act is administered and enforced by the 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), a U.S. Department of Labor agency. 

Employers who fail to comply with OSHA standards can be penalized by the Federal 

government. The Act allows States to develop and enforce OSHA standards if such programs 

have been approved by the Secretary of Labor. 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-10 

Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 USC 13101 et seq.)—The Pollution Prevention Act 

establishes a national policy for waste management and pollution control that focuses first on 

source reduction, then on environmental issues, safe recycling, treatment, and disposal. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as amended by the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments (42 USC 6901 et seq.)—The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) requires the EPA to define and identify hazardous waste; establish standards for its 

transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal; and require permits for persons engaged in 

hazardous waste activities. Section 3006 (42 USC 6926) allows States to establish and 

administer these permit programs with EPA approval. EPA regulations implementing the RCRA 

are found in 40 CFR Parts 260 through 283. Regulations imposed on a generator or on a 

treatment, storage, and/or disposal facility vary according to the type and quantity of material or 

waste generated, treated, stored, and/or disposed. The method of treatment, storage, and/or 

disposal also impacts the extent and complexity of the requirements. 

Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 USC 300(f) et seq.)—The Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) was enacted to protect the quality of public water supplies and sources of drinking 

water and establishes minimum national standards for public water supply systems in the form 

of maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for pollutants, including radionuclides. Other programs 

established by the SDWA include the Sole Source Aquifer Program, the Wellhead Protection 

Program, and the Underground Injection Control Program. In addition, the Act provides 

underground sources of drinking water with protection from contaminated releases and spills. 

If a nuclear power plant is located within an area designated as a sole source aquifer pursuant 

to Section 1424(e) of the SDWA, the supplemental EIS would be subject to EPA review. If the 

EPA review raises concerns that plant operations are not protective of groundwater quality, 

specific mitigation recommendations or additional pollution prevention requirements may be 

required. 

Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC 2601 et seq.)—The Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA) regulates the manufacture, processing, distribution, and use of certain chemicals not 

regulated by RCRA or other statutes, including asbestos-containing material and 

polychlorinated biphenyls. Any TSCA-regulated waste removed from structures (e.g., 

polychlorinated biphenyls-contaminated capacitors or asbestos) or discovered during the 

implementation phase (e.g., contaminated media) would be managed in compliance with TSCA 

requirements in 40 CFR Part 761. 
Appendix F 

 F-11 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

F.4 Executive Orders 

Executive Orders establish policies and requirements for Federal agencies. Executive Orders 

do not have the force of law or regulation. Generally, Executive Orders are applicable to most 

Federal agencies, although they may or may not be binding upon independent regulatory 

agencies such as the NRC. 

Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality—This 

Order (regulated by 40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508) requires Federal agencies to continually 

monitor and control their activities to: (1) protect and enhance the quality of the environment, 

and (2) develop procedures to ensure the fullest practicable provision of timely public 

information and understanding of the Federal plans and programs that may have potential 

environmental impact so that views of interested parties can be obtained. 

Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment—This 

Order directs Federal agencies to locate, inventory, and nominate qualified properties under 

their jurisdiction or control to the National Register of Historic Places. 

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management—This Order requires Federal agencies to 

avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain development whenever there is a practicable 

alternative. A Federal agency is required to evaluate the potential effects of any actions it may 

take in a floodplain. Federal agencies are also required to encourage and provide appropriate 

guidance to applicants to evaluate the effects of their proposals on floodplains prior to 

submitting applications for Federal licenses, permits, loans, or grants. 

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands—This Order requires Federal agencies to 

avoid any short or long-term adverse impacts on wetlands, wherever there is a practicable 

alternative and to provide opportunity for early public review of any plans or proposals for new 

construction in wetlands. Federal agencies are required to evaluate the potential effects of any 

actions they may take on wetlands when carrying out their responsibilities (e.g., planning, 

regulating, and licensing activities). However, this executive order does not apply to the 

issuance by Federal agencies of permits, licenses, or allocations to private parties for activities 

involving wetlands on non-Federal property. 

Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards, as 

amended by Executive Order 12580, Superfund Implementation—This Order directs 

Federal agencies to comply with applicable administrative and procedural pollution controls 

standards established by, but not limited to, the CAA, the Noise Control Act, the CWA, the 

SDWA, the TSCA, and the RCRA. 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-12 

Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency Management—This Order transfers functions 

and responsibilities associated with Federal emergency management to the Director of the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Order assigns the Director the responsibility to 

establish Federal policies for, and to coordinate all civil defense and civil emergency planning, 

management, mitigation, and assistance functions of, Executive agencies. 

