Standard Review Plans for 

Environmental Reviews of 

Nuclear Power Plants 

Supplement 1: Operating 

License Renewal 

Draft Report for Comment 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 

Revision 1 
AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at

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

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

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

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402–0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161–0002

 www.ntis.gov 

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

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of Administration, 

 Printing and Mail Services Branch

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address

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

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed,

the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org 

212–642–4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including

technical specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series are

not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR–XXXX), (2) proceedings of

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

resulting from international agreements

(NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures

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

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic

and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations

(NUREG–0750).
Standard Review Plans for 

Environmental Reviews of 

Nuclear Power Plants 

Supplement 1: Operating 

License Renewal 

Draft Report for Comment 

Manuscript Completed: July 2009 

Date Published: July 2009 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1 

Revision 1 
 COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT

Any interested party may submit comments on this report for consideration by the NRC staff. 

Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. Please 

specify the report number NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1, draft, in your comments, 

and send them by October 13, 2009 to the following address:

Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Mail Stop TWB-05-B01 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Electronic comments may be submitted to the NRC by e-mail at to the Federal e-Rulemaking 

Portal at http://www.regulations.gov; search Docket ID NRC-2008-0608.

 

For any questions about the material in this report, please contact: 

Jennifer Davis 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionMail Stop O-11F1 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

Phone: 1-800-368-5642, extension 3835 

E-mail: LRGEISUpdate@nrc.gov 
July 2009 iii NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

ABSTRACT

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

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

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

environmental reviews for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. This document 

supplements NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 

Plants, which provides guidance for the environmental reviews of construction permits, initial operating 

licenses, early site permits, and combined licenses for new nuclear power plants. These standard review 

plans guide the staff in preparing of plant-specific supplemental environmental impact statements to 

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

Plants. 

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT 

The information collections contained in the environmental standard review plan are covered by the requirements of 10 CFR Part 

51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” and were approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0021. 

PUBLIC PROTECTION NOTIFICATION 

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

collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. 

July 2009 v NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

CONTENTS

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

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

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

1.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................................ 1.0-1 

2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ............................................................................... 2.0-1 

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

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

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

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

3.0 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................ 3.0-1 

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

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

3.3 Soils, Geology, and Seismology .................................................................................... 3.3-1 

3.4 Water Use and Water Quality ........................................................................................ 3.4-1 

3.5 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology .................................................................................... 3.5-1 

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

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

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

3.9 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention .............................................................. 3.9-1 

3.9.1 Nonradioactive Waste Systems ..................................................................... 3.9.1-1 

3.10 References ..................................................................................................................... 3.10-1 

4.0 Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions .............................................................. 4.0-1 

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

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

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

4.4 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 4.4-1 

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

4.4.2 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants that Withdraw More than 100 gpm 

Including Those Using Ranney Wells) ...................................................... 4.4.2-1 

4.4.3 Groundwater Use Conflicts (Plants with Closed-Cycle Cooling Systems that 

Withdraw Makeup Water from a River) .................................................... 4.4.3-1 

4.4.4 Groundwater Quality Degradation (Plants with Cooling Ponds 

at Inland Sites) ........................................................................................... 4.4.4-1 

4.4.5 Groundwater and Soil Contamination ........................................................... 4.4.5-1 

4.4.6 Radionuclides Released to Groundwater ...................................................... 4.4.6-1 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 vi July 2009 

4.5 Ecology .......................................................................................................................... 4.5-1 

4.5.1 Impacts of Surface Water Use Conflicts on Ecological Resources ............... 4.5.1-1 

4.5.2 Impacts of Continued Plant Operations and Refurbishment 

on Terrestrial Ecosystems .......................................................................... 4.5.2-1 

4.5.3 Impacts of Impingement and Entrainment on Aquatic Organisms 

(Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds) ............. 4.5.3-1 

4.5.4 Thermal Impacts on Aquatic Organisms 

(Plants with Once-Through Cooling Systems or Cooling Ponds) ............. 4.5.4-1 

4.5.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and 

Essential Fish Habitat ................................................................................ 4.5.5-1 

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

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

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

4.8.1 Impact to Public Health from Microbiological Organisms ........................... 4.8.1-1 

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

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

4.10 Waste Management and Pollution Prevention .............................................................. 4.10-1 

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

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

4.11.2 Environmental Consequences of Energy Alternative Fuel Cycles ............... 4.11.2-1 

4.11.3 Environmental Consequences from Termination of Nuclear Plant 

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

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

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

5.0 Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents ....................................................................... 5.0-1

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

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

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

6.0 Alternatives to License Renewal ............................................................................................... 6.0-1 

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

6.2 Alternative Energy Sources ........................................................................................... 6.2-1 

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

7.0 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 7.0-1 
July 2009 vii NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BMP best management practice 

BOD biological oxygen demand 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COD chemical oxygen demand 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DBA design basis accident 

DEIS draft environmental impact statement 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPM environmental project manager 

ER environmental report 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESRP environmental standard review plan (NUREG-1555) 

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

FES final environmental statement 

FR Federal Register

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

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

(NUREG-1437) 

GIS Geographic Information System 

IPE Internal Plant Examination 

IPEEE Internal Plant Examination of External Events 

MWe megawatts electrical 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESC National Electrical Safety Code 

NHPA National Historical Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

NWS National Weather Service 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 viii July 2009 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PRA probabilistic risk assessment 

PUD Public Utility District 

RAI request for additional information 

ROI region of influence, interest, or impact 

SAMA severe accident mitigation alternatives 

SAMDA severe accident mitigation design alternatives 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 
July 2009 1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

INTRODUCTION 

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

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

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

statements (SEISs) to NUREG-1437, the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal 

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

for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants,” issued October 1999. Use of this ESRP helps to 

ensure the completeness of the environmental review and analyses conducted for NRC SEISs. These 

ESRPs are companions to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications. 

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

address: 

Environmental Review Branch 

Division of License Renewal 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Washington, DC 20555-0001 

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

NRC=s Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environmental Review Process 

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

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

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

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

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

the SEIS, the NRC staff analyzes the environmental impacts of renewing the operating license of a 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 2 July 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

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

of Intent,” and 10 CFR 51.95(c)) and send copies of the notice to appropriate Federal, State, and 

local agencies; affected American Indian tribes; State, regional, and metropolitan clearinghouses; 

and any interested persons upon request. The notice should explain the scoping process, state the 

locations of copies of the ER available for public inspection, and invite public participation in the 

scoping process. 

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

Environmental Impact Statement and Supplement to Environmental Impact Statement”). The 

scoping process includes identifying and inviting appropriate agencies, groups, and persons to 

participate in the process. Concerning license renewal, scoping focuses on allowing other parties 

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

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

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

process also routinely includes a staff site visit to the plant and communication with local, 

regional, and State officials and representatives of interested or knowledgeable organizations. As 

a result of scoping, the staff may request additional information from the applicant. 

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

10 CFR 51.95(c)). In developing the draft SEIS, the NRC staff will independently evaluate the 

information provided by the applicant and others, as well as information identified by the staff. 

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

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

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

Protection Agency (EPA); other appropriate Federal agencies; affected American Indian tribes; 

appropriate State, regional, and local agencies; organizations and individuals who have expressed 

interest in the review; and any other parties requesting a copy. 

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

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

The staff will determine whether such comments identify new and significant information that 

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

environmental impacts associated with license renewal and with the alternatives to license 

renewal, the staff will determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of license 

renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning 
July 2009 3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The NRC will publish a notice of the availability of the 

final SEIS in the Federal Register.

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

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

are granted. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.105(a)(10), the agency will issue a notice of 

opportunity for hearing as soon as practicable after the application has been docketed. Any 

person whose interest may be affected by the action may request a hearing. (See also 10 CFR 

51.104, “NRC Proceeding Using Public Hearings; Consideration of Environmental Impact 

Statement.”) 

● Provide a ROD (see 10 CFR 51.103, “Record of Decision—General”). The ROD will discuss the 

alternatives considered in the SEIS, the measures taken to minimize environmental harm, and any 

license conditions adopted in connection with mitigation measures. In making a final decision on 

license renewal, the NRC will determine whether or not the adverse environmental impacts of 

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

decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The NRC publishes the Commission’s final decision on 

the application in the Federal Register.

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

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

technical and supervisory personnel as well as with NRC management. In addition, the EPM coordinates 

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

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

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

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). 

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

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

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

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

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

License Renewal (DLR) and by the EPM. The responsibility of the environmental technical staff in 

carrying out the environmental review, including criteria for ER acceptability, are provided in this ESRP. 

During the course of the technical staff=s environmental review, it may be necessary to request additional 

information from the applicant. Requests for additional information (RAIs) are transmitted to the 

applicant by the EPM. RAIs also serve as a public record of the staff=s concerns about the applicant’s ER 

during the environmental review. 

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

for the environmental review leading to the preparation of the draft SEIS. The EPM is responsible for 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4 July 2009 

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

requirements and reflects NRC policy. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA in 40 CFR 1500 – 1508, 

and related guidance set standards for Federal environmental impact statements (EISs). In accordance 

with CEQ and NRC standards, it is expected that each SEIS prepared by NRC staff would: 

C stand on its own as an analytical document which fully informs decision makers and the public of 

the environmental effects of the proposed action and those of reasonable alternatives, 

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

material, and 

C be written in plain language. 

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

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

before publication of the draft SEIS for public comment. 

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

NUREG-1437)

The 1996 GEIS1

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

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

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

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

dispositioned in the GEIS. 

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

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

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

same or similar) at all nuclear plants (or plants with specified plant or site characteristics), and (3) 

defining the number and scope of environmental impact issues that need to be addressed in plant-specific 

SEISs. 

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

NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” located in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 

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

the GEIS and update it on a 10-year cycle, if necessary. Since publication of the 1996 GEIS, over 30 

nuclear plant sites (approximately 50 reactor units) have been the subject of plant-specific environmental 

reviews. This GEIS revision is intended to incorporate lessons learned and knowledge gained from these 

plant-specific environmental reviews, as well as other new information and research published since the 

1996 GEIS. 

 

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

issued in 1999. 
July 2009 5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

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

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

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

findings, and other information were considered in evaluating the significance of impacts associated with 

license renewal. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if the findings presented in the 1996 

GEIS remained valid. In doing so, the NRC considered the need to modify, add to, or delete any of the 92 

issues in the 1996 GEIS. 

The revised GEIS evaluates 78 environmental impact issues; analyses determined that 58 of these issues 

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

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

information is found. Of the remaining 19 environmental impact issues, 18 are Category 2 issues, which 

require plant-specific analyses. One issue (the effects of electromagnetic fields) remains uncategorized, 

and the NRC staff considers this issue in plant-specific SEISs to the GEIS. 

A standard of significance was established for assessing environmental issues. Significance indicates the 

importance of likely environmental impacts and is determined by considering two variables: context and 

intensity. Context is the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur. In 

the case of license renewal, the context is the environment surrounding the facility. Intensity refers to the 

severity of the impact, in whatever context it occurs. The NRC developed a three-level standard of 

significance based upon the CEQ guidelines (40 CFR 1508.27): 

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

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

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

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

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

resource but not to destabilize them. 

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

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

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

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

designation as follows: 

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

C The environmental impacts associated with the issue have been determined to apply either to all 

plants or, for some issues, to plants having a specific type of cooling system or other specified 

plant or site characteristics; 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 6 July 2009 

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

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

and spent fuel); 

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

has been determined that additional plant-specific mitigation measures would probably not be 

sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. 

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

SEISs unless new and significant information is identified. 

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

require additional plant-specific review. 

Scope of the Environmental Standard Review Plans

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

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

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

provide the framework for conducting impact analyses and preparing sections for the plant-specific SEIS. 

A review procedure is provided for each Category 2 issue. The ESRPs also provide for the systematic 

integration of new and significant information on Category 1 issues. 

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

C Identification of environmental impact issues, data and other information, and analysis 

C Consideration of specific environmental issues of concern to Federal, State, regional, local, and 

affected American Indian tribes, as appropriate 

C Standardization of review procedures for the analysis of environmental impact issues 

C Focused environmental review of potentially significant environmental impacts 

Organization of the Environmental Standard Review Plan

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

1. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 

2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

3. Affected Environment 

4. Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 

5. Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents 

6. Alternatives to License Renewal 

7. Summary and Conclusions 
July 2009 7 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the environmental impacts of license renewal. 

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

significant information. Review plans serve to guide 

C The evaluation of the applicant=s process for identifying and evaluating new information 

C Evaluation of information submitted by members of the public during the scoping process, and 

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

significant 

C Identify the information required to complete a plant-specific review of the issue 

C Guide preparation of statements for the SEIS that describe the issue and present the conclusion. 

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

I. Areas of Review 

II. Acceptance Criteria 

III. Review Procedures 

IV. Evaluation Findings 

V. Implementation 

VI. Bibliography 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of information should be considered. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 8 July 2009 

C Applicant=s environmental report (ER) 

C Previous NRC Final Environmental Statements (FESs) and other Environmental Impact 

Statements (e.g. SEISs) 

C Applicant=s Safety Analysis Report or Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports 

C NRC Safety Evaluation Reports 

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

Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1 

C Other Federal and State agencies 

C The Internet and other online information 

New and Significant Information

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

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

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

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

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

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

be not significant. 

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

process for identifying new and significant information should consider 

C The applicant=s ER—Applicants are required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

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

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

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

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

C Records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application—Compare 

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

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

C Environmental quality standards and regulations—Have the applicable environmental quality 

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

changes affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal? 

C Technical literature—Does recent technical literature contain information that would alter 

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

environmental impacts that were not considered in the GEIS? 

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

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

significance level definitions in the GEIS. Appropriate mitigation measures should be identified and 
July 2009 9 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

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

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

If the significance level is Moderate or Large, the reviewer should prepare an impact assessment for 

inclusion in the appropriate section of the plant-specific SEIS. The assessment should include a concise 

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

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

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

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

General Instructions

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

plan: 

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

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

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

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

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

completed before developing requests for additional information. 

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

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

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

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

information. All reviewers are instructed to maintain close communication with other reviewers 

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

thus, other environmental reviews may not be available to reviewers before their own 

environmental review is completed. 

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

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

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

given to analyses and environmental assessments prepared under provisions of memoranda of 

understanding between the NRC and other Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American 

Indian tribes. Working through the EPM, the reviewer is responsible for resolving any 

differences of opinion between NRC staff analyses and analyses conducted by other agencies. 

The reviewer must ensure that all viewpoints are presented or that the specific provisions of the 

memoranda of understanding are followed. 

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

other Federal, State, regional, local agencies, and affected American Indian tribes. Federal 

agencies include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service concerning threatened and endangered species, the State Historic 

Preservation Officer and American Indian tribes concerning historic and cultural resources listed 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 10 July 2009 

or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; the Environmental Protection 

Agency (or designated State agencies) responsible for compliance with the Clean Water Act; 

State agencies responsible for consistency determinations under the Coastal Zone Management 

Act and State Implementation Plans under the Clean Air Act. These consultations should be 

started as soon as possible during the environmental review process and should be coordinated 

with the EPM. 

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

through the EPM. 

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

reviewer with first hand knowledge of site and the location and position of facilities. It also 

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

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

depth to permit verification and validation of the analysis and conclusions. 

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

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

potential effectiveness of mitigation measures. 

C Best Management Practices (BMPs). The reviewer must evaluate the applicant=s commitments 

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

to as best management practices, are activities that can mitigate potential adverse environmental 

impacts.

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

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

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

C Findings. Findings should reflect Aconsensus@ agreement among the reviewers. This requires 

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

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

communication and consultation with outside agencies and organizations. 

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

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

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

STATION: Consists of all facilities (reactor containment, turbine, and control buildings, 

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

everything located on the applicant=s property that supports the existing reactor(s). In some 

cases, intake and discharge structures may be located offsite, but are considered part of the 

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

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

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

PLANT: The nuclear reactor, reactor power conversion systems, intake and discharge 

structures, and all other facilities involved with the production of electricity. A plant can be 
July 2009 11 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

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

facilities are not part of the plant. 

UNIT: One reactor power conversion system. Generally, the term “unit" is used only when 

the applicant is proposing to relicense more than one unit. 

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

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

discussed separately from the remainder of the plant). 

MITIGATION: Impact mitigation is the process of modifying an activity to prevent, 

eliminate, and/or reduce the adverse environmental impact. 

Bibliography

10 CFR 51, AEnvironmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory 

Functions.@

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—AEnvironmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B–1—Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants@

10 CFR 51.27, ANotice of intent.@

10 CFR 51.28, AScopingCparticipants.@

10 CFR 51.29, AScopingCenvironmental impact statement.@

10 CFR 51.53, APostconstruction environmental reports.@

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.95, APostconstruction environmental impact statements.@

10 CFR 54, ARequirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants@

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 12 July 2009 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

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

Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1. 

Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 1.0-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renewal Applications.” 

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

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

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

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

Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

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

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

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

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

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

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

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 1.0-2 July 2009 

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in 

Environmental Impact Statements 

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(4) Purpose and need for action. 

Technical Rationale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

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

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer should prepare one or more introductory paragraphs for the SEIS and should include the 

purpose and need for license renewal as it appears in Section 1.3 of the GEIS. 

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

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

license term. 

The purpose and need for the proposed action have no role in the energy planning decisions of State 

regulators and utility officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. 

From the perspective of the licensee and the State regulatory authority, the purpose of renewing an 

operating license is to maintain the availability of the nuclear plant to meet system energy requirements 

beyond the term of the plant’s current license. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
July 2009 1.0-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.95, APostconstruction environmental impact statements.@

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 2.0-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

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

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

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

Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

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

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

brief description of the alternatives. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

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

following regulations: 

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

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

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

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

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

plant under Parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 2.0-2 July 2009 

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

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

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

decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in 

Environmental Impact Statements 

• 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(5) Alternatives including the proposed action. 

Technical Rationale

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

preparation of an EIS. The introductory paragraphs prepared under this ESRP should clearly define the 

action and provide the readers of the SEIS with background information related to license renewal. This 

information is summarized in the GEIS. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

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

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

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

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

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

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

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

renewal, and outline the applicant’s process. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.95, APostconstruction environmental impact statements.@

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 2.1-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

2.1 GENERAL PLANT INFORMATION 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

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

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

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

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

auxiliary water systems. 

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

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

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

modes of operation, (4) the intake and discharge locations and structures, (5) the auxiliary system, and (6) 

performance characteristics for these systems. 