Executive Order 12580, Superfund Implementation, as amended by Executive Order 

13308—This Order delegates to the heads of Executive Departments and agencies the 

responsibility of undertaking remedial actions for releases or threatened releases that are not on 

the National Priorities List, and removal actions, other than emergencies, where the release is 

from any facility under the jurisdiction or control of Executive Departments and agencies. 

Executive Order 12656, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities—This 

Order assigns emergency preparedness responsibilities to Federal departments and agencies. 

Executive Order 12856, Right to Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements—

The Order directs Federal agencies to reduce and report toxic chemicals entering any waste 

stream; improve emergency planning, response, and accident notification; and to meet the 

requirements of EPCRA. 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations—This Order calls for Federal agencies to address 

environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations (59 FR 7629), and 

directs Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations. In response to this Executive Order, the NRC has 

issued a final policy statement on the “Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC 

Regulatory and Licensing Actions” (69 FR 52040) and environmental justice procedures to be 

followed in NEPA documents. 

Executive Order 12902, Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation at Federal Facilities—

This Order requires Federal agencies to develop and implement a program for conservation of 

energy and water resources. As part of this program, agencies are required to conduct 

comprehensive facility audits of their energy and water use. 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites—This Order directs Federal agencies, to the 

extent permitted by law and not inconsistent with agency missions, to avoid adverse effects to 

sacred sites and to provide access to those sites to Native Americans for religious practices. 

The Order directs agencies to plan projects, to provide protection of, and access to sacred sites 

to the extent compatible with the project. 
Appendix F 

 F-13 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks, as amended by Executive Order 13229, as amended by Executive Order 

13296—This Order requires Federal Executive branch agencies to make it a high priority to 

identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately 

affect children and to ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address 

disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health or safety risks. 

Executive Order 13101, Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling, 

and Federal Acquisition—This Order requires each Federal agency to incorporate waste 

prevention and recycling in its daily operations and work to increase and expand markets for 

recovered materials. This Order states that it is national policy to prefer pollution prevention 

whenever feasible. Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled; pollution that cannot 

be prevented or recycled should be treated in an environmentally safe manner. Disposal should 

be employed only as a last resort. 

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species—This Order directs Federal agencies to act to 

prevent the introduction of or to monitor and control, invasive (nonnative) species, to provide for 

restoration of native species, to conduct research, to promote educational activities, and to 

exercise care in taking actions that could promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. 

During the implementation phase, rehabilitation of disturbed areas would be accomplished by 

reseeding or revegetating areas with native plants and trees. 

Executive Order 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy 

Management—This Order sets goals for agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 

facility energy use, reduce energy consumption per gross square foot of facilities, reduce energy 

consumption per gross square foot or unit of production, expand use of renewable energy, 

reduce the use of petroleum within facilities, reduce source energy use, and reduce water 

consumption and associated energy use. 

Executive Order 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental 

Management—This Order requires agencies to develop strategies and goals for environmental 

compliance, right-to-know, and pollution prevention. It requires all Federal facilities to have an 

environmental management system, requires compliance or environmental management 

system audits, and requires that Federal Executive Branch agencies comply with the 

requirements for toxic chemical release reporting in Section 313 of EPCRA. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments—

This Order directs Federal agencies to establish regular and meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with Tribal governments in the development of Federal policies that have Tribal 

implications, to strengthen U.S. government-to-government relationships with American Indian 

Tribes, and to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates on Tribal governments. 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-14 

F.5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulations 

The AEA, as amended, allows the NRC to issue licenses for commercial power reactors to 

operate up to 40 years. This license is based on adherence of the licensee to NRC’s 

regulations which are set forth in Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the CFR. The NRC regulations allow 

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

period. The renewal of the license depends on the outcome of the NRC’s safety and 

environmental reviews of the commercial power reactor license renewal applications. There are 

no specific limitations in the AEA or NRC regulations restricting the number of times a license 

may be renewed. The license renewal process includes a set of requirements, which are 

designed to assure safe operation and protection of the environment. 

The license renewal process includes two reviews: an environmental review and a safety 

review. The reviews are based on the regulations published in 10 CFR Part 51, for the 

environmental review and 10 CFR Part 54 for the safety review. These regulations prescribe 

the format and content of license renewal applications, as well as, the methods and criteria used 

by NRC staff in evaluating these applications. 

The license renewal environmental review relies upon the following regulations and guidance: 

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

regulations provided in 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for 

Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” 

• Preparation of Environmental Reports for License Renewal Applications (Supplement 1 

to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 1)—This document outlines the format and content to 

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

application. It also defines the information and analyses the applicant must include in its 

environmental report submitted as part of the application. 

• Standard Review Plan for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants—

Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal (NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, 

Revision 1)—This document describes how the NRC staff conducts its review of the 

environmental issues associated license renewal. 

• Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS) 

(NUREG-1437, Revision 1)—This document discusses the environmental impacts from 

license renewal that are common to all or most nuclear power facilities. The GEIS 

allows the applicant and NRC to focus on environmental issues specific to each site 
Appendix F 

 F-15 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

seeking a renewed operating license. The staff’s review results in a site-specific 

supplement to the GEIS for each plant site. 

F.6 State Laws, Regulations, and Other Requirements 

The AEA authorizes States to establish programs to assume NRC regulatory authority for 

certain activities (the NRC’s Agreement State program). The New York State Department of 

Labor (NYSDOL) and Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), for example, 

have established requirements under this Agreement State Program. NYSDOL has jurisdiction 

in New York over commercial and industrial uses of radioactive material. Under the New York 

Agreement State Program, NYSDEC has jurisdiction over discharges of radioactive material to 

the environment, including releases to the air and water, and the disposal of radioactive wastes 

in the ground. In addition, States have enacted their own laws to protect public health and 

safety, and the environment. State laws may supplement or implement various Federal laws for 

protection of air, water quality, and groundwater. State laws may also address solid waste 

management programs, locally rare or endangered species, and historic and cultural resources. 

In addition, the CWA allows for primary enforcement and administration through State agencies, 

provided the State program (1) is at least as stringent as the Federal program and (2) conforms 

to the CWA. The primary CWA mechanism to control water pollution is the requirement that 

direct dischargers obtain an NPDES permit or, in the case of States where the authority has 

been delegated from the EPA, a State permit. 

One important difference between Federal regulations and certain State regulations is the 

definition of waters regulated by the State. Certain State regulations may include underground 

waters, while the CWA only regulates the navigable waters of the United States. For example, 

a State permit is required under New York State law for all discharges to both surface waters 

and groundwater. 

F.6.1 State Environmental Requirements 

Certain environmental requirements, including some discussed earlier, may have been 

delegated to State authorities for implementation, enforcement, or oversight. Table F.6-1 

provides a list of representative State environmental requirements that may affect license 

renewal applications for nuclear power plants. 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-16 

Table F.6-1. State Environmental Requirements 

Law/Regulation Requirements 

Air Quality Protection 

Title V Permit Rules Establishes the policies and procedures by which a State will administer the Title V 

permit program under the CAA. Requires Title V sources to apply for and obtain a 

Title V permit prior to operation of the source facility. 

Permits to Install New 

Sources of Pollution 

Requires a permit prior to the installation of a new source of air pollutants or the 

modification of an air contaminant source. Discusses exemptions and conditions 

under which approval will be granted. Also requires an impact analysis to 

determine if the air contaminant source will cause or contribute to violations of the 

NAAQS. 

Air Permits to Operate and 

Variances 

Requires a permit prior to the operation or use of any air contaminant source in 

violation of any applicable air pollution control law, unless a variance has been 

applied for and obtained from the State agency. 

Accidental Release 

Prevention Program 

Requires the owner or operator of a stationary source, that has more than a 

threshold quantity of a regulated substance, to comply with all the provisions of the 

rule, including creating a hazard assessment, risk management plan, a prevention 

program, and an emergency response program. 

General Conformity Rules Rules on “general conformity” are mandated by the CAA to ensure that Federal 

actions do not contribute to air quality violations within the State. Discusses which 

Federal actions are subject to the conformity requirements, the procedures for 

conformity analysis, public participation/consultation, and the final conformity 

determination. 

Water Resources Protection 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System Permits 

Requires a permit prior to the discharge of pollutants from any point source into 

waters of the United States. Each permit holder must comply with authorized 

discharge levels, monitoring requirements, and other appropriate requirements in 

the permit. 

Permits to Install New 

Sources of Pollution 

Requires a permit prior to the installation of a new source of water pollutants or the 

modification of any pollutant discharge source. 

Water Quality Standards Establishes water quality standards for surface waters in the State, including 

beneficial use designations, numeric water quality criteria, and the anti-degradation 

water body classification system. Water quality standards are enforced through the 

NPDES permit. 

Section 401 Water Quality 

Certifications 

Requires a Section 401 water quality certification and payment of applicable fees 

before the issuance of any Federal permit or license to conduct any activity that 

may result in discharges to waters of the State. 

Public Water Systems 

Licenses to Operate 

Requires a public water system license prior to operating or maintaining a public 

water system. 
Appendix F 

 F-17 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table F.6-1. (cont.) 