Data and Information Needs

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

data or information may be needed: 

C A description of the plant site location including State, county, latitude and longitude, and 

Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates, township, range, and sections 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 2.1-2 July 2009 

C maps of: 

- the site showing site boundaries; exclusion area; site structures and facilities; major land uses 

(with land use classifications consistent with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) categories) 

(USGS 1997); the construction zone for refurbishment, if any; sites for any other planned 

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

to the site. 

- the site vicinity within a 6-mile (10-kilometer) radius and of the region within a 50-mile (80-

kilometer) radius of the site showing county and local municipality boundaries, place names, 

residential areas, airports, industrial and commercial facilities, roads and highways, railroads, 

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

and Indian tribes’ lands, and military reservations. 

- Identify and describe known and reasonably foreseeable Federal and non-Federal projects and 

other actions in the vicinity of the site that may contribute to the cumulative environmental 

impacts of license renewal and extended plant operation. List all Federal facilities, including 

national parks, national forests, national wildlife areas, American Indian and/or Bureau of 

Indian Affairs lands held in trust for American Indians, and Indian tribes’ lands, including 

distances, as well as nonattainment and maintenance areas defined under the Clean Air Act, 

as amended within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the plant site. 

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

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

and total quantities of uranium 

C engineered safety features 

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

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

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

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

highest power level that would be permitted by plant design. The gross electrical output is the 

power level measured at the output terminals of the generator and expressed in MWe. The net 

unit electrical output is equal to the gross electrical output minus the nominal service and 

auxiliary loads) 

C a simplified flow diagram for the reactor-power conversion system 

C a system description, including the water supply source and intake and discharge locations and 

structures descriptions of heat-dissipation operational modes and the periods of time that the 

system has historically operated in each mode 
July 2009 2.1-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C for each operational mode: 

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

discharges 

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

discharged 

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

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

renewal term. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP/S1 

are consistent with the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.52 concerning criteria related to plant-specific analysis of the effects from 

transportation of fuel and waste from the facility. Note: Generic determinations have been made 

that the impacts in Table S–4 are bounding for fuel with uranium enrichment of up to 5% by 

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

years after discharge from the reactor. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) provides a descriptive framework of the cooling water and auxiliary 

systems, their water requirements, and intakes and discharges to support the discussions of the 

affected environment. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

Technical Rationale

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

discussed in the following paragraph: 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 2.1-4 July 2009 

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

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

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

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

continued plant operations and refurbishment. 

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

following paragraph: 

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

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

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

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

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

following paragraph: 

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

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

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

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

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

environmental impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities during the 

license renewal term. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

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

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

the ESRP/S1s in Chapters 3 and 4. The following review steps are suggested: 

(1) Review plant and station layout and external appearance data. 

(2) Determine the relationship of the plant design and layout to the surrounding environment, 

including any aesthetic features of the site and vicinity. 

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

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

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

of Indian Affairs lands held in trust for American Indians, and Indian tribes’ lands). 

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

specific analysis of the data is required. Because this material is for description only, ensure that 

adequate information is available to meet the purpose and scope of this supplement ESRP. Identify the 

reactor power conversion and engineered safety feature systems and the basic design performance data. 
July 2009 2.1-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

As a rule, if the data listed under AData and Information Needs@ above are provided, that objective would 

be met. 

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

required, but the use of tables such as 2.1.3-1 and 2.1.3-2 may assist data organization. The reviewer 

should gather the following information largely from design and historical documentation for use in later 

sections: 

C For the general cooling system description, include: 

- type and configuration 

- water source and proximity to facility 

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

consumed, and discharged in each mode 

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

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

discharge 

- other major plant systems and flow rates 

C For intake systems include 

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

surface, bottom geometry, and shoreline 

- the location of the intake in relation to the outfall 

- a description of cooling-water pumping facility 

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

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

identified 

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

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

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

inhibitors, antifouling agents) to the intake system. 

C For discharge systems include 

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

relationship to water surface, bottom geometry, and shoreline 

- a description of discharge canal or discharge lines 

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

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

C For heat-dissipation systems include 

- the location of heat-dissipation system components relative to other site features 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 2.1-6 July 2009 

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

- heat-dissipation system performance characteristics for the operational modes 

- nuclear power plant site-specific meteorological data 

- nuclear power plant site-specific water supply data 

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

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

using the average wet-bulb temperature for the month. 

C For spray systems, analyze the applicant=s estimates of average monthly discharge temperatures. 

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

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

model. 

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

the main cooling system, determine the final discharge temperature. 

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

Component Design Details 

Cooling towers (from the ER) Type 

Configuration 

Materials of construction 

Number and arrangement 

Rated heat-dissipation capacity 

Cooling lakes and ponds (from the ER) Surface area 

Volume 

Bathymetry 

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

Pond or canal geometry 

Surface area and water volume 

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

Antifouling treatment 
July 2009 2.1-7 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

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

Component Design Details 

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

monthly average meteorological conditions 

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

Performance curves 

Air flow 

Power consumption 

Noise levels 

Drift rate and drop size 

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

Flow-through times 

Flow pattern 

Monthly average water temperatures (mean for entire lake 

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

Surface elevation (mean, maximum, minimum) 

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

Flow-through times 

Flow pattern 

Monthly average water temperatures (inlet [from 

condenser], outlet [to condenser]) 

Surface elevation (mean, maximum, minimum) 

Spray system operating parameters (e.g., power 

consumption, drop size) 

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

Temperature differential across condenser 

Time-of-passage through system (including intake and 

discharge system passage times) 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

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

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

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

table of design and performance parameters. The reviewer should verify that sufficient information has 

been provided in accordance with the relevant requirements for analysis of postulated accidents, fuel use 

and transportation, and waste-disposal issues. 

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

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

characteristics 

C sketches of intake, discharge, and heat-dissipation components 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 2.1-8 July 2009 

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

discharge temperature, water consumption, and chemical concentration factor) 

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

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

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

system impacts. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.52, “Environmental effects of transportation of fuel and waste—Table S–4.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

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

Resources Observation Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 2.2-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

2.2 REFURBISHMENT ACTIVITIES 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

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

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

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

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

refurbishment, (2) where construction materials would be stored, as well as removal and disposal, (3) 

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

directly or indirectly. 

Data and Information Needs

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

C describe the proposed refurbishment activity, including specific structures and components that 

would be replaced or modified 

C describe the location where materials would be stored, as well as removal and disposal

C
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 2.2-2 July 2009 

C describe any transportation or delivery activities in support of the refurbishment activity, 

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

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

C list applicable Federal and state agency permits required for this activity 

C describe specific refurbishment-related activities that have the potential to either directly or 

indirectly affect the environment 

C discuss the schedule for the refurbishment activity, including normal maintenance schedules and 

refueling outages 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP/S1 

are consistent with the following regulation: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

Technical Rationale

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

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

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

with license renewal. 
July 2009 2.2-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

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

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

information for the reviews conducted under the ESRP/S1s in Chapters 3 and 4. The following review 

steps are suggested: 

(1) Review the discussion of plant refurbishment in the GEIS. 

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

structures and components that would be replaced or modified 

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

proposed transportation plans 

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

(5) Prepare a section describing the refurbishment activities, for the SEIS

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

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

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

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 2.3-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

2.3 EMPLOYMENT

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

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

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

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

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

frequency (number of months). 

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

required to support the refurbishment activity. The reviewer should also estimate the residential 

distribution of the refurbishment work force. 

Data and Information Needs

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

C a description of the plant=s operational employment history, including maintenance and refueling 

outage schedules 

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

operations, maintenance, and refueling outages
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 2.3-2 July 2009 

C anticipated number of workers onsite during refurbishment activities 

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

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP/S1 

are consistent with the following regulation: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

Technical Rationale

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

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

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

license renewal term and refurbishment. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

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

required. The following review steps are suggested: 

(1) Review the discussion of plant employment in the GEIS 

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

and annual average employment 

(3) Obtain anticipated changes in the number of workers onsite during and in support of license 

renewal and refurbishment, if any. 
July 2009 2.3-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would depend on nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The reviewer should verify that the plant employment description is consistent, accurate, 

and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers for ESRP sections in Chapters 3 and 4. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 2.4-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

 

2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

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

identified and selected alternatives to the proposed action. 

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

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

applicant. 

Data and Information Needs

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

C describe the process used by the applicant to determine reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

action 

C describe all alternatives considered 

C indicate which alternatives should be described in further detail 

C briefly describe any alternatives considered that would reduce or avoid adverse effects
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 2.4-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the paragraphs prepared under this ESRP/S1 are consistent with the 

following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3) Alternatives to the proposed action. The discussion of alternatives shall be 

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

102(2)(E) of NEPA, "appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal 

which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." To the 

extent practicable, the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives should be 

presented in comparative form; 

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

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

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

describe in detail the affected environment around the plant, the modifications directly 

affecting the environment or any plant effluents, and any planned refurbishment 

activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts 

of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

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

reducing adverse impacts, as required by § 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal 

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

Category 1 issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this part. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5) In making a final decision on a license renewal action pursuant to 

Part 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall determine whether or not the adverse 

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

license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in 

Environmental Impact Statements 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(5) Alternatives including the proposed action. 
July 2009 2.4-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Technical Rationale

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

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

renewal in plant-specific environmental reviews. Analysis of alternative energy sources does not involve 

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

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

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

quality, air quality, solid waste, human health, socioeconomics, and historic and culture resources. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

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

nature; no specific analysis is required. The following review steps are suggested: 

(1) Obtain a description of the process used by the applicant to determine reasonable alternatives to 

the proposed action 

(2) Obtain a list of alternatives considered by the applicant and state authorities 

(3) Obtain a list of which of the considered alternatives were selected to be described in greater detail 

(4) Prepare a section describing the considered alternatives to the proposed action for the SEIS. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The information in the SEIS would depend on nuclear power plant site- and plant-specific factors. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 2.4-4 July 2009 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.103, “Record of decision—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.0-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for preparing the introduction to 

sections that describe the plant=s affected environment based on the reviews conducted under ESRP 

sections 3.1 through 3.10. 

The scope includes (1) review of the affected environment in the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1) 

and (2) preparation of input to the SEIS. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

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

the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) Status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.0-2 July 2009 

C have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(6), concerning the environmental impact statement will succinctly 

describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the 

statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on 

important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

C Appendix B to Subpart A–Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants”

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating environmental 

impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared is informational and descriptive; no specific analysis of data is required. The 

introduction should list the information to be presented and describe their relationships to environmental 

consequences to be presented in Chapter 4 of the SEIS. It should indicate that the objectives of SEIS 
July 2009 3.0-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

subsections 3.1 through 3.10 are to provide a general description of the affected environment as 

background and/or baseline information. Some detailed descriptions may be needed to support the 

analyses of environmental impacts in Chapter 4. 

It is important to point out specific sections of this chapter that address environmental issues raised by the 

public in scoping meetings or in correspondence on the license renewal application. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The paragraph(s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of information covered by ESRP/S1s 3.1 through 3.10. The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be 

governed, in part, by the extent of the potential impacts of continued operations during the license 

renewal term and refurbishment activities in support of license renewal. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.95, APostconstruction environmental impact statements.@

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.1-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

3.1 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of land use and visual 

resources of the site and vicinity, region, and the transmission corridor connecting the plant to the electric 

transmission grid. 

The scope should include establishing the nature and extent of present and planned land use and visual 

impacts within areas that might be impacted by continued plant operations during the license renewal 

term or modified as a result of refurbishment in support of license renewal. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The degree of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude of the 

potential impact. The following data or information may be needed, if appropriate: 

C land-use data (onsite and offsite) and descriptions from prior environmental documents, including 

the applicant’s environmental report (ER), final environmental statements (FESs) prepared for 

nuclear plant construction and operation 

C maps of the site showing site boundaries; exclusion area; site structures and facilities; major land 

uses; and transportation routes adjacent to the site; county and local municipality boundaries, 

place names, residential areas, airports, industrial and commercial facilities, roads and highways,
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.1-2 July 2009 

C railroads, American Indian and/or Bureau of Indian Affairs lands held in trust for American 

Indians, and Indian tribes’ lands, and military reservations. 

C identify and describe Federal facilities, including national parks, national forests, national wildlife 

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

and Indian tribes’ lands and distances within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the plant site. 

C description of the plant’s visual setting, including the identity and height of tallest visible plant 

structures, as well as direction and distances from which these structures are visible 

C description of existing visual impacts of transmission lines connecting to the nearest substation. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of onsite and offsite land use and the transmission-line corridor are 

based on the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) Status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(6), concerning the environmental impact statement will succinctly 

describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the 

statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on 

important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 
July 2009 3.1-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating land-use impacts 

of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The reviewer=s analysis of land-use characteristics should be closely linked with the impact assessment 

review described in ESRP section 4.1 to establish the land-use characteristics most likely to be affected 

by license renewal. The following review steps are suggested: 

(1) Review the applicant’s ER, scoping issues, and any other applicable land use information 

(2) Identify onsite and offsite land use including land use within the transmission corridor that could 

be affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal 

(3) Identify land-use plans that include the site and vicinity 

(4) Identify any local land use and zoning development plans relevant to population and housing 

growth and control and changes in land use patterns 

(5) Identify any visual impacts of the plant and of the transmission lines connecting to the nearest 

substation 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer should ensure that the land-use information is adequate as a basis for assessment of the 

effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal. The 

reviewer should consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian 

tribes to assess the accuracy of the land-use designations, if necessary. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.1-4 July 2009 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.2-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

3.2 METEOROLOGY, AIR QUALITY, AND NOISE

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the meteorology, air 

quality, and noise of the site and surrounding area, and characterization of atmospheric transport. This 

review should provide background information for inclusion in the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS) and input to reviewers for supplemental ESRPs (ESRP/S1s) for license renewal dealing 

with evaluation of the impacts of continued plant operations during the license renewal term and 

refurbishment activities in support of license renewal. 

The scope includes descriptions of (1) regional climatology, (2) meteorological characteristics of the site 

and vicinity using data from the onsite meteorological monitoring program, (3) local and regional 

atmospheric transport and diffusion characteristics, (4) local and regional air quality, and (5) noise 

generation of, and in the vicinity of, the site. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential 

impacts. The following data or information may be needed, if appropriate: 

C climatic descriptions from prior environmental documents, including the environmental impact 

statements (EISs) prepared at the construction-permit and operating-license stages
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.2-2 July 2009 

C recent climatological data from nearby National Weather Service (NWS) stations 

C hourly and summarized meteorological data from the onsite meteorological program for the most 

recent 5-year period 

C descriptions of meteorological phenomena, if any, associated with the plant=s cooling system 

operation 

C a description of regional air quality, including the locations of mandatory Federal Class I areas 

and non-attainment or maintenance areas in the region 

C topographic data if substantially different from the data presented in earlier EISs 

C lists of nonattainment and/or maintenance areas 

C a map of the region within a 50-mile radius (80 kilometer) of the nonattainment and maintenance 

areas of the site 

C any current or past noise studies and analyses conducted in the vicinity of the site 

C list of loudest noise generating facilities and activities in the surrounding area, with given 

distances to the nearest site boundary. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of site meteorology, air quality, and noise are based on the 

following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) Status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 
July 2009 3.2-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(6), concerning the environmental impact statement will succinctly 

describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the 

statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on 

important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

C 40 CFR 50 concerning the definition of criteria pollutants and National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

C 40 CFR 51, Subpart W, concerning requirements related to determination that the proposed 

Federal action conforms to applicable implementation plans 

C 40 CFR 51, Appendix W, concerning air quality models 

C 40 CFR 81, Subparts C and D, concerning attainment status designations approved by the EPA 

and identification of mandatory Class I Federal areas. 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

C Regulatory Guide 1.23, Onsite Meteorological Programs (NRC 1972), and ESRP 2.7 in 

NUREG-1555 (NRC 1999b) provide guidance on onsite meteorological measurements for use in 

licensing applications. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating air quality, 

meteorology, and noise impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated 

with license renewal. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.2-4 July 2009 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The review of meteorology, air quality, and noise should be conducted in stages to permit termination 

when sufficient analysis has been completed to reach the appropriate conclusions. The following review 

steps are suggested: 

(1) Review the air quality discussion in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the 

conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by 

the applicant and the public. 

(2) Obtain descriptions of the site meteorological, climatological, and dispersion characteristics from 

prior environmental documents. 

(3) Obtain recent meteorological data for the site and climatological data for the region surrounding 

the site. 

(4) Obtain the air-quality attainment status and available air-quality data for the region. The airquality attainment status is one of the factors used to determine the extent of analysis required by 

10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(F). 

(5) Update the descriptions of meteorology, climatology, and air quality presented in prior 

environmental documents using recent data 

(6) Determine if there is significant new information that would require specialized atmospheric 

modeling. 

(7) If the atmospheric dispersion calculations would be required to determine the potential impact of 

workers= vehicles on air quality in nonattainment or maintenance areas or for dose calculations, or 

if specialized atmospheric modeling would be required, then continue the review at Step (9). 

Otherwise, prepare a section for the SEIS that presents an updated summary of the meteorology 

and climatology for the plant site and region. The summary should touch upon normal conditions 

and recent severe weather. 

(8) Determine the specific atmospheric models to be used to support reviews being conducted under 

other ESRP/S1s and the data requirements of those models. Models to support dose calculations 

are described in Regulatory Guides 1.111, Rev. 1, Methods for Estimating Atmospheric 

Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled 

Reactors (NRC 1977), and 1.145, Rev. 1, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident 

Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants (1983) and models approved by the EPA for 

air- quality calculations are listed in Appendix W of 40 CFR 51. 

(9) Prepare the meteorological data for use by the atmospheric models and assist the reviewers of the 

other ESRP/S1s in making the appropriate model calculations. 
July 2009 3.2-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

(10) Prepare a section for the SEIS that presents an updated summary of the meteorology, climatology, 

air quality, and noise for the plant site and region. The summary should touch upon normal 

conditions and recent severe weather. The section should describe and summarize the 

meteorological data used in atmospheric model calculations. The atmospheric models used 

should be identified in the SEIS, but detailed model descriptions should be avoided. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer should ensure that the meteorology, air quality, and noise information is adequate as a basis 

for assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal. The reviewer should consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected 

American Indian tribes to assess the accuracy of the meteorology, air quality, and noise information, if 

necessary. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1972. Regulatory Guide 1.23. Onsite Meteorological 

Programs. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 1.111, Rev. 1. Methods for 

Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from LightWater-Cooled Reactors. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1983. Regulatory Guide 1.145, Rev 1. Atmospheric 

Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.2-6 July 2009 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.3-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

3.3 SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMOLOGY 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the soils, geology, 

and seismology of the site and surrounding area. This review should provide background information for 

inclusion in the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) and input to reviewers for 

supplemental ESRPs for license renewal dealing with evaluation of the impacts of continued plant 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. 