Law/Regulation Requirements 

Water Resources Protection (cont.) 

Design, Construction, 

Installation, and Upgrading 

for Underground Storage 

Tank Systems 

Establishes performance standards and upgrading requirements for underground 

storage tanks containing petroleum (e.g., diesel fuel) or other regulated substances. 

Requires an installation or upgrading permit for each location where such 

installation or upgrading is to occur prior to beginning either an installation or 

upgrading of a tank or piping comprising an underground storage tank system. 

Registration of Underground 

Storage Tank System 

Establishes annual registration requirements for underground storage tanks 

containing petroleum or other regulated substances. 

Flammable and Combustible 

Liquids 

Requires a permit to install, remove, repair, or alter a stationary tank for the storage 

of flammable or combustible liquids or modify or replace any line or dispensing 

device. 

Waste Management and Pollution Prevention 

Generator Standards Requires any person who generates waste to determine if that waste is hazardous. 

Requires a generator identification number from EPA or State agency prior to 

treatment, storage, disposal, transport, or offer for transport of hazardous waste. 

Licensing Requirements for 

Solid Waste, Construction, 

and Demolition Debris 

Facilities 

Requires an annual license for any municipal solid waste landfill, industrial solid 

waste landfill, residual solid waste landfill, compost facility, transfer facility, 

infectious waste treatment facility, or solid waste incineration facility prior to 

operation. New facilities must obtain a permit to install, prior to construction. Also, 

requires a license to establish, modify, operate, or maintain a construction and 

demolition debris facility. 

Radiation Generator and 

Broker Reporting 

Requirements 

Requires completion of a low-level radioactive waste generator report within 

60 days of beginning to generate low-level waste. Additionally, requires each 

generator to submit an annual report on the state of low-level waste activities in 

their facility and pay applicable fees. 

Hazardous Waste 

Management System 

Permits 

Requires operation permits for any new or existing hazardous waste facility. 

Emergency Planning and Response 

Hazardous Chemical 

Reporting 

Requires the submission of Material Safety Data Sheets and an annual Emergency 

and Hazardous Chemical Inventory to local emergency response officials for any 

hazardous chemicals that are produced, used, or stored at the facility in an amount 

that equals or exceeds the threshold quantity. 

 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-18 

Table F.6-1. (cont.) 

Law/Regulation Requirements 

Emergency Planning and Response (cont.) 

Emergency Planning 

Requirements of Subject 

Facilities 

Requires any facility having an extremely hazardous substance present in an 

amount equal to, or exceeding the threshold planning quantity, to notify the 

emergency response commission and the local emergency planning committee 

within 60 days after onsite storage begins. Also requires the designation of a 

facility representative who will participate in the local emergency planning process 

as a facility emergency coordinator. 

Toxic Chemical Release 

Reporting 

Establishes reporting requirements and schedule for each toxic chemical known to 

be manufactured (including imported), processed, or otherwise used in excess of 

an applicable threshold quantity. Applies only to facilities of a certain classification. 

Biotic Resources Protection 

State Endangered Plant 

Species Protection 

Establishes criteria for identifying threatened or endangered species of native 

plants and prohibits injuring or removing endangered species without permission. 

State Endangered Fish and 

Wildlife Species Protection 

Establishes and requires periodic update to a State list of endangered fish and 

wildlife species. 

Permits for Impacts to 

Isolated Wetlands 

Requires a general or individual isolated wetland permit prior to engaging in an 

activity that involves the filling of an isolated wetland. 

Cultural Resources Protection 

State Registry of 

Archaeological Landmarks 

Establishes a State registry of archaeological landmarks. Prohibits any person 

from excavating or destroying such land, or from removing skeletal remains or 

artifacts from any land, placed on the registry without first notifying the State 

Historic Preservation Office. 

Survey and Salvage; 

Discoveries; Preservation 

Directs State departments, agencies, and political subdivisions to cooperate in the 

preservation of archaeological and historic sites and the recovery of scientific 

information from such sites. Also, requires State agencies and contractors 

performing work on public improvements to cooperate with archaeological and 

historic survey and salvage efforts and to notify the State historic preservation office 

about archaeological discoveries. 

F.6.2 Operating Permits and Other Requirements 

Several operating permit applications may be prepared and submitted, and regulator approval 

and/or permits would be received, prior to license renewal approval by the NRC. Table F.6-2 

lists representative Federal, State, and local permits. 
Appendix F 

 F-19 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table F.6-2. Federal, State, and Local Permits and Other Requirements 

License, Permit, or Other Required 

Approval 

Responsible 

Agency Authority Relevance and Status 

Air Quality Protection 

Title V Operating Permit: Required 

for sources that are not exempt and 

are major sources, affected sources 

subject to the Acid Rain Program, 

sources subject to new source 

performance standards, or sources 

subject to National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants. 

EPA or State 

agency 

CAA, Title V, 

Sections 501507 

(USC, Title 42, 

Sections 7661-

7661f [42 USC 

7661-7661f]) 

Nuclear power plants are subject 

to 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H 

(40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H), 

“National Emissions Standards 

for Emissions of Radionuclides,” 

which is included in the terms and 

conditions of the Title V 

Operating Permit. 

Risk Management Plan: Required 

for any stationary source that has a 

regulated substance (e.g., chlorine, 

hydrogen fluoride, nitric acid) in any 

process (including storage) in a 

quantity that is over the threshold 

level. 

EPA or State 

agency 

CAA, Title 1, 

Section 112(R)(7) 

(42 USC 7412) 

These regulated substances 

stored in quantities that exceed 

the threshold levels would require 

a Risk Management Plan. 

CAA Conformity Determination: 

Required for each criteria pollutant 

(i.e., sulfur dioxide, particulate 

matter, carbon monoxide, ozone, 

nitrogen dioxide, and lead) where 

the total of direct and indirect 

emissions in a nonattainment or 

maintenance area caused by a 

Federal action would equal or 

exceed threshold rates. 

EPA or State 

agency 

CAA, Title 1, 

Section 176(c) 

(42 USC 7506) 

CAA conformity determination 

would be required at nuclear 

power plants located in 

nonattainment areas with NAAQS 

for criteria pollutants or 

maintenance areas for any 

criteria pollutant that would be 

emitted as a result of license 

renewal. 

Water Resources Protection 

NPDES Permit: Construction Site 

Stormwater: Required before 

making point source discharges of 

stormwater from a construction 

project that disturbs more than 

2 hectares (5 acres) of land. 

EPA or State 

agency 

CWA (33 USC 1251 

et seq.); 40 CFR 

Part 122 

Any plant refurbishment involving 

construction of more than 

2 hectares (5 acres) of land 

would require a Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan and 

construction site stormwater 

discharge permit. 

NPDES Permit: Industrial Facility 

Stormwater: Required before 

making point source discharges of 

stormwater from an industrial site. 

EPA or State 

agency 

CWA (33 USC 1251 

et seq.); 40 CFR 

Part 122 

Stormwater would be discharged 

from the nuclear power plants 

during operations. Stormwater 

would discharge through existing 

outfalls covered by a permit. 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-20 

Table F.6-2. (cont.) 

License, Permit, or Other Required 

Approval 

Responsible 

Agency Authority Relevance and Status 

Water Resources Protection (cont.) 

NPDES Permit: Process Water 

Discharge: Required before 

making point source discharges of 

industrial process wastewater. 

EPA or State 

agency 

CWA (33 USC 1251 

et seq.); 40 CFR 

Part 122 

Process industrial wastewater 

would be discharged through 

existing outfalls covered by the 

permit. 

Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures Plan: Required 

for any facility that could discharge 

diesel fuel in harmful quantities into 

navigable waters or onto adjoining 

shorelines. 

EPA or State 

agency 

CWA (33 USC 1251 

et seq.); 40 CFR 

Part 112 

A Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasures Plan is 

required at nuclear power plants 

storing large volumes of diesel 

fuel and/or other petroleum 

products. 

CWA Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification: Required to be 

submitted to the agency 

responsible for issuing any Federal 

license or permit to conduct an 

activity that may result in a 

discharge of pollutants into waters 

of a State. 

EPA or State 

agency 

CWA, Section 401 

(33 USC 1341); 

ORC Chapters 119 

and 6111 

Certification for operation of a 

nuclear power plant may require 

a Federal license or permit 

(e.g., a CWA Section 404 

Permit). 

New Underground Storage Tanks 

System Registration: Required 

within 30 days of bringing a new 

underground storage tank system 

into service. 

EPA or State 

agency 

RCRA, as 

amended, Subtitle I 

(42 USC 6991a

6991i); 40 CFR 

280.22 

Required if new underground 

storage tank systems would be 

installed at a nuclear power plant. 

Above Ground Storage Tank: A 

permit is required to install, remove, 

repair, or alter any stationary tank 

for the storage of flammable or 

combustible liquids. 

State Fire 

Marshal 

 Required if new aboveground 

diesel fuel storage tanks would 

be installed at a nuclear power 

plant. 