The scope includes (1) description of geologic setting, (2) overview of seismicity and seismic history, (3) 

description of onsite soils and their relationship to site geology, and (4) description of soil erosion 

potential at the site. 

 

Data and Information Needs

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

C descriptions of geologic setting at the plant site, including occurring rock types, formation names 

and thicknesses, and general engineering properties 

C descriptions of seismic potential at the site and seismic history 

C identity of largest known historic regional earthquake
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.3-2 July 2009 

C description of safe-shutdown earthquake for the plant 

C description of onsite soils (e.g. overburden and unconsolidated material) and their relationship to 

site geology (whether the material was brought in from offsite or is naturally occurring) 

C description of onsite erosion control and run-off best management practices 

C description of erosion potential at the site 

C identity of any prime farmland soils on or in the vicinity of the site. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of site geology, seismology, and soils are based on the following 

regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) Status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(6), concerning the environmental impact statement will succinctly 

describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the 

statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on 

important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

C 40 CFR 51, Subpart W, concerning requirements related to determination that the proposed 

Federal action conforms to applicable implementation plans 
July 2009 3.3-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating impacts 

associated with soils, geology, and seismology from continued plant operations and refurbishment 

activities associated with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The review of soils, geology, and seismology should be conducted in stages to permit termination when 

sufficient analysis has been completed to reach the appropriate conclusions. The following review steps 

are suggested: 

(1) Review the discussion of potential impacts of continued plant operation and refurbishment 

activities on geology and soils in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the 

conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. 

(2) Obtain descriptions of regional and local geology, seismology, and soils 

(3) Obtain descriptions of the site geology, seismology, and soils from prior environmental documents. 

(4) Obtain descriptions of seismic potential at the site and seismic history, including the largest known 

historic regional earthquake and safe-shutdown earthquake for the plant 

(5) Obtain descriptions of any onsite erosion control plans and run-off best management practices 

(6) Prepare a section for the SEIS that presents an updated summary of the geology, seismology, and 

soils for the plant site and surrounding region. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer should ensure that the soils, geology, and seismology information is adequate as a basis for 

assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. 

The reviewer should consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American 

Indian tribes to assess the accuracy of the soils, geology, seismology information, if necessary. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.3-4 July 2009 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.4-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

3.4 WATER USE AND WATER QUALITY

I. AREAS OF REVIEW

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of water use and 

quality that could affect or be affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with 

license renewal.

The scope includes (1) consideration of such water uses as domestic, municipal, agricultural, industrial, 

mining, recreation, navigation, and hydroelectric power, (2) identification of their locations, 

(3) quantification of water diversions, consumption, and returns, (4) consideration of site specific and 

regional data on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of ground and surface water to 

provide the basic data for the evaluation of water-quality impacts to water bodies, aquifers, aquatic 

ecosystems, and water use related to continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license 

renewal, and (4) preparation of a section describing water use and water quality for the supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS). The review should be limited to present and known future water 

uses.

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.4-2 July 2009

• maps (including digital databases such as a Geographic Information System [GIS]) showing the 

relationship of the site to the major hydrological systems, surface water bodies, and groundwater 

aquifer systems that could affect or be affected by plant water withdrawals and/or discharges

• quantitative descriptions of present and known future surface water uses (withdrawals, 

consumptions, and returns), groundwater withdrawals, and nonconsumptive water uses 

(recreational, navigational, instream, etc.) that may affect or be affected by continued plant 

operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. This should include any bodies of 

water or aquifers at distances close enough to affect or be adversely affected by the plants. This 

should also include a quantitative description of any water uses that provide potential liquid 

pathways for both radiological and nonradiological effluents. The following should be included: 

- locations of diversions and returns concerning the site and the water body 

- identification of the water body 

- the average monthly withdrawal and return rate for each diversion by use category.

- location and depth of well in relation to the site 

- identification of aquifers 

- identification of any EPA designated sole source aquifers

- the average monthly withdrawal rates by use category 

- identification of water bodies and locations concerning the site within a 10-km (6 mi) radius 

(maps may be useful)

- the kind and location of activity on the identified water body (maps may be useful)

- the use rate with time variation.

C summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by Federal or State regulations 

C a water-use diagram for the plant showing flow rates to and from the various water systems (e.g., 

circulating water system, sanitary system, radwaste and chemical waste systems, service water 

systems), points of consumption, and source and discharge locations 

C for the water-use diagram, the data and narrative description for maximum water consumption, 

water consumption during periods of minimum water availability, and average operation by 

month and by plant operating status 

C a description of other station water uses (i.e., all facilities not associated with the proposed plant) 

showing flow rates to and from the facility, average water consumption, and maximum water 

consumption 
July 2009 3.4-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

• the mean, range, and temporal and spatial variations of the surface water and groundwater quality 

characteristics 

- For surface waters: water temperature, suspended solids, total dissolved solids, hardness, 

turbidity, color, odor, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, biological oxygen demand (BOD), 

chemical oxygen demand (COD), phosphorus forms (total and orthophosphate), nitrogen 

forms (ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, organic), alkalinity, chlorides, sulfate, sodium, potassium, 

calcium, magnesium, heavy metals (e.g., Hg, Pb), pH, phytoplankton (chlorophyll a), and 

indicator microorganisms (e.g., total coliform, fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci). 

- For groundwaters: the above surface-water data, minus phytoplankton and with silica, iron, 

carbon dioxide, and bicarbonate added 

C other nuclear power plant site-specific water-quality characteristics 

C descriptions of pre-existing aquatic environmental stresses and their effects on surface or 

groundwater quality for waters that interact with the plant (e.g., water bodies at or near the site 

that do not meet established water-quality standards). These should include State 303d lists of 

impaired waters which classify the quality of each of the State’s water bodies and are required 

under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (i.e., Clean Water Act) 

C descriptions of pollutant sources with discharges to water that may interact with the plant, 

including locations relative to the site and the affected water bodies, and the magnitude and 

nature of the pollutant discharges, including spatial and temporal variations 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the review of water use are based on the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) Status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 

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

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

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

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

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

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.4-4 July 2009

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(6), concerning the environmental impact statement will succinctly 

describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the 

statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on 

important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

C 33 CFR 330, Appendix A, concerning conditions, limitations, and restrictions on construction 

activities

C 40 CFR 122-133 concerning National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

conditions for discharges, including storm water discharges

C 40 CFR 147 concerning restrictions on waste disposal options 

C 40 CFR 149 concerning possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in or 

above a sole source aquifer

C 40 CFR 165 concerning the disposal and storage of pesticides and pesticide containers

C 40 CFR 403 concerning waste effluents 

C 40 CFR 423 concerning effluent limitations on existing and new point sources

C 40 CFR 700 – 716 concerning practices and procedures for managing toxic chemicals

C Federal, State, regional local, and American Indian tribal water laws and water rights 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

• Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Clean Water Act is not 

a substitute for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts 

of the proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to 

the proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental 

assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC would consider 

the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in striking an 

overall cost-benefit balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the 

permitting authority, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and other 

agencies having relevant expertise) should establish its own impact determination.

• Because water quality and water supply are interdependent, changes in water quality must be 

considered simultaneously with changes in water supply. In PUD #1 Jefferson County v. 

Washington Department of Ecology (511 U.S. 700, (1994)), the United States Supreme Court 

granted the States additional authority to limit hydrological alterations beyond the State’s role in 

regulating water rights.
July 2009 3.4-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating water use 

and quality impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with license 

renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES

The reviewer’s analysis of surface-water and groundwater use should consider the aspects of water use 

that are concerned with consumptive use, nonconsumptive use, and effluent pathways. The depth of 

analysis would be related to the importance of water use and proximity of the use to the plant. Emphasis 

should be given to those water uses that are expected to change during refurbishment and/or the license 

renewal term. The following review steps are suggested:

(1) Identify consumptive water uses that could affect the water supply of the plant or that may be 

adversely affected by the plant, including the following important characteristics:

- water source

- locations of diversions and returns

- amount and time variation of use

- water rights.

(2) Identify recreational, navigational, and other nonconsumptive water uses. The important 

characteristics to be quantified are

- location

- activity

- amount and time variation of use.

(3) Identify the water uses that provide potential pathways for both radiological and nonradiological 

effluents, including the following important characteristics: 

- water sources

- location of diversions for consumptive uses

- location of receptors for nonconsumptive uses

- amount and time variation of use for each.

(4) In addition to information obtained from the applicant’s ER and from responses to subsequent 

questions to the applicant, use additional sources of data, such as

- local water-supply companies or agencies

- river basin commissions

- State agencies (e.g., water resources, fish and wildlife)

- various Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological 

Survey, and American Indian tribal agencies when needed to complete the analysis. Local 

water users may be questioned during the site visit.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.4-6 July 2009

(5) Using the above information, compile and tabulate water uses by the categories and 

characteristics described in this ESRP section, but limit the analysis to consideration of present 

and known future water uses.

(6) Ensure that water-use data and information are adequate to serve as a basis for assessing the 

impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal on water 

use.

(a) In evaluating the adequacy of this material, the reviewer should ensure that data are sufficient 

to predict water-use impacts to the plant as well as water-use characteristics to be impacted 

by refurbishment and operation during the renewal term. 

(b) Consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal 

agencies in making this evaluation.

The reviewer’s analysis of water quality should ensure that the physical, chemical, and biological waterquality parameters that could affect or be affected by continued plant operations during the license 

renewal term and refurbishment in support of license renewal have been described. The reviewer should 

take the following steps:

(1) Identify the location and spatial distribution of the physical, chemical, and biological 

characteristics, the monthly and annual ranges, and the historical extremes of those water-quality 

characteristics that could potentially affect or be affected by continued plant operations and 

refurbishment.

(2) Determine the presence of existing water-quality-related environmental stresses. Consult the 

quality criteria requirements of other water users, as indicated by the approved water-use 

classification (such as 303(d), lists) or water resource planning documents for the water body in 

question.

(3) When applicable, discuss the water-quality conditions, water rights, and agreements as they affect 

water quality and water resource plans for the site and vicinity with Federal, State, regional, local, 

and affected Native American tribal water resource and pollution control and monitoring 

agencies. 

(4) Obtain the information primarily from the applicant’s ER, responses to questions to the applicant, 

and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal 

agencies. Use sources of data such as river basin planning organizations and State and Federal 

agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and 

the U.S. Geological Survey, if additional information or verification is deemed necessary.(1) 

(5) Ensure that the

- data are sufficient to provide quantitative information on the physical, chemical, and 

biological water-quality characteristics potentially affecting or affected by continued plant 

operations and refurbishment.

- water-quality descriptions are sufficient, concerning relevancy, completeness, reliability, and 

accuracy for input to the impact assessments of other sections
July 2009 3.4-7 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

- Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal agencies appropriate to the 

objectives of this review have been consulted. 

(6) When evaluating the adequacy of this material, 

- Consult the applicable standards and guides for this environmental review and use the site 

visit and/or consultations with permitting agencies to evaluate the completeness of the waterquality descriptions. 

- Evaluate, when necessary, the collection of additional data, the verification of data, and the 

substantiation of the methodology used to estimate water-quality parameters. 

(7) Include the appropriate depth and extent of the input to the EIS as governed by the water-quality 

characteristics that could affect or be affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment 

and by the nature and magnitude of the expected impacts. The following information should be 

included as input to the EIS: 

- descriptions of site and vicinity surface-water and groundwater quality that could affect or be 

affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment. The description may consist of 

statistical summaries of the water-quality characteristics, including mean, mean low and high, 

and historical low and high values (as available) for the site and vicinity. The data included 

should be commensurate with the anticipated impacts. Figures may be used to show longterm and seasonal trends, such as variations in dissolved oxygen and nutrient concentrations 

and pH variations. 

- a description of the water-quality related environmental stresses in the site and vicinity.

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS

The reviewer should ensure that the water-use information is adequate as a basis for assessment of the 

effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. The depth and 

extent of the input to the supplemental EIS (SEIS) would be governed by the water-use characteristics of 

the site and vicinity and the potential water-use impacts of continued plant operations during the license 

renewal term and refurbishment in support of license renewal. The information should be presented in a 

concise form. Data should be given in tables where appropriate.

The following information should be included:

• a summary of present and known future groundwater withdrawals on the site and for distances 

great enough to cover potentially affected groundwater aquifers.

• a summary of present and known future surface-water uses that are within the hydrological 

system in which the plant is located and that may affect or be adversely affected by the plant.

• a summary of present and known future recreational, navigational, and other nonconsumptive 

water uses (maps may be useful).

• references to applicable Federal, State, regional, local, and affected Native American tribal water 

use laws.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.4-8 July 2009

V. IMPLEMENTATION

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended, 33 USC 1251 et seq. (i.e., Clean Water Act). 

Jefferson County PUD #1 vs. Department of Ecology, 92-1911, Supreme Court of the United States, 

510 U.S. 1037; 114 S. Ct. 677; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 795; 126 L. Ed. 2d 645; 62 U.S.L.W. 3450 (January 10, 

1994). 

Rosaler, R. (ed). 1994. Standard Handbook of Plant Engineering. Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, 

New York. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.5-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

3.5 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC ECOLOGY 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

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

aquatic resources that could affect or be affected by continued plant operations and refurbishment 

associated with license renewal. 

The scope of the terrestrial review should include (1) a description of species composition, spatial and 

temporal distribution, abundance, and other structural and functional attributes of biotic assemblages that 

could be affected by license renewal; (2) identification and location of any vulnerable, irreplaceable, or 

otherwise important terrestrial natural resources, habitats, and wildlife sanctuaries and preserves; and (3) 

preparation of a section describing terrestrial resources for the supplemental environmental impact 

statement (SEIS). 

The scope of the aquatic review should include (1) a description of the spatial and temporal distribution, 

abundance, and other structural and functional attributes of biotic assemblages, (2) identification of any 

Aimportant@ or irreplaceable aquatic natural resources and the location of sanctuaries and preserves, and 

(3) preparation of a section describing aquatic resources for the SEIS. 

Data and Information Needs

Information and data on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and resources should be utilized for developing 

the following descriptions of ecological resources in the SEIS. 

C Region, describe
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.5-2 July 2009

- the ecosystem and habitats of the ecoregion that includes the site 

- the geomorphic, or physiographic, province 

- the characteristic vegetation and animal species, including climax vegetation and typical 

succession in the area of the site 

- the ecological province of the ocean if the plant is located near an ocean or estuary 

- the watershed(s) and names and locations of source and receiving water bodies for the plant’s 

cooling system. Provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Plant Hardiness Zone. 

C Site and vicinity, describe: 

- local soil types 

- water and sediment quality 

- vegetation and animal communities 

- physiographic habitats (such as upland forest, swamps marshes, wetlands, rivers, streams, 

etc.) 

- significant water bodies that intercept or parallel transmission lines

Include topographic maps and descriptions, as appropriate that contain site and in-scope 

transmission lines and stream crossings, any significant natural heritage areas, and known 

locations or historic sightings of migratory bird rookeries, etc. 

C Potentially affected water bodies, describe a: (Aquatic Ecology) 

- location of site concerning the principle nearby water bodies that it affects 

- the source and receiving water bodies in terms of relationship to the watershed, size, 

shoreline, bathymetry, tidal and net flows including seasonal or occasional variations, bottom 

types (e.g., sand, silt, clay, sandy silt, silty sand, etc.), and both sediment and water quality 

- location of main channel, dams, and flood control 

- additional uses of the water body other than for cooling water. 

C Transmission Lines and ROWs to first substation, describe: (Terrestrial Ecology) 

- transmission lines and ROWs including length of transmission lines or portions of lines and 

width of ROWs 

- ROW maintenance plans, procedures, or protocols and pesticides and herbicides used in 

ROW maintenance, including descriptions of how and when they are released 

- locations where ROWs cross wetlands and waterfowl areas as well as other vulnerable or 

otherwise important terrestrial habitats (also map these areas) 

Additionally, reviewer should provide brief descriptions of the following: 

C the environment before European settlement and the transition of the environment on the site 

from before plant construction to the present. Include major changes or modifications to the land 

and/or water bodies over the projected life of the plant. Typical things to describe include 

channelization, navigation, pollution, habitat degradation or fragmentation, urbanization, 

development, and pond or reservoir creation. Include pollution control or other programs 

designed for environmental improvement. 
July 2009 3.5-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C major wildlife living around site in the past and which species remain today. Refer to historic and 

cultural resources when possible to avoid repeating information. 

C occurrence, location, and description of communities and habitats of special interest in the 

vicinity of plant, such as wetlands, natural heritage areas and other areas of public or scientific 

interest, or others that may be particularly sensitive or susceptible either directly or indirectly to 

the effects of continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment in 

support of license renewal. 

C occurrence of invasive species in the vicinity of the plant and documentation of any management 

activities undertaken by the plant to control such species. 

C wildlife management plans and best management practices (if applicable), including pesticides 

and herbicides used routinely to maintain the site. 

The reviewer should summarize the following, if applicable: 

C studies or monitoring programs of ecological resources on or in the vicinity of the site in terms of 

when and where conducted and by whom, the objective (why conducted), the biological entities 

or attributes chosen for study, methods and results (how conducted) applicable to this license 

renewal application, and what data or data summaries might be available for NRC review 

C information on Federally-listed threatened, endangered species, or candidate species and critical 

habitat and State-listed species and habitat that could be found on the site or in the vicinity of the 

site, including the area within the applicant’s transmission line corridor. For such species, 

summarize historical occurrences, population size and trends, critical habitat, and potential 

habitat. Describe any license renewal and refurbishment activities as well as any modifications to 

plant operation that may affect such species and habitats. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of ecological resources are based on the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) Status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 

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

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

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

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.5-4 July 2009

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(6), concerning the environmental impact statement will succinctly 

describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the 

statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on 

important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

C Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668, et seq.) concerning the prohibition of taking, 

possessing, selling, transporting, importing, or exporting the bald or golden eagle, dead or alive, 

without a permit 

C Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531, et seq.) concerning identifying threatened and 

endangered species, critical habitats, formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and/or National Marine Fisheries Service 

C Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 USC 661, et seq.) concerning consideration of 

fish and wildlife resources in the planning of development projects that affect water resources 

C Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703, et seq.) concerning declaring that it is unlawful to take, 

import, export, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird. Feathers, or other parts 

of nests and eggs, and products made from migratory birds are also covered by the Act. ATake@ is 

defined as pursuing, hunting, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, or 

collecting. 

C Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A)) concerning natural resources, 

and land or water use of the coastal zone 

C Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 (33 USC 1251, et seq.) concerning restoration and 

maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources 

C Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 USC 1361, et seq.) concerning the protection of 

marine mammals 

C Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 USC 1401, et seq.) concerning 

dumping of dredged material into the ocean 

C Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899 (33 USC 403, et seq.) concerning the deposition 

of debris in navigable waters, or tributaries to such waters. 

C The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended, (16 USC 1801, 

et seq.) established the Essential Fish Habitat provisions to identify and protect important habitats 

of federally managed marine and anadromous fish species. 
July 2009 3.5-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

C Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. 1, Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations

(NRC 1977), contains technical information for the design and execution of terrestrial 

environmental studies, the results of which may be appropriate for inclusion in the applicant=s 

environmental report. The reviewer should ensure that the appropriate results are included in the 

environmental report. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating terrestrial 

and aquatic resource impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated 

with license renewal. 

This description of the environment includes the ecological resources potentially affected by current and 

future nuclear plant operations. Ecological resources include members and attributes of aquatic, 

terrestrial, riparian, and wetland plant and animal communities. Wetlands and riparian habitats are the 

interface between aquatic and terrestrial habitats and are defined as follows. NRC generally includes 

wetland and riparian habitats with terrestrial. According to the EPA (1993): 

Wetlands are defined as– 

“Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency 

and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands 

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.“ 

Riparian areas are defined as– 

“Vegetated ecosystems along a waterbody through which energy, materials, and water pass. 

Riparian areas characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic flooding and 

influence from the adjacent waterbody. These systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some 

combination of these two land forms; they do not in all cases have all of the characteristics 

necessary for them to be classified as wetlands.” 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The reviewer should ensure that the regional and site-specific terrestrial and aquatic ecological 

information is adequate to serve as a basis for assessment of the effects of continued plant operations and 

refurbishment associated with license renewal. The following review steps are suggested: 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.5-6 July 2009

Terrestrial Review: 

(1) Describe the terrestrial communities from available information such as present and past studies, 

Federal and state sources, etc., and include representative species of plants, mammals, birds, 

reptiles, amphibians, and insects. 

(2) Note any endemic species, sensitive or indicator species, or keystone species. 

(3) Include a description of bird species that nest within the area, migratory species, known migratory 

bird rookeries, and, if applicable, location of the site in relation to any nearby flyways. 

(4) Describe the types of vegetative communities found on and in the vicinity of the site, especially 

any delineated wetlands or potential wetland habitat. 

(5) Include a summary of any available botanical surveys that have been conducted on or in the 

vicinity of the site. 

Aquatic Review: 

(1) Describe the aquatic communities from available information such as present and past studies, 

Federal and State sources, etc. 

(2) Focus on a subset of representative and important species, such as those with the following 

characteristics: potential or reported susceptibility to impingement and entrainment; dominance, 

commonness, or rarity in numbers or biomass; importance to the structure and function of the 

ecosystem, such as keystone species, important trophic links, potential for trophic cascade, or 

habitat formers or modifiers; indicators of water quality or “ecosystem health”; important 

recreational or commercial fishing and shellfishing; fish consumption advisories; and ecosystem 

services. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer should ensure that the ecological information is adequate as a basis for assessment of the 

effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. The reviewer 

should consult with appropriate Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian tribes to 

assess the accuracy of the soils, geology, seismology information, if necessary. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
July 2009 3.5-7 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended, 16 USC 668 et seq. 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A) 

Endangered Species Act, as amended, 16 USC 1531 et seq. 

Executive Order 11988, AFloodplain Management.@

Executive Order 11990, AProtection of Wetlands.@

Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1977, 33 USC 1251, et seq. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment, 16 USC 661 et seq. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended, 16 USC 1801 et seq. 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 16 USC 1361, et seq. 

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 33 USC 1401, et seq. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as amended, 16 USC 703 et seq. 

Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act of 1899, 33 USC 403, et seq. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for 

Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002 (January 1993). Office of 

Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds. Chapter 7: Management Measures for Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and 

Vegetated Treatment Systems, Glossary. Available at http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/ Accessed 

on July 3, 2008. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1977. Regulatory Guide 4.11, Rev. 1, Terrestrial 

Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations. Washington, D.C. August. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.5-8 July 2009

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.6-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

3.6 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for identifying and describing 

historic and cultural resources that may be impacted by license renewal. Historic and cultural resources 

include prehistoric and historic era archaeological sites, historic structures, and traditional cultural 

properties. To identify historic and cultural resources at a nuclear plant site, the staff should review 

historic building surveys, archaeological surveys, historical research, surveys of cultural groups with a 

history of using the area in and around the plant site, and consultations with State Historic Preservation 

Office [SHPO], Tribal Historic Preservation Office [THPO], Office of the State Archaeologist, American 

Indian Tribes, and other knowledgeable groups and agencies . Included in the identification process is an 

assessment of historic and cultural resources, as determined by criteria in the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and in 

consultation with affected Indian Tribes. The descriptions of the historic and cultural resources should be 

of sufficient detail to permit subsequent staff assessment and evaluation of specific impacts of the 

proposed action. 

The scope should include (1) an analysis of the effects of continued plant operations during the license 

renewal term and refurbishment on historic and cultural resources within the area of potential effect 

(APE) in sufficient detail to allow the reviewer to predict the potential for impacts on these resources and 

evaluate the significance of impacts and (2) preparation of input to the supplemental environmental 

impact statement (SEIS).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.6-2 July 2009

Historic properties means any prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects 

included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by 

the Secretary of the Interior (see 36 CFR 60). This term includes properties of traditional religious and 

cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the National 

Register criteria. The term also includes archaeological resources, such as artifacts, records, and remains, 

that are related to and located within such prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, or structures. 

Data and Information Needs

The type of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plant-specific 

factors, the amount of previous survey work conducted in the area; and the level of interest from agencies, 

tribes, and other consulting parties. The following data or information should be included in this section, 

and should be obtained from the applicant’s environmental report (ER), as well as other information 

collected during verification and assessment: 

• a summary of the cultural history of the area, from the beginning of human settlement to the early 

20th century. 

• a summary of the land use history at the plant site. 

• a description of the cultural resource sensitivity within a 10-mile radius of the plant boundaries. 

• a copy of the site map that identifies the APE if historic and cultural resources were to be found. 

• a summary of previous cultural resource investigations conducted onsite or within the immediate 

area and the types of resources that have been discovered during previous research. 

• a description of the historic and cultural resources identified within the APE that are in or eligible 

for inclusion in the NRHP or are included in State or local registers or inventories of historic and 

cultural resources (from the ER and consultation with Federal, State, regional, local, and affected 

American Indian Tribes). 

• a description (if the plant site has not been surveyed) of the information from the applicant’s 

reconnaissance or pedestrian surveys, and consultation efforts with the SHPO, appropriate 

American Indian Tribes, or members of the public the applicant used to assess historic and 

cultural resources within the APE. 

• information related to past evaluations of known historic and cultural resources per significance 

criteria for eligibility for the NRHP (36 CFR 60), and associated consultations with the SHPO, 

local preservation officials, or American Indian Tribal officials. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of historic and cultural resources impacts during the renewal term are 

based on the relevant requirements of the following: 
July 2009 3.6-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) Status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C Specifically, 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K) requires all applicants to assess whether any historic 

properties would be affected by the proposed project 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(6), concerning the environmental impact statement will succinctly 

describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the 

statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on 

important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

• 36 CFR 800 defines the process by which a Federal agency meets the requirements under 

Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA to ensure that agency assisted or -licensed undertakings 

consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties included in or eligible for the NRHP. 

Under this regulation, the NRC is required to identify and evaluate all historic properties in the 

project area and take measures to mitigate adverse effects as being significant. As allowed under 

36 CFR 800.8(c), Section 106 integration with NEPA reviews. 

• 36 CFR 63 contains guidance by which historic properties are evaluated and determined eligible 

for listing on the NRHP. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating historic and 

cultural resource impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with 

license renewal. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.6-4 July 2009

III. REVIEW PROCEDURE 

The description of historic and cultural resources should form the basis for the impact assessment review 

described by ESRP Section 4.6 to establish the historical, cultural, and archaeological characteristics that 

are most likely to be affected by license renewal. The following review steps are suggested: 

(1) Review the discussion of potential impacts continued plant operations and refurbishment 

activities associated with license renewal on historic and cultural resources in the GEIS to 

identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the base 

for evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

(2) Review the historic and cultural resource identification and impact assessment prepared by the 

applicant in the ER. Develop a list of questions that arise during the review of the ER. 

(3) Coordinate with the environmental project manager (EPM) to identify consulting parties (i.e., 

SHPO/THPO, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), appropriate Indian tribes, 

and any other group or organization that that been identified; as the review progresses, 

additional letters could be sent to other interested groups). 

(4) Contact the appropriate SHPO and arrange for a meeting during the site audit to explain the 

proposed action, the NRC’s approach to conducting the cultural resource assessment (Section 

106 integration with NEPA), explain the opportunities for the SHPO to comment, and capture 

any issues, concerns, and expectations. If the SHPO has comments or information that add to 

or amplify that which was provided by the applicant, request that the SHPO forward, by letter 

to the staff, these additional comments. The SHPO can alert the staff to relevant state and local 

laws, orders, ordinances, or regulations aimed at the preservation of cultural resources 

applicable to the proposed action. Be sure to discuss the following: 

- the APE 

- the data necessary to accomplish the impact assessment 

- additional organizations or individuals that might be able to assist in identifying and 

locating historic and cultural resources. 

- guidance on consulting with the appropriate Indian Tribes 

(5) Contact the State Archaeological Site Files Office and the State Historic Buildings Survey 

Office and arrange to review the files for any recorded sites or buildings in and adjacent to the 

APE, and information concerning the cultural resource surveys that have been conducted. In 

many cases, the site files are located at the SHPO’s office. The sites and buildings identified 

should match the findings presented in the ER. 

(6) Review comments received during the scoping process to identify any issues associated with 

historic and cultural resources. 

(7) Collect additional information during the site audit. Review cultural resource assessments 
July 2009 3.6-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

prepared by the applicant and those prepared previously. Tour the APE to see locations where 

pre-construction and construction activities would occur; visit any known sites with the APE. 

(8) Compare the information provided by the applicant with that obtained from the SHPO and the 

NRHP and resolve any differences in identification and location of historic and cultural 

resources within the APE. 

(9) Compare the areas of the plant site potentially affected by refurbishment activities with known 

cultural resource surveys to determine if the area has been surveyed before and whether there is 

potential for important cultural resources to be located there. Factors to consider include 

whether area have been heavily disturbed in the past, availability of water or other critical 

resources, and other environmental characteristics such as slope. 

(10) Document the findings in the SEIS. Ensure that any sensitive archaeological reports are 

withheld from public disclosure per Section 304 of the NHPA or have been redacted. All 

redactions must be approved by the SHPO. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The amount of information presented in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of the 

effects of continued plant operations, refurbishment, and decommissioning activities on historic and 

cultural resources. The reviewer should verify that historic and cultural resources have been identified 

and described in sufficient detail to provide the basis for subsequent analysis and assessment of these 

impacts. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

36 CFR 60, ANational Register of Historic Places, National Parks Service, Department of the Interior.@

36 CFR 800, AProtection of Historic Properties.@
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.6-6 July 2009

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 16 USC 470 et seq. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 1983. “Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards and Guidelines,” 48 Federal Register, 44716-44742. 

U.S. National Park Service (NPS). 1985. “Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation 

Planning.” National Register, Bulletin 24, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. National Park Service (NPS). 1990. “Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties.” National Register, Bulletin No. 38, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, 

D.C. 

U.S. National Park Service (NPS). 1991. “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” 

National Register, Bulletin No. 15, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

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

Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1. 

Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications. 

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.7-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applications.” 

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

 

3.7 SOCIOECONOMICS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) guides the review and consideration of socioeconomic 

factors that could be directly or indirectly affected by changes in nuclear power plant operations. A 

nuclear power plant and the people and communities surrounding it can be described as a dynamic 

socioeconomic system. The nuclear power plant requires people, goods, and services from local 

communities to operate the plant; and the communities, in turn, provide the people, goods, and services to 

run the plant. Plant employees residing in the community receive income from the plant in the form of 

wages, salaries, and benefits, and spend this income on goods and services within the community thereby 

creating additional opportunities for employment and income. People and businesses in the community 

also receive income for the goods and services sold to the power plant. Payments for these goods and 

services create additional employment and income opportunities in the community. The measure of a 

communities’ ability to support the operational demands of a power plant depends on the ability of the 

community to respond to changing socioeconomic conditions. 

The socioeconomics region of influence (ROI) is defined by the areas where plant employees and their 

families reside, spend their income, and use their benefits, thereby affecting the economic conditions of 

the region. The following sections describe the housing, public services, offsite land use, visual aesthetics 

and noise, population demography, and the economy in the ROI surrounding the plant site. 

C The scope should include the establishment of the nature and extent of present and planned 

socioeconomic factors within these areas that might be impacted or modified as a result of 

continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Descriptions of 

minority and low-income populations, their locations, practices, and customs would have to be
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.7-2 July 2009

C addressed in this ESRP. Those features of the socioeconomic environment that are not expected 

to result in socioeconomic impacts should be discussed briefly and in a summary manner. 

Data and Information Needs

The reviewer should consult the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1), before undertaking extensive data 

collection since socioeconomic impacts may not require an extensive data collection effort. 

The types of socioeconomic data and information needed for analysis would depend on nuclear power 

plant site- and plant-specific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C most recent annual total number of permanent plant workers and county of residence average 

number of plant outage workers, frequency, and duration (in days) 

C U.S. Bureau of Census information and data related to the ROI (by county) economic base, 

including: 

- housing: total number of units, number of occupied units, number of vacant units, vacancy 

rate, and median value 

- demographic information by race and ethnicity and population growth forecasts by county 

- transient (seasonal) population including students attending colleges and universities within 

50 miles of the plant 

- civilian labor force by county 

- largest industrial employment by industrial sector category (North American Industry 

Classification System [NAICS] code) 

- median household income and per capita income 

- percent of families and individuals living below the Census poverty threshold 

- unemployment 

C public water supply system information: by source (groundwater or surface water, average daily 

production, system design capacity, and population served 

C information about the local public schools: school district(s), total enrollment 

C information on local transportation systems: condition of site access roads, average annual daily 

traffic volume and road capacity 

C information on offsite land use 

C visual description of the plant 

C noise information 

C Census of Agriculture (U.S. Department of Agriculture) information on migrant farm labor in the 

ROI (by county), including: 

- number of farms and farm workers working less than 150 days 

- number of farms reporting migrant farm labor 

- number of farms with hired farm labor 
July 2009 3.7-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C list of major employers in ROI 

C tax payment information including local tax authorities (i.e., county, municipality, and public 

school district) directly affected by plant operations 

C public recreational facilities, including present and projected capacity and percentage of 

utilization 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for evaluating community characteristics are based on meeting the following 

regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) Status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(6), concerning the environmental impact statement will 

succinctly describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and 

analyses in the statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with 

less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and 

attention will be concentrated on important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating 

socioeconomic impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with 

license renewal. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.7-4 July 2009

III. REVIEW PROCEDURE 

The reviewer=s analysis of socioeconomic factors should be closely linked with the impact-assessment 

review described in ESRP Chapter 4.7 to establish the socioeconomic factors most likely to be affected by 

license renewal. The following review steps are suggested: 

(1) Review the socioeconomics discussion in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the 

conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluation of information identified by 

the applicant and the public. 

(2) Determine if there is new information that should be evaluated. The following sources of 

information should be included in the search for new information: 

y the applicant=s ER. In reviewing the applicant=s ER, consider any new information. 

y records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

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

(3) Describe the socioeconomic characteristics of the counties within the ROI. 

(4) Address the following factors in the screening process to identify population influx: 

- labor force 

- transportation 

- housing availability 

- public services 

- regional economy 

(5) Describe potentially impacted areas of the ROI and their associated communities in the following 

terms (the extent and detail of the descriptions should be in proportion to the magnitude of the 

impacts anticipated, and only those terms necessary for subsequent impact evaluation should be 

used): 

- demography 

- housing 

- economic base 

- social services and public facilities 

- local transportation 

- public water supply 

- education 

- recreation 

- taxation 

(6) The reviewer should ensure that the socioeconomic information forms a basis for an assessment 

of impacts in the SEIS. 
July 2009 3.7-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

(7) Based on the results of the assessments listed above, prepare the following for the SEIS: 

C a brief description of the work force required during continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term and refurbishment 

C a discussion (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) of the local population(s) and public 

infrastructure and services. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The amount of information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of the potential 

effects of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal on public 

services. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.8-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

3.8 HUMAN HEALTH 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

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

impacts of nuclear power plants. The scope includes descriptions of the radioactive waste management 

program and radioactive effluent releases from the applicant=s plant. 

Data and Information Needs 

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

C a description of the liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste management and effluent control 

systems and information on effluents released into the environment or stored onsite 

C historical data on occupational doses to plant workers 

C a description of the radiological environmental monitoring program and environmental data (from 

the applicant=s annual Environmental Operating Reports) 

C historical maximum individual doses (from the applicant=s annual Radioactive Effluent Release 

Reports) 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.8-2 July 2009

C information on the changes in radiological impacts from continued plant operations during the 

renewal term. 

C information on the radiological impacts of refurbishment 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

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

consistent the following regulation: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) Status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(6), concerning the environmental impact statement will succinctly 

describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the 

statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on 

important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating human 

health impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment activities associated with license 

renewal. 
July 2009 3.8-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The SEIS section to be prepared on the radiological impacts is informational in nature. No specific 

analysis is required. The following review steps are suggested: 

(1) Review the discussion of Human Health in Section 3.9 in the GEIS. 

(2) Obtain historic information on releases of radioactive materials from the applicant=s plant. 