Waste Management and Pollution Prevention 

Registration and Hazardous Waste 

Generator Identification Number: 

Required before a person who 

generates over 100 kg (220 lb) per 

calendar month of hazardous waste 

ships the hazardous waste offsite. 

EPA or State 

agency 

RCRA, as amended 

(42 USC 6901 

et seq.), Subtitle C 

Generators of hazardous waste 

must notify the EPA that the 

wastes exist and require 

management in compliance with 

RCRA. 
Appendix F 

 F-21 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table F.6-2. (cont.) 

License, Permit, or Other Required 

Approval 

Responsible 

Agency Authority Relevance and Status 

Waste Management and Pollution Prevention (cont.) 

Hazardous Waste Facility Permit: 

Required if hazardous waste will 

undergo nonexempt treatment by 

the generator, be stored onsite for 

longer than 90 days by the 

generator of 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) or 

more of hazardous waste per 

month, be stored onsite for longer 

than 180 days by the generator of 

between 100 and 1,000 kg 

(220 and 2,205 lb) of hazardous 

waste per month, disposed of 

onsite, or be received from offsite 

for treatment or disposal. 

EPA or State 

agency 

RCRA, as amended 

(42 USC 6901 

et seq.), Subtitle C 

Hazardous wastes are usually not 

disposed of onsite at nuclear 

power plants. Hazardous wastes 

generated onsite are not 

generally stored for more than 

90 days. However, should a 

nuclear power plant store waste 

onsite for greater than 90 days for 

characterization, profiling, or 

scheduling for treatment or 

disposal, a Hazardous Waste 

Facility Permit would be required. 

Emergency Planning and Response 

List of Material Safety Data Sheets: 

Submission of a list of Material 

Safety Data Sheets is required for 

hazardous chemicals (as defined in 

29 CFR Part 1910) that are stored 

onsite in excess of their threshold 

quantities. 

State and local 

emergency 

planning 

agencies 

EPCRA, 

Section 311 

(42 USC 11021); 

40 CFR 370.20 

Nuclear power plant operators 

are required to submit a list of 

Material Safety Data Sheets to 

State and local emergency 

planning agencies. 

Annual Hazardous Chemical 

Inventory Report: The report must 

be submitted when hazardous 

chemicals have been stored at a 

facility during the preceding year in 

amounts that exceed threshold 

quantities. 

State and local 

emergency 

response 

agencies; local 

fire department 

EPCRA, 

Section 312 

(42 USC 11022); 

40 CFR 370.25 

If hazardous chemicals have 

been stored at a nuclear power 

plant during the preceding year in 

amounts that exceed threshold 

quantities, then plant operators 

would be required to submit an 

annual Hazardous Chemical 

Inventory Report. 

Notification of Onsite Storage of an 

Extremely Hazardous Substance: 

Submission of the notification is 

required within 60 days after onsite 

storage begins of an extremely 

hazardous substance in a quantity 

greater than the threshold planning 

quantity. 

State and local 

emergency 

response 

agencies 

EPCRA, 

Section 304 

(42 USC 11004); 

40 CFR 355.30 

If an extremely hazardous 

substance will be stored at a 

nuclear power plant in a quantity 

greater than the threshold 

planning quantity, plant operators 

would prepare and submit the 

Notification of Onsite Storage of 

an Extremely Hazardous 

Substance. 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-22 

Table F.6-2. (cont.) 

License, Permit, or Other Required 

Approval 

Responsible 

Agency Authority Relevance and Status 

Emergency Planning and Response (cont.) 

Annual Toxics Release Inventory 

Report: Required for facilities that 

have 10 or more full-time 

employees and are assigned 

certain Standard Industrial 

Classification Codes. 

EPA or State 

agency 

EPCRA, 

Section 313 

(42 USC 11023); 

40 CFR Part 372 

If required, nuclear power plant 

operators would prepare and 

submit a Toxics Release 

Inventory Report to the EPA. 

Transportation of Radioactive 

Wastes and Conversion Products 

Packaging, Labeling, and Routing 

Requirements for Radioactive 

Materials: Required for packages 

containing radioactive materials 

that will be shipped by truck or rail. 

USDOT Hazardous 

Materials 

Transportation Act 

(49 USC 1501 et 

seq.); AEA, as 

amended (42 USC 

2011 et seq.); 

49 CFR Parts 172, 

173, 174, 177, and 

397 

When shipments of radioactive 

materials are made, nuclear 

power plant operators would 

comply with USDOT packaging, 

labeling, and routing 

requirements. 

Biotic Resource Protection 

Threatened and Endangered 

Species Consultation: Required 

between the responsible Federal 

agencies and USFWS and/or 

NMFS to ensure that the project is 

not likely to: (1) jeopardize the 

continued existence of any species 

listed at the Federal or State level 

as endangered or threatened, or 

(2) result in destruction of critical 

habitat of such species. 

USFWS and 

NMFS 

ESA of 1973, as 

amended (16 USC 

1531 et seq.) 

For actions that may affect listed 

species or designated critical 

habitat, the NRC would consult 

with the USFWS and/or NMFS 

under Section 7 of the ESA. 

Essential Fish Habitat Consultation: 

Required between the responsible 

Federal agency and NMFS to 

ensure that Federal actions 

authorized, funded, or undertaken 

do not adversely affect essential 

fish habitat. 

NMFS MSA, as amended 

(16 USC 1801-

1884) 

For actions that may adversely 

affect essential fish habitat, the 

NRC would consult with NMFS in 

accordance with 50 CFR 

Part 600, Subpart J. 
Appendix F 

 F-23 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

Table F.6-2. (cont.) 

License, Permit, or Other Required 

Approval 

Responsible 

Agency Authority Relevance and Status 

Biotic Resource Protection (cont.) 

CWA Section 404 (Dredge and Fill) 

Permit: Required to place dredged 

or fill material into waters of the 

United States, including areas 

designated as wetlands, unless 

such placement is exempt or 

authorized by a nationwide permit 

or a regional permit; a notice must 

be filed if a nationwide or regional 

permit applies. 

USACE CWA (33 USC 1251 

et seq.); 33 CFR 

Parts 323 and 330 

Any dredging or placement of fill 

material into wetlands within the 

jurisdiction of the USACE at a 

nuclear power plant would require 

a Section 404 permit. 

Cultural Resources Protection 

Archaeological and Historical 

Resources Consultation: Required 

before a Federal agency approves 

a project in an area where 

archaeological or historic resources 

might be located. 

State Historic 

Preservation 

Officer and/or 

Tribal Historic 

Preservation 

Officer 

NHPA of 1966, as 

amended (16 USC 

470 et seq.); 

Archaeological and 

Historical 

Preservation Act of 

1974 (16 USC 469-

469c-2); Antiquities 

Act of 1906 (16 USC 

431 et seq.); 

Archaeological 

Resources 

Protection Act of 

1979, as amended 

(16 USC 

470aamm) 

The NRC would consult with the 

State and/or Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers and 

representative Indian Tribes 

regarding the impacts of license 

renewal and the results of 

archaeological and architectural 

surveys of nuclear power plant 

sites. 

F.7 Emergency Management and Response Laws, 

Regulations, and Executive Orders 

This section discusses the response laws, regulations, and Executive Orders that address the 

protection of public health and worker safety and require the establishment of emergency plans. 

These laws, regulations, and Executive Orders relate to the operation of nuclear power plants. 

For ease of the reader, certain items are repeated from previous sections in this appendix. 

F.7.1 Federal Emergency Management Response Laws 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 USC 11001 et seq.) 

(also known as “SARA Title III”)—The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-24 

Act of 1986 (EPCRA), which is the major amendment to CERCLA (42 USC 9601), establishes 

the requirements for Federal, State, and local governments, Indian Tribes, and industry 

regarding emergency planning and “Community Right-to-Know” reporting on hazardous and 

toxic chemicals. The “Community Right-to-Know” provisions increase the public’s knowledge 

and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities, their uses, and releases into the 

environment. States and communities working with facilities can use the information to improve 

chemical safety and protect public health and the environment. This Act requires emergency 

planning and notice to communities and government agencies concerning the presence and 

release of specific chemicals. The EPA implements this Act under regulations found in 

40 CFR Parts 355, 370, and 372. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(42 USC 9604(I) (also known as “Superfund”)—This Act provides authority for Federal and 

State governments to respond directly to hazardous substance incidents. The Act requires 

reporting of spills, including radioactive spills, to the National Response Center. 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (42 USC 

5121)—This Act, as amended, provides an orderly, continuing means of providing Federal 

Government assistance to State and local governments in managing their responsibilities to 

alleviate suffering and damage resulting from disasters. The President, in response to a State 

governor’s request, may declare an “emergency” or “major disaster” to provide Federal 

assistance under this Act. The President, in Executive Order 12148, delegated all functions 

except those in Sections 301, 401, and 409 to the Director of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. The Act provides for the appointment of a Federal coordinating officer 

who will operate in the designated area with a State coordinating officer for the purpose of 

coordinating State and local disaster assistance efforts with those of the Federal Government. 