(3) Obtain information on expected releases and exposures from refurbishment activities, if any. 

(4) Obtain information on changes in releases and exposures from operations during the renewal 

term, if any. 

(5) Obtain information on the radiological environmental monitoring program. 

(6) Prepare a section describing the radiological programs and systems for the SEIS. The use of 

tables may assist data organization in the SEIS. This section should include summary 

descriptions of the applicant=s radiological environmental monitoring program. It should also 

include a discussion of doses members of the public and plant workers for the most recent 

calendar year and the trend of such doses for the most recent 5 years of plant operation. Doses 

should be compared with relevant regulatory requirements, e.g., Appendix I to 10 CFR 50, 10 

CFR 20.1301(d), and 10 CFR 20.1201. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The level of detail of SEIS input would depend on plant- and site-specific factors. The information 

included in the SEIS should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitudes of the expected impacts. 

The reviewer should verify that the radiological impact descriptions are consistent, accurate, and given in 

sufficient detail to serve the needs of the reviewers for ESRP/S1s in other chapters. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.8-4 July 2009

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.9-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

3.9 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

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

environmental impact statement (SEIS) section describing the applicant=s waste management and effluent 

control systems. 

The scope includes describing the existing systems, describing any changes to the systems to be made 

during the license renewal term or refurbishment, and listing the effluent release points. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential 

impacts. The following data or information may be needed: 

C a description of the liquid and gaseous radioactive, and the nonradioactive, waste management 

and effluent control systems 

C identification of sources of radioactive and nonradioactive liquid and gaseous waste material 

within the plant 

C identification of principal release points for radioactive and nonradioactive materials to the 

environment and historical information on composition of discharges
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.9-2 July 2009

C identification of any onsite direct radiation sources outside of the plant (e.g., independent fuel 

storage, low-level radioactive waste storage, or storage of used steam generators) 

C information on the changes in radiological and nonradiological waste impacts from operation that 

are expected during the renewal term 

C documentation of consultation with agencies responsible for permitting nonradioactive waste 

systems for atmospheric, liquid, or solid effluents (e.g., National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System permits). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP/S1 

are consistent with the following regulation: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) Status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(6), concerning the environmental impact statement will succinctly 

describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the 

statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on 

important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 
July 2009 3.9-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating waste 

management and pollution prevention programs associated with continued plant operations and 

refurbishment activities associated with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared on the radioactive waste management and effluent control systems is 

informational in nature. No specific analysis is required. The following review steps are suggested: 

(1) Review the discussion of radioactive waste management and effluent control systems in the 

GEIS. 

(2) Obtain a description of the radioactive waste management and effluent control systems for the 

applicant=s plant. The description should include identification of release points. 

(3) Obtain information on changes to the radioactive waste management and effluent control systems 

that would affect releases and exposures from continued plant operations during the license 

renewal term. 

(4) Obtain information on planned changes to the radioactive waste management and effluent control 

systems during refurbishment. 

(5) Prepare a section describing the radioactive waste management and effluent control systems for 

the SEIS. This section should include general descriptions of gaseous, liquid, and solid waste 

processing systems. It should also generally describe the applicant=s gaseous and liquid effluent 

monitoring systems. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would depend on plant- and site-specific factors. The level 

of detail of information included in the SEIS should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitudes of 

the expected impacts. The reviewer should verify that the radioactive waste management and effluent 

control system descriptions are consistent, accurate, and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the 

reviewers for ESRP/S1s in other chapters. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.9-4 July 2009

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.9.1-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

3.9.1 NONRADIOACTIVE WASTE SYSTEMS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

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

environmental impact statement (SEIS) section describing the applicant=s nonradioactive waste 

management and control systems. 

The scope includes describing the existing systems, describing any changes to the systems to be made 

during the license renewal term or refurbishment. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential 

impacts. The following data or information may be needed: 

• a description of the nonradioactive effluent treatment systems 

• identification of sources and types of nonradioactive liquid and solid waste material within the 

plant 

• identification of principal release points for nonradioactive materials to the environment and 

historical information on composition of discharges
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.9.1-2 July 2009

• documentation of the permits issued by the agencies responsible for permitting nonradioactive 

waste systems for atmospheric, liquid, or solid effluents (e.g., National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permits) 

• a description of a pollution prevention and waste minimization program, if available 

• information on the changes in nonradiological impacts from operation that are expected during 

the renewal term. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory and descriptive paragraphs prepared under this ESRP/S1 

are consistent with the following regulation: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) Status of compliance. The environmental report shall list all Federal permits, 

licenses, approvals and other entitlements which must be obtained in connection with the 

proposed action and shall describe the status of compliance with these requirements. The 

environmental report shall also include a discussion of the status of compliance with applicable 

environmental quality standards and requirements including, but not limited to, applicable zoning 

and land-use regulations, and thermal and other water pollution limitations or requirements which 

have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, and local agencies having responsibility for 

environmental protection. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(6), concerning the environmental impact statement will succinctly 

describe the environment to be affected by the proposed action. Data and analyses in the 

statement will be commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material 

summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. Effort and attention will be concentrated on 

important issues; useless bulk will be eliminated. 
July 2009 3.9.1-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of a section describing the affected 

environment for the SEIS that provides background information to be used in evaluating 

nonradioactive waste management systems associated with continued plant operations and 

refurbishment activities associated with license renewal. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared on the radioactive waste management and effluent control systems is 

informational in nature. No specific analysis is required. The following review steps are suggested: 

(1) Review the discussion of nonradioactive waste systems in the GEIS. 

(2) Obtain a description of the nonradioactive wastes and effluent control systems for the applicant’s 

plant. The description should include identification of the type of waste generated, regulatory 

permits, release points, storage, and disposal. 

(3) Obtain information on changes to the nonradioactive waste and effluent control systems that 

would affect releases from continued plant operations during the renewal term. 

(4) Obtain information on planned changes to the nonradioactive waste and effluent control systems 

during refurbishment. 

(5) Obtain a description of the pollution prevention and waste minimization program or policy, if 

available. 

Prepare a section describing the nonradioactive waste and effluent control systems for the SEIS. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would depend on plant- and site-specific factors. The level 

of detail of information included in the SEIS should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitudes of 

the expected impacts. The reviewer should verify that the nonradioactive waste management and effluent 

control system descriptions are consistent, accurate, and given in sufficient detail to serve the needs of the 

reviewers for ESRP/S1s in other chapters. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.9.1-4 July 2009

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 3.10-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

3.10 REFERENCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the listing of references cited in 

the SEIS chapter on the affected environment. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the following regulation: 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The environmental project manager (EPM) should contact reviewers for ESRP/S1 3.1 through 3.9 and 

compile a list of references cited in the SEIS sections. The citations should be checked for completeness.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 3.10-2 July 2009

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

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

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.70, ADraft environmental impact statementCgeneral.@
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.0-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATING ACTIONS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

The following sections address the environmental consequences of (1) the Proposed Action, which 

includes the potential impacts from continued plant operations and refurbishment; and (2) the 

environmental consequences of alternatives to the Proposed Action, which includes the potential impacts 

from the construction and operation of Fossil Fuel Energy Alternatives, New Nuclear Alternative, 

Renewable Alternatives, and Alternatives to Reduce or Avoid Adverse Environmental Impacts (e.g., 

constructing and operating a new cooling system). This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) 

provides guidance for the staff=s introduction to the section of the SEIS that reviews the environmental 

impacts of continued operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. 

The scope of this plan introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 4.1 through 4.12. 

It includes a description of the environmental issues associated with continued operation during the 

renewal term and refurbishment discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1), identifies those issues 

that the staff has determined to be inapplicable to the applicant=s plant because of plant design, and directs 

readers to SEIS sections that discuss the applicable issues. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

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

the following regulations:
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.0-2 July 2009 

C 10 CFR 51.45(c) Analysis. The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, 

including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives 

eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be 

confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of 

information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

C Appendix B to Subpart A–Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants” 
July 2009 4.0-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to the environmental impacts of continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared is informational in nature; no specific analysis of data is required. Environmental issues associated with continued operations during the renewal term and refurbishment considered 

in the GEIS that were determined to be Category 1 (see General Introduction to this Volume) issues are 

listed in Table 4.0-1. 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 Issues 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Land Use 

Onsite land use 1 SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with the license renewal term 

would be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and 

would involve only land that is controlled by the licensee. 

Offsite land use 1 SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal 

term. 

Offsite land use in 

transmission line rightsof-way (ROWs) 

1 SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal 

term would continue with no change in land use restrictions. 

Visual Resources

Aesthetic impacts 1 SMALL. No important changes to the visual appearance of plant 

structures or transmission lines are expected from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal 

term. 

Air Quality

Air quality effects of 

transmission lines 

1 SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is 

insignificant and does not contribute measurably to ambient 

levels of these gases. 

Noise 

Noise impacts 1 SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory guidelines 

for offsite receptors during continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with the license renewal term. 

Geology and Soils 

Impacts of nuclear plants 

on geology and soils 

1 SMALL. Impacts on geology and soils would be small at all 

nuclear plants if best management practices were employed to 

reduce erosion associated with continued operations and 

refurbishment. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.0-4 July 2009 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Surface Water 

Surface-water use and 

quality 

1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be negligible if best 

management practices are employed to control soil erosion and 

spills. Water use associated with continued operation and 

refurbishment projects for license renewal would not increase 

significantly or would be reduced if a plant outage is necessary to 

accomplish the action. 

Altered current patterns at 

intake and discharge 

structures 

1 SMALL. Altered current patterns would be limited to the area in 

the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts 

have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Altered salinity gradients 1 SMALL. Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to the 

area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These 

impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Altered thermal 

stratification of lakes 

1 SMALL. Effects on thermal stratification would be limited to the 

area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These 

impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Scouring caused by 

discharged cooling water 

1 SMALL. Scouring effects would be limited to the area in the 

vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts 

have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Discharge of metals in 

cooling system effluent 

1 SMALL. Discharges of metals have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-towerbased heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily 

mitigated at other plants. Discharges are monitored as part of the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit process. 

Discharge of biocides, 

sanitary wastes, and 

minor chemical spills 

1 SMALL. The effects of these discharges are regulated by State 

and Federal environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored 

as part of the NPDES permit process. These impacts have been 

small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Water use conflicts 

(plants with once-through 

cooling systems) 

1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants with once-through heat 

dissipation systems. 

Effects of dredging on 

water quality 

1 SMALL. Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the 

vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge 

shipping has not been found to be a problem for surface water 

quality. Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

Temperature effects on 

sediment transport 

capacity 

1 SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a 

problem during the license renewal term. 

Groundwater 

Groundwater use and 

quality 

1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from continued 

operations and refurbishment activities associated with the 

license renewal term. The application of best management 

practices for handling any materials produced or used during 

activities would reduce impacts. 

Groundwater use 

conflicts (plants that 

withdraw less than 100 

gallons per minute [gpm]) 

1 SMALL. Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not 

expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts. 
July 2009 4.0-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Groundwater – Continued 

Groundwater quality 

degradation resulting 

from water withdrawals 

1 SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear power 

plants would not contribute significantly to groundwater quality 

degradation. 

Groundwater quality 

degradation (plants with 

cooling ponds in salt 

marshes) 

1 SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could degrade 

groundwater quality; however, because groundwater in salt 

marshes is brackish, this is not a concern for plants located in salt 

marshes. 

Terrestrial Resources 

Exposure of terrestrial 

organisms to 

radionuclides 

1 SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms are expected to be well 

below exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms. 

Cooling system impacts 

on terrestrial resources 

(plants with once-through 

cooling systems or 

cooling ponds) 

1 SMALL. No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or animals have 

been reported as a result of increased water temperatures, 

fogging, humidity, or reduced habitat quality. Due to the low 

concentrations of contaminants in cooling system effluents, 

uptake and accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of 

wildlife exposed to the contaminated water or aquatic food 

sources are not expected to be significant issues. 

Cooling tower impacts on 

vegetation (plants with 

cooling towers) 

1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased 

humidity associated with cooling tower operation have the 

potential to affect adjacent vegetation, but these impacts have 

been small at operating nuclear power plants and are not 

expected to change over the license renewal term. 

Bird collisions with 

cooling towers and 

transmission lines 

1 SMALL. Bird collisions with cooling towers and transmission 

lines occur at rates that are unlikely to affect local or migratory 

populations. 

Transmission line ROW 

management impacts on 

terrestrial resources 

1 SMALL. Continued ROW management during the license 

renewal term is expected to keep terrestrial communities in their 

current condition. Application of best management practices 

would reduce the potential for impacts. 

Electromagnetic fields on 

flora and fauna (plants, 

agricultural crops, 

honeybees, wildlife, 

livestock) 

1 SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on 

terrestrial flora and fauna have been identified. Such effects are 

not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Aquatic Resources 

Impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic 

organisms (plants with 

cooling towers) 

1 SMALL. Impingement and entrainment rates are lower at plants 

that use closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers because the 

rates and volumes of water withdrawal needed for makeup are 

minimized. 

Thermal impacts on 

aquatic organisms (plants 

with cooling towers) 

1 SMALL. Thermal effects associated with plants that use cooling 

towers are small because of the reduced amount of heated 

discharge. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.0-6 July 2009 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Aquatic Resources – Continued 

Effects of cooling water 

discharge on dissolved 

oxygen, gas 

supersaturation, and 

eutrophication 

1 SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number 

of operating nuclear power plants with once-through cooling 

systems but has been satisfactorily mitigated. Low dissolved 

oxygen was a concern at one nuclear power plant with a oncethrough cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. 

Eutrophication (nutrient loading) and resulting effects on 

chemical and biological oxygen demands have not been found to 

be a problem at operating nuclear power plants. 

Effects of nonradiological contaminants 

on aquatic organisms 

1 SMALL. Best management practices and discharge limitations 

of NPDES permits are expected to minimize the potential for 

impacts to aquatic resources. Accumulation of metal 

contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants 

but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy 

condenser tubes with those of another metal. 

Exposure of aquatic 

organisms to 

radionuclides 

1 SMALL. Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to be well 

below exposure guidelines developed to protect these aquatic 

organisms. 

Effects of dredging on 

aquatic organisms 

1 SMALL. Effects of dredging on aquatic resources tend to be of 

short duration (years or less) and localized. Dredging requires 

permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, state 

environmental agencies, and other regulatory agencies. 

Refurbishment impacts 

on aquatic resources 

1 SMALL. Refurbishment impacts with appropriate mitigation are 

not expected to change aquatic communities from their current 

condition. 

Impacts of transmission 

line ROW management 

on aquatic resources 

1 SMALL. Application of best management practices to ROW 

near aquatic systems would reduce the potential for impacts. 

Losses from predation, 

parasitism, and disease 

among organisms 

exposed to sublethal 

stresses 

1 SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected 

to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Stimulation of aquatic 

nuisance species (e.g., 

shipworms) 

1 SMALL. 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 during the license renewal term. 

Socioeconomics 

Employment and income, 

recreation and tourism 

1 SMALL. Although most nuclear plants have large numbers of 

employees with higher than average wages and salaries, 

employment and income impacts from continued operations and 

refurbishment are expected to be small. Nuclear plant operations, 

employee spending, power plant expenditures, and tax payments 

have an affect on local economies. Changes in plant operations, 

employment and expenditures would have a greater effect on 

rural economies than on semi-urban economies. 
July 2009 4.0-7 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Socioeconomics – Continued 

Tax revenues 1 SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local 

jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in 

lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on energy production. The 

amount of tax revenue paid during the license renewal term from 

continued operations and refurbishment is not expected to 

change, since the assessed value of the power plant, payments on 

energy production and PILOT payments are also not expected to 

change. 

Community services and 

education 

1 SMALL. Changes to local community and educational services 

would be small from continued operations and refurbishment 

associated with the license renewal term. With no increase in 

employment, 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. Changes in 

employment and tax payments would have a greater effect on 

jurisdictions receiving a large portion of annual revenues from 

the power plant than on jurisdictions receiving the majority of 

their revenues from other sources. 

Population and housing 1 SMALL. Changes to regional population and housing 

availability and value would be small from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with the license renewal term. 

With no increase in employment expected during the license 

renewal term, population and housing availability and values 

would not be affected by continued power plant operations. 

Changes in housing availability and value would have a greater 

effect on sparsely populated areas than areas with higher density 

populations. 

Transportation 1 SMALL. Changes to traffic volumes would be small from 

continued operations and refurbishment activities associated with 

the license renewal term. Changes in employment would have a 

greater effect on rural areas, with less developed local and 

regional networks. Impacts would be less noticeable in semiurban areas depending on the quality and extent of local access 

roads and the timing of plant shift changes when compared to 

typical local usage. 

Human Health 

Radiation exposures to 

the public 

1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal 

term are expected to continue at current levels, and would be well 

below regulatory limits. 

Radiation exposures to 

occupational workers 

1 SMALL. Occupational doses from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with the license renewal term are 

expected to be within the range of doses experienced during the 

current license term, and would continue to be well below 

regulatory limits. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.0-8 July 2009 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Human Health – Continued 

Human health impact 

from chemicals 

1 SMALL. Chemical hazards to workers would be minimized by 

observing good industrial hygiene practices. Chemical releases 

to the environment and the potential for impacts to the public are 

minimized by adherence to discharge limitations of NPDES 

permits. 

Microbiological hazards 

to plant workers 

1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be 

controlled by continued application of accepted industrial 

hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures. 

Chronic effects of 

electromagnetic fields 

(EMFs)5

N/A Uncertain impact. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered 

consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. 

EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic 

chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects 

cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. 

Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no 

generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. 

Physical occupational 

hazards 

1 SMALL. Occupational safety and health hazards are generic to 

all types of electrical generating stations, including nuclear power 

plants, and is of small significance if the workers adhere to safety 

standards and use protective equipment. 

Postulated Accidents 

Design-basis accidents 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental 

impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance for all 

plants. 

Solid Waste Management 

Low-level waste storage 

and disposal 

1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in 

place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure 

that the radiological impacts to the environment would remain 

small during the term of a renewed license. 

Onsite storage of spent 

nuclear fuel 

1 SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from 

an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated 

onsite 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 

1 For the high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal component of 

the fuel cycle, the EPA established a dose limit of 15 millirem 

(0.15 mSv) per year for the first 10,000 years and 100 millirem 

(1.0 mSv) per year between 10,000 years and 1 million years for 

offsite releases of radionuclides at the proposed repository at 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be 

sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, 

that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 

should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has 

not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent 

fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue is considered 

Category 1. 
July 2009 4.0-9 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Table 4.0-1. Category 1 Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Solid Waste Management – Continued 

Mixed-waste storage and 

disposal 

1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the 

facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling 

and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic 

materials for the public and the environment at all plants. 

License renewal would not increase the small, continuing risk to 

human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all 

plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental 

impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any 

individual plant at licensed sites are small. 

Nonradioactive waste 

storage and disposal 

1 SMALL. No changes to systems that generate nonradioactive 

waste are anticipated during the license renewal term. Facilities 

and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling, 

storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure to toxic 

materials for the public and the environment at all plants. 

Uranium Fuel Cycle 

Offsite radiological 

impacts – individual 

impacts from other than 

the disposal of spent fuel 

and high-level waste 

1 SMALL. The impacts to the public from radiological exposures 

have been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of this 

part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts to individuals 

from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases including radon-222 

and technetium-99 would remain at or below the NRC’s 

regulatory limits. 

Offsite radiological 

impacts – collective 

impacts from other than 

the disposal of spent fuel 

and high-level waste 

1 There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to 

the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of 

estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not 

be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and 

operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. 

The Commission concludes that the collective impacts are 

acceptable. 

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be 

sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, 

that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 

should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has 

not assigned a single level of significance for the collective 

impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this issue is considered 

Category 1. 

Nonradiological impacts 

of the uranium fuel cycle 

1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 

resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant 

would be small. 

Transportation 1 SMALL. The impacts of transporting materials to and from 

uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the 

environment are expected to be small. 

Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning 

Termination of plant 

operations and 

decommissioning on all 

resources 

1 SMALL. License renewal is expected to have a negligible effect 

on the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning 

on all resources. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.0-10 July 2009 

Issues and processes common to all nuclear power plants having generic (i.e., the same or similar) 

environmental impacts are considered Category 1 issues. In the absence of new and significant 

information, the conclusions in the GEIS may be adopted in the SEIS. Category 2 issues are those issues 

that cannot be generically dispositioned and would require a plant-specific analysis to determine the level 

of impact. These issues are listed in Table 4.0-2. 

Table 4.0-2. Category 2 Issues 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Air Quality

Air quality (nonattainment and 

maintenance areas) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Air quality impacts of 

continued operations and refurbishment activities associated with 

the license renewal term are expected to be small. However, 

emissions during these activities could be a cause for concern at 

locations in or near air quality nonattainment or maintenance 

areas. The significance of the impact cannot be determined 

without considering the compliance status of each site and the 

activities that could occur. These impacts would be short-lived 

and cease after projects were completed. 

Emissions from testing emergency diesel generators and fire 

pumps and from routine operations of boilers used for space 

heating would not be a concern, even for those plants located in 

or adjacent to nonattainment areas. Although particulate 

emissions from cooling towers may be a concern for a very 

limited number of plants located in States that regulate such 

emissions, the impacts in even these worst-case situations have 

been small. 

Surface Water 

Water use conflicts 

(plants with cooling 

ponds or cooling towers 

using make-up water 

from a river with low 

flow) 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts could be of small or 

moderate significance, depending on makeup water requirements, 

water availability, and competing water demands. 

Groundwater 

Groundwater use 

conflicts (plants that 

withdraw more than 100 

gpm including those 

using Ranney wells) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Plants that withdraw more 

than 100 gpm could cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby 

groundwater users. 

Groundwater use 

conflicts (plants with 

closed-cycle cooling 

systems that withdraw 

makeup water from a 

river) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Water use conflicts could 

result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-flow 

conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge. The significance 

of impacts would depend on makeup water requirements, water 

availability, and competing water demands. 
July 2009 4.0-11 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Table 4.0-2. Category 2 Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Groundwater – Continued 

Groundwater quality 

degradation (plants with 

cooling ponds at inland 

sites) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Sites with closed-cycle 

cooling ponds could degrade groundwater quality. For plants 

located inland, the quality of the groundwater in the vicinity of 

the ponds could be affected. 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 and soil 

contamination 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Industrial practices involving the use 

of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals and 

unlined wastewater lagoons have the potential to contaminate site 

groundwater, soil, and subsoil. Contamination is subject to Stateand Environmental Protection Agency-regulated cleanup and 

monitoring programs. 

Radionuclides released to 

groundwater 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Underground system leaks of process 

water have been discovered in recent years at several plants. 

Groundwater protection programs have been established at all 

operating nuclear power plants. 

Terrestrial Resources 

Impacts of continued 

plant operations on 

terrestrial ecosystems 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Continued operations, 

refurbishment, and maintenance activities are expected to keep 

terrestrial communities in their current condition. Application of 

best management practices would reduce the potential for 

impacts. The magnitude of impacts would depend on the nature 

of the activity, the status of the resources that could be affected, 

and the effectiveness of mitigation. 

Water use conflicts with 

terrestrial resources 

(plants with cooling 

ponds or cooling towers 

using make-up water 

from a river with low 

flow) 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on terrestrial resources in 

riparian communities affected by water use conflicts could be of 

moderate significance in some situations. 

Aquatic Resources 

Impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic 

organisms (plants with 

once-through cooling 

systems or cooling ponds) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impacts of 

impingement and entrainment are small at many plants but may 

be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and 

cooling-pond cooling systems, depending on cooling system 

withdrawal rates and volumes and the aquatic resources at the 

site. 

Thermal impacts on 

aquatic organisms (plants 

with once-through 

cooling systems or 

cooling ponds) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Most of the effects 

associated with thermal discharges are localized and are not 

expected to affect overall stability of populations or resources. 

The magnitude of impacts, however, would depend on sitespecific thermal plume characteristics and the nature of aquatic 

resources in the area. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.0-12 July 2009 

Table 4.0-2. Category 2 Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Aquatic Resources – Continued 

Water use conflicts with 

aquatic resources (plants 

with cooling ponds or 

cooling towers using 

make-up water from a 

river with low flow) 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on instream communities 

affected by water use conflicts could be of moderate significance 

in some situations. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Essential Fish Habitat 

Threatened, endangered, 

and protected species and 

essential fish habitat 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The magnitude of impacts 

on threatened, endangered, and protected species 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 activities 

associated with license renewal. 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

Historic and cultural 

resources 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with the license renewal term 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 impacts and mitigation. See § 

51.14(a). 

Human Health 

Microbiological hazards 

to the public (plants with 

cooling ponds or canals 

or cooling towers that 

discharge to a river) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These organisms are not 

expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly 

at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals that discharge to 

rivers. Impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics. 

Electric shock hazards 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Electrical shock potential is 

of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in 

adherence with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). 

Without a review of each nuclear plant transmission line 

conformance with NESC criteria, it is not possible to determine 

the significance of the electrical shock potential. 

Postulated Accidents 

Severe accidents 2 SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric 

releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to 

groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe 

accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to 

mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that 

have not considered such alternatives. 
July 2009 4.0-13 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Table 4.0-2. Category 2 Issues (Cont.) 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Environmental Justice 

Minority and low-income 

populations 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts to minority and low-income 

populations and subsistence consumption would 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). 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts 2 Cumulative impacts of 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. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The environmental project manager (EPM) should prepare the introductory paragraphs for the SEIS. The 

paragraph(s) should introduce the issues to be covered by ESRPs 4.1 through 4.12. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

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

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

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.1-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and to reflect new information and experience. 

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

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

4.1 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of potential land-use 

and visual impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. 

Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of potential land-use and visual impacts of the plant 

during the license renewal term in the GEIS, (2) review the applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) 

identifying and addressing any new and significant information, and (4) preparing input to the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

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

C a description of the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on the land-use and visual impacts of the plant known to 

the applicant 

C new and potentially significant information on the land-use and visual impacts of the plant during 

the license renewal term identified by the public. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.1-2 July 2009

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of land-use impacts of transmission lines are based on the following 

regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(c) Analysis. The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

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

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

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

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, 

including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives 

eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be 

confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of 

information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

C Appendix B to Subpart A–Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants” 
July 2009 4.1-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to the land-use and visual impacts of continued plant operations during 

the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The following review steps are suggested: 

(1) Review the discussion of land-use and visual impacts in the GEIS to identify the information 

considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluating 

information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the 

renewal term transmission line issues considered in the GEIS. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Land Use 

Onsite land use 1 SMALL. Changes in onsite land use from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with the license renewal term 

would be a small fraction of any nuclear power plant site and 

would involve only land that is controlled by the licensee. 

Offsite land use 1 SMALL. Offsite land use would not be affected from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal 

term. 

Offsite land use in 

transmission line rightsof-way (ROWs) 

1 SMALL. Use of transmission line ROWs from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal 

term would continue with no change in land use restrictions. 

Visual Resources

Aesthetic impacts 1 SMALL. No important changes to the visual appearance of plant 

structures or transmission lines are expected from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal 

term. 

(2) Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The following 

sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

C the applicant=s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. In 

reviewing the applicant=s ER, consider the applicant=s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

C records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

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

C land-use requirements affecting the land use of the plant.. 

(3) Evaluate the significance of new information. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.1-4 July 2009

(4) Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 

information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions 

from the GEIS modified as necessary to account for significant new information. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential land-use and visual impacts of continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described 

in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

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

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

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.2-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

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

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.2 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of air quality and 

noise impacts from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. Air 

quality and noise impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of air quality and noise impacts in the GEIS, (2) review 

the applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Projected air quality impacts in non-attainment and maintenance areas from continued operations and 

refurbishment is a Category 2 issue in the GEIS and Table B-1 of Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51. A 

Category 2 issue requires a plant-specific review of this issue. Air quality effects of transmission lines 

and noise impacts are Category 1 issues. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.2-2 July 2009

C new information on the air quality impacts in non-attainment and maintenance areas identified by 

the public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of air quality and noise impacts are based on the following 

regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(c) Analysis. The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in 

accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

C 10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(F) If the applicant's plant is located in or near a nonattainment or 

maintenance area, an assessment of vehicle exhaust emissions anticipated at the time of peak 

refurbishment workforce must be provided in accordance with the Clean Air Act as amended. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics...The format provided in section 1(a) of 

appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 
July 2009 4.2-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, 

including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives 

eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be 

confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of 

information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

C Appendix B to Subpart A–Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants” 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to air quality and noise impacts of continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of air quality and noise impacts in the GEIS to identify the information 

considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluating 

information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the air 

quality and noise issues addressed in the GEIS. 

(2) Identify the positions of non-attainment and maintenance areas relative to the plant. If there are 

no non-attainment and maintenance areas within 50 miles (80 kilometers) of the plant, this should 

be explained in the ER, and no further analysis is required. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Air Quality

Air quality (nonattainment and 

maintenance areas) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Air quality impacts of 

continued operations and refurbishment activities associated with 

the license renewal term are expected to be small. However, 

emissions during these activities could be a cause for concern at 

locations in or near air quality nonattainment or maintenance 

areas. The significance of the impact cannot be determined 

without considering the compliance status of each site and the 

activities that could occur. These impacts would be short-lived 

and cease after projects were completed. 

Emissions from testing emergency diesel generators and fire 

pumps and from routine operations of boilers used for space 

heating would not be a concern, even for those plants located in 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.2-4 July 2009

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

or adjacent to nonattainment areas. Although particulate 

emissions from cooling towers may be a concern for a very 

limited number of plants located in States that regulate such 

emissions, the impacts in even these worst-case situations have 

been small. 

Air quality effects of 

transmission lines 

1 SMALL. Production of ozone and oxides of nitrogen is 

insignificant and does not contribute measurably to ambient 

levels of these gases. 

Noise 

Noise impacts 1 SMALL. Noise levels would remain below regulatory guidelines 

for offsite receptors during continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with the license renewal term. 

(3) Review the applicant=s analysis in the ER including the following: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information on the air quality and noise impacts known to the applicant 

C records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

C positions of non-attainment and maintenance areas relative to the plant, within a 50 mile (80 

kilometer) radius 

C identify the pollutant(s) and the severity for which the area is non-attainment or maintenance 

C description of meteorological conditions associated with air quality in each affected area, 

including how these conditions compare to regional climatology 

C estimation of onsite and offsite vehicle emissions resulting from continued plant operations 

and refurbishment activities 

C information on whether continued plant operations and refurbishment-related emissions 

would cause or contribute to exceeding threshold emission levels and any mitigation 

measures that could minimize adverse impacts on air quality. 

(4) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C identifies the positions of nonattainment and maintenance areas relative to the plant 

C identifies the pollutant or pollutants for which the area is in nonattainment or maintenance, as 

well as the severity of nonattainment 

C describes the meteorological conditions typically associated with poor air quality in each 

nonattainment and maintenance area, as well as the region 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment-related emissions, and 

whether changes in emissions would cause or contribute to exceeding threshold emission 

levels 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 
July 2009 4.2-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential air quality impacts on non-attainment and maintenance areas, effects of 

transmission lines, and noise impacts from continued plant operations and refurbishment. The 

information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.3-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.3 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of potential impacts of 

continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment associated with geology 

and soils. Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of geology and soils in the GEIS, (2) review the 

applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on geology and soils identified by the public and other information sources
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.3-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of geology and soil impacts are based on the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(c) Analysis. The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in 

accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

C 10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(F) If the applicant's plant is located in or near a nonattainment or 

maintenance area, an assessment of vehicle exhaust emissions anticipated at the time of peak 

refurbishment workforce must be provided in accordance with the Clean Air Act as amended. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics...The format provided in section 1(a) of 

appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, 

including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives 

eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be 

confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of 

information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

C Appendix B to Subpart A–Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants” 
July 2009 4.3-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to geology and soils impacts of continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of geology and soil impacts in the GEIS to identify the information 

considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluating 

information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the 

geology and soils issue addressed in the GEIS. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Geology and Soils 

Impacts of nuclear plants 

on geology and soils 

1 SMALL. Impacts on geology and soils would be small at all 

nuclear plants if best management practices were employed to 

reduce erosion associated with continued operations and 

refurbishment. 

(2) Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The following 

sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

C the applicant=s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. In 

reviewing the applicant=s ER, consider the applicant=s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

C records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

(3) Evaluate the significance of new information. 

(4) Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 

information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions 

from the GEIS modified as necessary to account for new and significant information. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential geology and soil impacts from continued plant operations during 

the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is 

described in the review procedures. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.3-4 July 2009 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.4-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4 HYDROLOGY 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis of surface water and 

groundwater impacts from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. 

Surface water and groundwater impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 

(GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of surface water and groundwater issues in the GEIS, (2) 

review the applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (General for all hydrology issues)

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of surface water and groundwater impacts are based on the 

following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(c) Analysis. The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in 

accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4-2 July 2009 

C environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

C 10 CFR 51.53 (c)(3)(ii)(F) If the applicant's plant is located in or near a nonattainment or 

maintenance area, an assessment of vehicle exhaust emissions anticipated at the time of peak 

refurbishment workforce must be provided in accordance with the Clean Air Act as amended. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics...The format provided in section 1(a) of 

appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, 

including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives 

eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be 

confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of 

information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

C Appendix B to Subpart A–Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants” 

C 40 CFR 6, Appendix A, concerning procedures on floodplain and wetlands protection 

C 40 CFR 149 concerning possible supplemental restrictions on water use in or above a sole source 

aquifer 

C Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal agencies= water laws and 

water rights 

C 40 CFR 122 concerning the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

conditions for discharges including storm-water discharges 
July 2009 4.4-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C 40 CFR 124 concerning the NPDES process 

C 40 CFR 125 concerning water-quality standards 

C 40 CFR 133 concerning treated effluents 

C 40 CFR 149 concerning possible supplemental restrictions on waste disposal and water use in or 

above a sole source aquifer 

C 40 CFR 165 concerning the disposal and storage of pesticides 

C 40 CFR 403 concerning waste effluents 

C 40 CFR 423 concerning effluent limitations on existing and new point sources 

C 40 CFR 700-716 concerning practices and procedures for managing toxic chemicals 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

C Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act, is not a substitute 

for and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action, including any degradation of water quality, and to consider alternatives to the 

proposed action that are available for reducing the adverse impacts. If an environmental 

assessment of aquatic impacts is available from the permitting authority, the NRC should 

consider the assessment in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts in 

striking an overall benefit-cost balance. When no such assessment of aquatic impacts is available 

from the permitting authority, the NRC (to the degree possible in conjunction with the permitting 

authority and other agencies having relevant expertise) should establish its own impact 

determination. 

C In PUD #1 Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology (511 U.S. 700, (1994)), the 

U.S. Supreme Court granted the States additional authority to limit hydrological alterations 

beyond the States= role in regulating water rights. As a result of this ruling, the States may 

regulate the quantity of water as a part of the definition of water quality. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to surface water and groundwater impacts of continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review 

should also address any new and significant information. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4-4 July 2009 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES (General for all hydrology issues)

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of surface water and groundwater issues in the GEIS to identify the 

information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for 

evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. Category 1 surface 

water and groundwater issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the following table. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Surface Water 

Surface-water use and 

quality 

1 SMALL. Impacts are expected to be negligible if best 

management practices are employed to control soil erosion and 

spills. Water use associated with continued operation and 

refurbishment projects for license renewal would not increase 

significantly or would be reduced if a plant outage is necessary to 

accomplish the action. 

Altered current patterns at 

intake and discharge 

structures 

1 SMALL. Altered current patterns would be limited to the area in 

the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts 

have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Altered salinity gradients 1 SMALL. Effects on salinity gradients would be limited to the 

area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These 

impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Altered thermal 

stratification of lakes 

1 SMALL. Effects on thermal stratification would be limited to the 

area in the vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These 

impacts have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Scouring caused by 

discharged cooling water 

1 SMALL. Scouring effects would be limited to the area in the 

vicinity of the intake and discharge structures. These impacts 

have been small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Discharge of metals in 

cooling system effluent 

1 SMALL. Discharges of metals have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants with cooling-towerbased heat dissipation systems and have been satisfactorily 

mitigated at other plants. Discharges are monitored as part of the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit process. 

Discharge of biocides, 

sanitary wastes, and 

minor chemical spills 

1 SMALL. The effects of these discharges are regulated by State 

and Federal environmental agencies. Discharges are monitored 

as part of the NPDES permit process. These impacts have been 

small at operating nuclear power plants. 

Water use conflicts 

(plants with once-through 

cooling systems) 

1 SMALL. These conflicts have not been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants with once-through heat 

dissipation systems. 

Effects of dredging on 

water quality 

1 SMALL. Dredging to remove accumulated sediments in the 

vicinity of intake and discharge structures and to maintain barge 

shipping has not been found to be a problem for surface water 

quality. Dredging is performed under permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

Temperature effects on 

sediment transport 

capacity 

1 SMALL. These effects have not been found to be a problem at 

operating nuclear power plants and are not expected to be a 

problem during the license renewal term. 
July 2009 4.4-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Groundwater 

Groundwater use and 

quality 

1 SMALL. Extensive dewatering is not anticipated from continued 

operations and refurbishment activities associated with the 

license renewal term. The application of best management 

practices for handling any materials produced or used during 

activities would reduce impacts. 

Groundwater use 

conflicts (plants that 

withdraw less than 100 

gallons per minute [gpm]) 

1 SMALL. Plants that withdraw less than 100 gpm are not 

expected to cause any groundwater use conflicts. 

Groundwater quality 

degradation resulting 

from water withdrawals 

1 SMALL. Groundwater withdrawals at operating nuclear power 

plants would not contribute significantly to groundwater quality 

degradation. 

Groundwater quality 

degradation (plants with 

cooling ponds in salt 

marshes) 

1 SMALL. Sites with closed-cycle cooling ponds could degrade 

groundwater quality; however, because groundwater in salt 

marshes is brackish, this is not a concern for plants located in salt 

marshes. 

The Category 2 surface water and groundwater impact issues identified in the GEIS are listed in 

the following table: 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Surface Water 

Water use conflicts 

(plants with cooling 

ponds or cooling towers 

using make-up water 

from a river with low 

flow) 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts could be of small or 

moderate significance, depending on makeup water requirements, 

water availability, and competing water demands. 

Groundwater 

Groundwater use 

conflicts (plants that 

withdraw more than 100 

gpm including those 

using Ranney wells) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Plants that withdraw more 

than 100 gpm could cause groundwater use conflicts with nearby 

groundwater users. 

Groundwater use 

conflicts (plants with 

closed-cycle cooling 

systems that withdraw 

makeup water from a 

river) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Water use conflicts could 

result from water withdrawals from rivers during low-flow 

conditions, which may affect aquifer recharge. The significance 

of impacts would depend on makeup water requirements, water 

availability, and competing water demands. 

Groundwater quality 

degradation (plants with 

cooling ponds at inland 

sites) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Sites with closed-cycle 

cooling ponds could degrade groundwater quality. For plants 

located inland, the quality of the groundwater in the vicinity of 

the ponds could be affected. 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. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4-6 July 2009 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Groundwater – Continued 

Groundwater and soil 

contamination 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Industrial practices involving the use 

of solvents, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals and 

unlined wastewater lagoons have the potential to contaminate site 

groundwater, soil, and subsoil. Contamination is subject to Stateand Environmental Protection Agency-regulated cleanup and 

monitoring programs. 

Radionuclides released to 

groundwater 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Underground system leaks of process 

water have been discovered in recent years at several plants. 

Groundwater protection programs have been established at all 

operating nuclear power plants. 

(2) Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The following 

sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

C the applicant=s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. In 

reviewing the applicant=s ER, consider the applicant=s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

C records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

C Identify relative sources of information used for evaluating impacts, including: 

- Studies and monitoring programs: Briefly summarize any studies or monitoring 

programs that provide site-specific data and can assist with understanding the 

environmental impacts. Include the location, dates, objectives, methods, and results 

applicable to this license renewal application, and what data or data summaries might 

be available for NRC review.

If data are more than 5 years old, explain why the studies would or would not be 

relevant for assessing the effects of present and projected future plant operation over 

the term of license renewal. For example, show that both the potentially affected 

resources and the effect of the plant on them have remained and can be expected to 

remain unchanged over the term of license renewal 

- Communications with and views of regulatory agencies. Document any 

communications with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA or other water quality permitting 

agencies) that are relevant to assessing impact and are not documented elsewhere in the 

environmental report. If relevant communications are documented elsewhere, refer the 

reader to the appropriate sections. 

- Other sources. Give in-text citations to sources of data and information used to assess 

impact and provide a list of references at the end of the chapter. 
July 2009 4.4-7 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

(3) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

Additional specific guidance follows for each surface water and groundwater issue identified as plantspecific (Category 2) in the GEIS. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential surface and groundwater impacts from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS 

is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4-8 July 2009 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4.1-1 July 2009 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4.1 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER USE CONFLICTS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of impacts on surface 

water and groundwater use from continued plant operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. 

Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of surface water and groundwater use conflicts in the 

GEIS, (2) review the applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and 

significant information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement 

(SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on surface water and groundwater use identified by the public and other 

information sources
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4.1-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of surface water and groundwater-use are addressed in ESRP 

Section 4.4 Hydrology. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to surface water and groundwater-use impacts of continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The 

review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of surface water and groundwater-use issues in the GEIS to identify the 

information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for 

evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

(2) Use the Review Procedures in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology, with the following additions: 

C a description of the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant 

information 

C any new information included in the ER on the groundwater-use and quality issues known to 

the applicant and the public

C any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impact

C summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 

C Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal standards and regulations 

applicable to water quality and water use; determine if there are any State policies regarding 

hydraulic continuity

C proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and water-use standards 

and regulations 

(3) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 
July 2009 4.4.1-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential surface water and groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in 

the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.4.2-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4.2 GROUNDWATER-USE CONFLICTS (PLANTS THAT WITHDRAW MORE THAN 100 

GPM, INCLUDING THOSE USING RANNEY WELLS)

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the potential 

groundwater-use conflicts at plants pumping more than 100 gpm for potable and service water and 

operational dewatering, as well as those using Ranney wells. Impacts are discussed in the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater use conflicts in the GEIS, (2) review the 

applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on groundwater-use conflicts identified by the public and other information 

sources
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4.2-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater-use conflicts are addressed in ESRP Section 4.4 

Hydrology. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of the potential for groundwater water-use conflicts with nearby 

groundwater users at plants pumping more than 100 gpm for potable and service water and 

operational dewatering, or plants using Ranney wells, in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis 

for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

(2) Determine the seasonal groundwater pumpage needs for the plant. If any season has an average 

groundwater pumpage of greater than 100 gpm, then continue the analysis at Step (3). Otherwise, 

prepare a statement for the SEIS that describes the plant=s groundwater use and concludes that 

there are no impacts resulting from groundwater pumpage for potable and service water and 

operational dewatering. 

(3) Determine the extent of the influence of the plant=s well(s) predicted by either standard analytic 

approaches or numerical models. Steady-state analytic approaches can be used with the 

maximum seasonal pumping rates. Numerical models can be used either with the maximum 

pumping rate to estimate steady-state drawdown or with the average seasonal pumping rates for a 

transient simulation of the drawdown. Model results should be validated with any piezometer 

observations. Possible impacts on predictions from heterogeneous aquifer parameters, 

particularly stratigraphy, should be considered. If the extent of the cone of depression caused by 

the plant=s well(s) extends beyond the site=s boundary, then continue the analysis 

(4) Determine the magnitude of the reduction in yield resulting from the plant=s pumpage predicted 

by numerical procedures. If the drawdown extends beyond the site boundary and into a zone 

influenced by other wells, then continue the analysis 

(5) Use the Review Procedures in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology, with the following additions: 

C descriptions of the site and local groundwater aquifers including geohydrologic 

characterization data 
July 2009 4.4.2-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C descriptions of the spatial and seasonal changes in water table elevation and pumpage rates 

for wells both inside and outside the site boundary 

C descriptions of any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit 

operational water-use impacts 

C descriptions of Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal agencies=

standards and regulations applicable to groundwater use 

C descriptions of proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and 

water-use standards and regulations. 

(6) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on the groundwater-use and quality issues known to 

the applicant and the public

C any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impact

C summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 

C proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and water-use standards 

and regulations 

(7) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described 

in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4.2-4 July 2009 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.4.3-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4.3 GROUNDWATER-USE CONFLICTS (PLANTS WITH CLOSED-CYCLE COOLING 

SYSTEMS THAT WITHDRAW MAKEUP WATER FROM A RIVER)

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of groundwater-use 

conflicts resulting from surface-water withdrawals from a river during low-flow conditions. Impacts are 

discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

(NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater use conflicts in the GEIS, (2) review the 

applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on groundwater-use conflicts identified by the public and other information 

sources
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4.3-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater-use conflicts are addressed in ESRP Section 4.4 

Hydrology. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion in the GEIS of potential groundwater water-use conflicts resulting from 

surface-water withdrawals from small water bodies during low-flow conditions that may affect 

aquifer recharge. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. 

(2) Determine whether the river used for makeup water supply is over subscribed (i.e., the demand 

for water exceeds supply) during any season. Water-use permits often include specific 

restrictions on withdrawals during certain low-flow conditions. If the basin is over subscribed, 

continue the analysis 

(3) Determine whether the river recharges the aquifer or the aquifer discharges into the river. If the 

aquifer consistently discharges to the river, then groundwater withdrawals would not be impacted 

by changes in river flow, whereas the river flows would be impacted by the groundwater 

withdrawals, although often not significantly. If the aquifer is consistently recharged by the river, 

then groundwater withdrawals would be impacted by changes in river flow, whereas the river 

flow would not be significantly impacted by the groundwater withdrawals. Often the direction of 

water transfer between rivers and their associated aquifers alternates back and forth as one moves 

downstream. By comparing the piezometer data from the affected aquifer with the river stage 

height data, the direction of flow can be determined. If the aquifer does not consistently 

discharge into the river downstream from the makeup water withdrawal location, continue the 

analysis 

(4) Determine the magnitude of the reduction in groundwater yield resulting from the plant=s cooling 

tower makeup water withdrawal. Estimating the magnitude of the reduction of groundwater yield 

generally requires application of analytic or numerical models. Only those wells located in areas 

downstream from the makeup water diversion whose contributing area includes recharge from the 

river need be considered. Sensitivity analyses should be included on the parameters governing 
July 2009 4.4.3-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

the exchange of water between the river and the aquifer. Based on the magnitude of the reduction 

in yield, the impact would be SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. 

(5) Use the Review Procedures in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology, with the following additions: 

C the site, the affected river, and the local groundwater aquifers, including geohydrologic 

characterization data 

C the spatial and seasonal changes in water table elevation, surface withdrawals, groundwater 

withdrawals, stream stage height for the river, and the aquifer in hydraulic connection to the 

river 

C any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impacts 

C Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal standards and regulations 

applicable to groundwater and surface-water use 

C proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-use permits, standards, and 

regulations. 

(6) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on the groundwater-use and quality issues known to 

the applicant and the public

C any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impact

C summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 

C proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and water-use standards 

and regulations 

(7) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential groundwater-use conflicts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described 

in the review procedures. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4.3-4 July 2009 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.4.4-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4.4 GROUNDWATER QUALITY DEGRADATION (COOLING PONDS AT INLAND SITES)

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the potential impact 

of groundwater quality degradation resulting from closed cycle cooling ponds at inland sites. Impacts are 

discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

(NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater quality degradation in the GEIS, (2) 

review the applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on groundwater quality degradation identified by the public and other 

information sources
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4.4-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater quality degradation are addressed in ESRP Section 

4.4 Hydrology. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to groundwater quality degradation impacts of continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review 

should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of groundwater quality degradation resulting from closed-cycle coolingpond sites leaking into aquifers beneath inland sites in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis 

for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

(2) Determine the evolving chemical composition of the cooling pond water. Closed cycle cooling 

ponds have concentrations of total dissolved solids, heavy metals, and chlorinated organic 

compounds as a result of evaporation, contact with plant equipment, and water-treatment systems, 

respectively. These concentrations can evolve over time. The current chemical composition of 

the cooling water should be described, as well as the estimated chemical composition throughout 

the renewal term. 

(3) Review monitoring data on the chemical composition of groundwater in the vadose zone and 

aquifer that would likely receive water infiltrating from the cooling pond, as well as groundwater 

unaffected by the cooling pond. If the ambient groundwater quality in the aquifer is better than 

the estimated quality of the cooling pond water during the license renewal term, then continue 

with the analysis. 

(4) Review monitoring data on the infiltration from the cooling ponds to the water table. If the 

cooling ponds have no liners or the liners are not expected to remain impermeable throughout the 

license renewal term, then continue with the analysis. 

(5) Describe the estimated infiltration rate from the ponds throughout the license renewal term. 

These estimates should be used as the boundary conditions for a groundwater flow and transport 

model. Vadose zone transport can be neglected if the water infiltrating beneath the cooling pond 

is assumed to immediately enter the aquifer. If the predicted groundwater plume associated with 

a conservative non-sorbing tracer is likely to enter the zone of influence of a well, then continue 

the analysis. 
July 2009 4.4.4-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

(6) Describe the changes in water quality for each of the impacted wells. Both the timing and 

magnitude of water quality changes should be described. Because this analysis would require the 

application of groundwater flow and transport simulation models, describe the model calibration 

activities and any peer-review activities. Compare the predicted changes in groundwater quality 

to the uses for which the groundwater is needed to assess the magnitude of the impact. 

(7) Use the Review Procedures in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology, with the following additions: 

C cooling pond characteristics (e.g., use of liners, use of impermeable materials, impermeable 

soils) that would retard/prevent infiltration into local aquifers 

C types and concentrations of impurities in the cooling pond water and chemistry of soils along 

pathways to local aquifers to determine whether cooling pond water can contaminate the 

groundwater 

C quality of water of local aquifers that could be affected by infiltration of cooling-pond water 

C Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal agencies= groundwater 

quality requirements with emphasis on any changes to these requirements that have occurred 

during the plant=s initial license term and any anticipated changes to those requirements 

during the license renewal term 

C offsite groundwater users who could be affected by the degradation of aquifers; characterization should include locations and elevations of offsite wells, their pumping rates, and 

the water needs of groundwater users 

C the predicted cumulative effects of using closed cycle cooling ponds on groundwater quality. 

This description should include maps of the contamination plume. Information should be 

provided on groundwater contamination existing at the time of license renewal application 

and projected contamination during the license renewal term 

C the mitigation measures proposed to prevent or minimize groundwater quality degradation 

and the estimated impact of implementing these measures. Explain the reasons for not 

implementing any measures that were considered but rejected. 

(8) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on the groundwater quality degradation issues 

known to the applicant and the public

C any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impact

C summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 

C proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and water-use standards 

and regulations 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4.4-4 July 2009 

(9) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential groundwater quality degradation from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS 

is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.4.5-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4.5 GROUNDWATER AND SOIL CONTAMINATION 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the potential impact 

of groundwater and soil contamination due to industrial practices involving the use of solvents, 

hydrocarbons, heavy metals, or other chemicals. Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, 

Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of groundwater and soil contamination in the GEIS, (2) 

review the applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on groundwater and soil contamination use identified by the public and other 

information sources
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4.5-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of groundwater and soil contamination are addressed in ESRP 

Section 4.4 Hydrology. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to groundwater and soil contamination impacts of continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The 

review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of the potential for groundwater and soil contamination in the GEIS. This 

step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and 

the staff. 

(2) Review whether any spills or incidents have occurred at the plant. If not, reporting of soil and 

groundwater contamination may not be necessary. 

(3) Use the Review Procedures in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology, with the following additions: 

C a list of leaks, spills, or accidental releases including their nature, location, date, and amount 

spilled. Include on the list the regulatory agency overseeing the incident and whether or not a 

non-compliance or notice of violation was issued. Also include a site map depicting the 

locations of the listed incidents. 

C description of the cleanup or other mitigation completed for each of the listed source terms. 

C a copy of the current NPDES permit issued under the Clean Water Act in an Appendix of the 

ER. 

C Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal agencies= groundwater 

quality requirements with emphasis on any changes to these requirements that have occurred 

during the plant=s initial license term and any anticipated changes to those requirements 

during the license renewal term 

(4) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on the groundwater and soil contamination issues 

known to the applicant and the public

C any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impact 
July 2009 4.4.5-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations

C proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and water-use standards 

and regulations 

(5) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential groundwater and soil contamination from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS 

is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.4.6-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.4.6 RADIONUCLIDES RELEASED TO GROUNDWATER 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the potential for 

radionuclides released to groundwater as a result of continued plant operations during the renewal term 

and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of radionuclides released to groundwater in the GEIS, (2) 

review the applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on radionuclides released to groundwater identified by the public and other 

information sources
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.4.6-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of radionuclides released to groundwater are addressed in ESRP 

Section 4.4 Hydrology. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to radionuclides released to groundwater impacts of continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The 

review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of the potential for radionuclides released to groundwater in the GEIS. 

This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, 

and the staff. 

(2) Use the Review Procedures in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology, with the following additions: 

• For plants that have groundwater monitoring systems with wells, review and describe: 

- the location of monitoring wells and water supply wells, including construction 

information such as depth, diameter, screened interval, and construction material 

- depths of wells and water table elevations 

- description of groundwater flow for each aquifer or hydro-stratigraphic unit beneath the 

site 

- description of radionuclide concentrations across the site, e.g. tritium concentrations in 

pCi/L 

• For plants that rely on a system other than a groundwater monitoring system composed of 

wells, describe the program used for preventing, detecting, and responding to inadvertent 

releases of radioactive materials into the groundwater. 

C description of the plant’s groundwater protection program 

(3) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on the radionuclides released to groundwater issues 

known to the applicant and the public
July 2009 4.4.6-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C any currently employed or proposed practices and measures to control or limit operational 

water-use impact (best management practices)

C summary of statutory and other legal restrictions relating to water use or specific water-body 

restrictions on water use imposed by State or Federal regulations 

C proposed means to ensure operational compliance with water-quality and water-use standards 

and regulations 

(4) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts. if any 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts, if any. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to the potential radionuclides released to groundwater from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS 

is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.4 Hydrology. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.5-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.5 ECOLOGY

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of ecological resource 

impacts from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are 

discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants 

(NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of ecological resource impacts in the GEIS, (2) review the 

applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Ecological impact assessment for license renewal is different from that for original licensing, which is 

predictive or prospective in that it assumes a proposed stressor and proceeds to estimate impacts. License 

renewal, which occurs after the plant has a history of operation, can combine both prospective assessment 

to predict impacts during the license renewal term and retrospective assessment to assess the observed 

effects of past operation. For example, ecological modeling could be used to predict future impacts (in 

either original licensing or license renewal) while empirical statistical analysis could be used to assess 

past impacts based on actual observations (in license renewal only). Suter (1993, Chapter 10) discusses 

the differences between prospective and retrospective assessment and appropriate techniques for their 

analysis. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5-2 July 2009 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on ecological resources identified by the public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA (General for all ecology issues) 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of ecological resource impacts are based on the following 

regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(c) Analysis. The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in 

accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(B) If the applicant's plant utilizes once-through cooling or cooling pond 

heat dissipation systems, the applicant shall provide a copy of current Clean Water Act 316(b) 

determinations and, if necessary, a 316(a) variance in accordance with 40 CFR part 125, or 

equivalent State permits and supporting documentation. If the applicant can not provide these 

documents, it shall assess the impact of the proposed action on fish and shellfish resources 

resulting from heat shock and impingement and entrainment. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics...The format provided in section 1(a) of 

appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 
July 2009 4.5-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, 

including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives 

eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be 

confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of 

information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

C Appendix B to Subpart A–Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants”

C 40 CFR 122 concerning NPDES permit conditions specified in the CWA 

 40 CFR 423 concerning effluent guidelines and thermal standards

C Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 concerning natural resources and land or water use of the 

coastal zone

C Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, concerning identifying threatened and endangered 

species, critical habitats, and initiating formal or informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service or both

C CWA (as amended) concerning restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of water resources

C Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 concerning consideration of fish and wildlife 

resources in the planning of development projects that affect water resources.

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

Compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements of the CWA is not a substitute for 

and does not negate the requirement for NRC to weigh the environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and to consider mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce adverse impacts. If the 

applicant provides a current NPDES permit, CWA 316(b) determination, or State permits and 

supporting documentation acceptable to the EPA at the time of license-renewal application, the NRC 

would consider them in its determination of the magnitude of the environmental impacts. When such 

assessments of impacts of impingement and entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages are 

not provided by the applicant, the NRC (possibly in conjunction with the permitting authority and 

other agencies having relevant expertise) would conduct its own assessment. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5-4 July 2009 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to ecological resource impacts of continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES (General for all ecology issues)

For all ecological issues, the same general approach can identify the environmental consequences of 

license renewal and its alternatives. This approach generally follows the framework for ecological risk 

assessment (EPA 1998).

(1) Review the discussion of ecological resource impacts in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis 

for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. Category 1 

terrestrial and aquatic resource issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the following table. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Terrestrial Resources 

Exposure of terrestrial 

organisms to 

radionuclides 

1 SMALL. Doses to terrestrial organisms are expected to be well 

below exposure guidelines developed to protect these organisms. 

Cooling system impacts 

on terrestrial resources 

(plants with once-through 

cooling systems or 

cooling ponds) 

1 SMALL. No adverse effects to terrestrial plants or animals have 

been reported as a result of increased water temperatures, 

fogging, humidity, or reduced habitat quality. Due to the low 

concentrations of contaminants in cooling system effluents, 

uptake and accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of 

wildlife exposed to the contaminated water or aquatic food 

sources are not expected to be significant issues. 

Cooling tower impacts on 

vegetation (plants with 

cooling towers) 

1 SMALL. Impacts from salt drift, icing, fogging, or increased 

humidity associated with cooling tower operation have the 

potential to affect adjacent vegetation, but these impacts have 

been small at operating nuclear power plants and are not 

expected to change over the license renewal term. 

Bird collisions with 

cooling towers and 

transmission lines 

1 SMALL. Bird collisions with cooling towers and transmission 

lines occur at rates that are unlikely to affect local or migratory 

populations. 

Transmission line ROW 

management impacts on 

terrestrial resources 

1 SMALL. Continued ROW management during the license 

renewal term is expected to keep terrestrial communities in their 

current condition. Application of best management practices 

would reduce the potential for impacts. 

Electromagnetic fields on 

flora and fauna (plants, 

agricultural crops, 

honeybees, wildlife, 

livestock) 

1 SMALL. No significant impacts of electromagnetic fields on 

terrestrial flora and fauna have been identified. Such effects are 

not expected to be a problem during the license renewal term. 
July 2009 4.5-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Aquatic Resources 

Impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic 

organisms (plants with 

cooling towers) 

1 SMALL. Impingement and entrainment rates are lower at plants 

that use closed-cycle cooling with cooling towers because the 

rates and volumes of water withdrawal needed for makeup are 

minimized. 

Thermal impacts on 

aquatic organisms (plants 

with cooling towers) 

1 SMALL. Thermal effects associated with plants that use cooling 

towers are small because of the reduced amount of heated 

discharge. 

Effects of cooling water 

discharge on dissolved 

oxygen, gas 

supersaturation, and 

eutrophication 

1 SMALL. Gas supersaturation was a concern at a small number 

of operating nuclear power plants with once-through cooling 

systems but has been satisfactorily mitigated. Low dissolved 

oxygen was a concern at one nuclear power plant with a oncethrough cooling system but has been effectively mitigated. 

Eutrophication (nutrient loading) and resulting effects on 

chemical and biological oxygen demands have not been found to 

be a problem at operating nuclear power plants. 

Effects of nonradiological contaminants 

on aquatic organisms 

1 SMALL. Best management practices and discharge limitations 

of NPDES permits are expected to minimize the potential for 

impacts to aquatic resources. Accumulation of metal 

contaminants has been a concern at a few nuclear power plants 

but has been satisfactorily mitigated by replacing copper alloy 

condenser tubes with those of another metal. 

Exposure of aquatic 

organisms to 

radionuclides 

1 SMALL. Doses to aquatic organisms are expected to be well 

below exposure guidelines developed to protect these aquatic 

organisms. 

Effects of dredging on 

aquatic organisms 

1 SMALL. Effects of dredging on aquatic resources tend to be of 

short duration (years or less) and localized. Dredging requires 

permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, state 

environmental agencies, and other regulatory agencies. 

Refurbishment impacts 

on aquatic resources 

1 SMALL. Refurbishment impacts with appropriate mitigation are 

not expected to change aquatic communities from their current 

condition. 

Impacts of transmission 

line ROW management 

on aquatic resources 

1 SMALL. Application of best management practices to ROW 

near aquatic systems would reduce the potential for impacts. 

Losses from predation, 

parasitism, and disease 

among organisms 

exposed to sublethal 

stresses 

1 SMALL. These types of losses have not been found to be a 

problem at operating nuclear power plants and are not expected 

to be a problem during the license renewal term. 

Stimulation of aquatic 

nuisance species (e.g., 

shipworms) 

1 SMALL. 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 during the license renewal term. 

The Category 2 terrestrial and aquatic resources and threatened, endangered, and protected 

species and essential fish habitat impact issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the following 

table: 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5-6 July 2009 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Terrestrial Resources 

Impacts of continued 

plant operations on 

terrestrial ecosystems 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Continued operations, 

refurbishment, and maintenance activities are expected to keep 

terrestrial communities in their current condition. Application of 

best management practices would reduce the potential for 

impacts. The magnitude of impacts would depend on the nature 

of the activity, the status of the resources that could be affected, 

and the effectiveness of mitigation. 

Water use conflicts with 

terrestrial resources 

(plants with cooling 

ponds or cooling towers 

using make-up water 

from a river with low 

flow) 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on terrestrial resources in 

riparian communities affected by water use conflicts could be of 

moderate significance in some situations. 

Aquatic Resources 

Impingement and 

entrainment of aquatic 

organisms (plants with 

once-through cooling 

systems or cooling ponds) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The impacts of 

impingement and entrainment are small at many plants but may 

be moderate or even large at a few plants with once-through and 

cooling-pond cooling systems, depending on cooling system 

withdrawal rates and volumes and the aquatic resources at the 

site. 

Thermal impacts on 

aquatic organisms (plants 

with once-through 

cooling systems or 

cooling ponds) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Most of the effects 

associated with thermal discharges are localized and are not 

expected to affect overall stability of populations or resources. 

The magnitude of impacts, however, would depend on sitespecific thermal plume characteristics and the nature of aquatic 

resources in the area. 

Water use conflicts with 

aquatic resources (plants 

with cooling ponds or 

cooling towers using 

make-up water from a 

river with low flow) 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts on instream communities 

affected by water use conflicts could be of moderate significance 

in some situations. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Protected Species and Essential Fish Habitat 

Threatened, endangered, 

and protected species and 

essential fish habitat 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. The magnitude of impacts 

on threatened, endangered, and protected species 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 activities 

associated with license renewal. 

(2) Identify the relevant sources of information, which include: 

- Studies and monitoring programs: Briefly summarize any that provide site-specific data and 

can help understand environmental impacts. Include the location, dates, objectives, the 

biological entities or attributes chosen for study, methods, and results applicable to this 

license renewal application, and what data or data summaries might be available for NRC 

review.
July 2009 4.5-7 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

If data are more than 5 years old, explain why the studies would or would not be relevant for 

assessing the effects of present and projected future plant operation over the term of license 

renewal. For example, show that both the potentially affected resources and the effect of the 

plant on them have remained and can be expected to remain unchanged over the term of 

license renewal. 

- Communications with and views of regulatory agencies: Document any communications 

with regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA or other water quality permitting agencies) and resource 

agencies (e.g., National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State fish 

and wildlife agencies) that are relevant to assessing impact and are not documented elsewhere 

in the environmental report. If relevant communications are documented elsewhere, refer the 

reader to the appropriate sections. 

Discuss the major points of view concerning environmental impacts of license renewal and an 

analysis of significant problems and objections raised by other Federal, State, and local 

agencies; affected Indian tribes; and other interested persons. 

- Other sources: Give in-text citations to sources of data and information used to assess impact 

and provide a literature cited section. 

(3) Identify specific biological resources and their attributes used for assessing impact. Because 

biological systems are complicated, only a subset of resources can be addressed. 

- Identify potentially affected resource entities: Describe the potentially affected resources in 

terms of representative species, functional group of species (e.g., insectivores), communities, 

an ecosystem (e.g., oak-hickory forest), a specific valued habitat (e.g., wet meadows), a 

unique place, or other entity of concern. 

Additional guidance on identifying important species to be evaluated can be found in “U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy; Notice of Final Policy.”2

 Contact Federal, State, 

and regional government agencies with jurisdiction over biological resources to assist with 

the identification of important species and habitats 

- Identify attributes of those resources potentially at risk: Identify the attributes of the 

resources of concern that are important to protect and potentially at risk (U.S. EPA 1998). If 

potentially adverse effects on a species, habitat, or other terrestrial resource are identified, the 

resource should be assessed concerning local, regional, and national social, economic, and 

ecological value. 

Biodiversity, which comprises the variation between and among biological entities and 

 

2

 The notice (46 FR 7644, January 23, 1981) establishes final policy guidance for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

personnel involved in making recommendations to protect or conserve fish and wildlife resources. Guidance is 

provided on the definition and identification of “evaluation species,” evaluation of direct and indirect effects of a 

project on the evaluation species, on the levels of mitigation and on the various methods for accomplishing mitigation 

when adverse effects are identified. The types of species that should be considered are discussed in the notice at pages 

7662 and 7663. In this regulatory guide, the terms “important species” and “evaluation species” are used 

interchangeably. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5-8 July 2009 

includes components of genetic, species, habitat, local ecosystem and regional ecosystem 

diversity, is an important biological attribute to consider (CEQ 1993).

(4) Show the relationships (as in a causal link) between plant operation and the resource attributes. 

Lack of change in a resource attribute may not indicate lack of an adverse effect if plant 

operations have no link to resource levels. Relationships can be examined by identifying the 

pathways through which they act and expressing them as a risk hypotheses. 

If any adverse impacts are identified, describe mitigation measures that have been used to reduce 

the adverse impacts during the initial license term or that are expected to be used during the 

license renewal term and their expected effects. Briefly explain the rationale for not 

implementing any measures that were considered but rejected.

(5) Assess and characterize impact. For each ecological issue, multiple natural populations or 

entities may be affected, and each population may have multiple measurable and susceptible 

attributes. The effects of power plant operation on any ecological attribute may be direct or 

indirect, and the assessment approach can be prospective or retrospective. With such complexity, 

examining a single line of evidence may not be sufficient to assess impact. In such cases, the 

reviewer should examine several lines of evidence involving several populations when data 

allow. 

Present in the SEIS a narrative explanation of the conceptual model for the analysis that includes 

the justification for selection of representative entities or their attributes, the hypothetical 

mechanism through which continued plant operation may act upon them, the approaches used to 

assess impact, and possible outcomes. If using multiple lines of evidence, explain in narrative the 

qualitative or quantitative method for combining them to make an overall assessment of impact. 

A typical approach for accomplishing this in ecological risk assessment is to consider weight of 

evidence (e.g., Menzie et al. 1996, EPA 1998). 

(6) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the applicant 

and the public 

(7) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to ecological resource impacts from continued plant operations during the license 
July 2009 4.5-9 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the 

review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

Suter, 1993. Chapter 10: Retrospective Risk Assessment. Pages 311-364. In G.W. Suter, II (ed.). 

Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis publishers, Boca Raton, Florida. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.5.1-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.5.1 IMPACTS OF SURFACE WATER USE CONFLICTS ON ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of impacts of surface 

water use conflicts on ecological resources from continued plant operations during the license renewal 

term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) 

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). Sections 4.3.2.1 

and 4.4.2.1 of the GEIS discuss surface water use conflicts. 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of ecological resource impacts in the GEIS, (2) review the 

applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). This 

ESRP section applies to plants with cooling ponds or cooling towers using makeup water from a river 

with low flow (less than 3.15 × 1012 ft3

/year (9 × 1010 m3/year). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on surface water use conflicts on ecological resources identified by the public 

and other information sources
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5.1-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of impacts of surface water use conflicts on ecological resources 

are addressed in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecology. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts of surface water use conflicts on ecological resources from 

continued plant operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the 

proposed action. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of surface water use conflicts on ecological resources in the GEIS to identify 

the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the basis for evaluating 

information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

(2) Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described in 

ESRP Section 4.5, Ecology, with the following additions: 

• No additional surface water conflict information is needed for plants using once-through cooling 

systems or not specifically using cooling towers or cooling ponds. Also, if the plant takes its 

makeup water for the cooling towers or cooling ponds from a river with an annual flow greater 

than 3.15 × 1012 ft3

/year (9 × 1010 m3/year), report this fact. The method used to determine the 

annual river flow should be provided in the surface water discussion as described in Section 4.6. 

• Discussion of riparian impacts can be included in the discussion of terrestrial resources, and 

discussion of instream impacts can be included in the discussion of aquatic resources. 

(3) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

 

C any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the applicant and 

the public 
July 2009 4.5.1-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

(4) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to ecological resource impacts from continued plant operations during the license 

renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the 

review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPY 

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.5 Ecology. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.5.2-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.5.2 IMPACTS OF CONTINUED PLANT OPERATIONS AND REFURBISHMENT ON 

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of impacts on 

terrestrial ecosystems from continued plant operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. 

Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of impacts of continued plant operations and 

refurbishment on terrestrial ecosystems in the GEIS, (2) review the applicant=s environmental report 

(ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant information, and (4) preparing input to the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on terrestrial ecosystems identified by the public and other information sources
July 2009 4.5.2-2 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment on 

terrestrial ecosystems are addressed in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecology. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts of continued plant operations during the license renewal term 

and refurbishment on terrestrial ecosystems. This section should consider the impacts of alternatives to 

the proposed action. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

For all ecological issues, the same general approach can identify the environmental consequences of 

license renewal and its alternatives. This approach generally follows the framework for ecological risk 

assessment (EPA 1998).

(1) Review the discussion of impacts of continued plant operations and refurbishment on terrestrial 

ecosystems in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. 

(2) Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described in 

ESRP Section 4.5, Ecology, with the following additions: 

• Describe any activities associated with continued plant operations and refurbishment associated 

with license renewal that would involve disturbing any terrestrial habitat. If no area would be 

disturbed, note that fact and no further discussion of the issue is needed. Areas to be disturbed 

should be described in Chapter 3 of the SEIS concerning (1) the amount of land to be disturbed, 

(2) ecological characteristics of the habitat, (3) species of plants and animals found in the area, 

and (4) the extent to which the habitat is unusual. Note that the information and analysis for this 

issue overlaps the information and analysis for assessing impacts on threatened and endangered 

species. 

• Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described 

above. In addition, if any license renewal activity would disturb any plant or wildlife habitat, 

describe any land that would be disturbed during transport and delivery of equipment, structures, 

or components; storage of materials; or construction associated with refurbishment. If any 

temporary or permanent structures would be built, provide a map of the site that includes the 

proposed location of these structures. If any road or bridge modifications would occur as a result 

of transport, describe potential effects to the terrestrial environment.
July 2009 4.5.2-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

(3) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

 

C any new information included in the ER on ecological impact issues known to the applicant and 

the public 

(4) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to ecological resource impacts from continued plant operations during the license 

renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the 

review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.5 Ecology. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.5.3-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.5.3 IMPACTS OF IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS 

(PLANTS WITH ONCE-THROUGH COOLING SYSTEMS OR COOLING PONDS) 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of impingement and 

entrainment impacts on aquatic organisms for plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds 

from continued plant operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of impingement and entrainment impacts on aquatic 

organisms in the GEIS, (2) review the applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and 

addressing any new and significant information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

The impacts from cooling water intake are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit system. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the location, 

design, construction, and capacity of the cooling water intake structure reflect the best technology 

available for minimizing environmental impacts. Responsibility for making this determination rests with 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or with its designees.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5.3-2 July 2009 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms identified by the public 

and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms are 

addressed in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecology. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms from 

continued plant operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the 

proposed action. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

(1) Review the discussion of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms in the GEIS. This step 

establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

(2) Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described in 

ESRP Section 4.5, Ecology, with the following additions: 

• The reviewer should obtain additional information about the plant’s cooling water system design 

and operating procedures from the applicant’s environmental report and other ESRP sections that 

describe components of the cooling system and the hydrodynamics and physical impacts of the 

intake. The following data or information may be needed to assess the impingement and 

entrainment impacts of aquatic organisms: 

‐ a copy of the plant=s current NPDES permit and a 316(b) demonstration acceptable to the 

EPA or State permitting agency

‐ a description of any proposed changes or refurbishment to the plant-cooling-system intake
July 2009 4.5.3-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