Justice Assistance Act of 1984 (42 USC 37013799)—This Act establishes emergency 

Federal law enforcement assistance to State and local governments in responding to a law 

enforcement emergency. The Act defines the term “law enforcement emergency” as an 

uncommon situation which requires law enforcement, which is or threatens to become of 

serious or epidemic proportions, and with respect to which State and local resources are 

inadequate to protect the lives and property of citizens or to enforce the criminal law. 

Emergencies that are not of an ongoing or chronic nature (for example, the Mount St. Helens 

volcanic eruption) are eligible for Federal law enforcement assistance including funds, 

equipment, training, intelligence information, and personnel. 

Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (42 USC 2210)—The Price-Anderson Act 

provides insurance protection to victims of a nuclear accident. The main purpose of the Act is to 

partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents 

while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a 
Appendix F 

 F-25 NUREG-1437, Revision 1 

no-fault insurance-type system in which the first $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as 

described in the Act (any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by the Federal 

Government). 

The Act requires NRC licensees and U.S. Department of Energy contractors to enter into 

agreements of indemnification to cover personal injury and property damage to those harmed 

by a nuclear or radiological incident, including the costs of incident response or precautionary 

evacuation, costs of investigating and defending claims, and settling suits for such damages. 

F.7.2 Federal Emergency Management and Response Regulations 

Quantities of Radioactive Materials Requiring Consideration of the Need for an 

Emergency Plan for Responding to a Release (10 CFR 30.72, Schedule C)—This section of 

the regulations provides a list that is the basis for both the public and private sector to determine 

whether the radiological materials they handle must have an emergency response plan for 

unscheduled releases. The “Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan,” dated 

November 1995, primarily discusses offsite Federal response in support of State and local 

governments with jurisdiction during a peacetime radiological emergency. 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration Emergency Response, Hazardous Waste 

Operations, and Worker Right to Know (29 CFR Part 1910)—This regulation establishes 

OSHA requirements for employee safety in a variety of working environments. It addresses 

employee emergency and fire prevention plans (Section 1910.38), hazardous waste operations 

and emergency response (Section 1920.120), and hazards communication (Section 1910.1200) 

to make employees aware of the dangers they face from hazardous materials in their 

workplace. These regulations do not directly apply to Federal agencies. However, Section 19 

of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 USC 668) requires all Federal agencies to have 

occupational safety programs “consistent” with Occupational Safety and Health Act standards. 

Emergency Management and Assistance (44 CFR Section 1.1)—This regulation contains 

the policies and procedures for the Federal Emergency Management Act, National Flood 

Insurance Program, Federal Crime Insurance Program, Fire Prevention and Control Program, 

Disaster Assistance Program, and Preparedness Program, including radiological planning and 

preparedness. 

Hazardous Materials Tables and Communications, Emergency Response Information 

Requirements (49 CFR Part 172)—This regulation defines the regulatory requirements for 

marking, labeling, placarding, and documenting hazardous material shipments. The regulation 

also specifies the requirements for providing hazardous material information and training. 
Appendix F 

NUREG-1437, Revision 1 F-26 

F.7.3 Emergency Management and Response Executive Orders 

Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency Management—This Order transfers functions 

and responsibilities associated with Federal emergency management to the Director of the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Order assigns the Director the responsibility to 

establish Federal policies and to coordinate all civil defense and civil emergency planning for 

the management, mitigation, and assistance functions of Executive agencies. 

Executive Order 12656, Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities—This 

Order assigns emergency preparedness responsibilities to Federal departments and agencies. 

Executive Order 12938, Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction—This Order states 

that the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (“weapons of mass 

destruction”) and the means of delivering such weapons constitutes an unusual and 

extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, 

and that a national emergency would be declared to deal with that threat. 

F.8 Consultations with Agencies and Federally Recognized 

American Indian Nations 

Certain laws, such as the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the NHPA, require 

consultation and coordination by the NRC with other governmental entities including other 

Federal, State, and local agencies and Federally recognized American Indian governments. 

These consultations must occur on a timely basis and are generally required before any land 

disturbance can begin. Most of these consultations are related to biotic resources, cultural 

resources, and American Indian rights. The biotic resource consultations generally pertain to 

the potential for activities to disturb sensitive species or habitats. Cultural resource 

consultations relate to the potential for disruption of important cultural resources and 

archaeological sites. American Indian consultations are concerned with the potential for 

disturbance of ancestral American Indian sites, the traditional practices of American Indians, 

and natural resources of importance to American Indians. 



UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

--------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
 

 

NUREG-1437, Vol. 3

Revision 1

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants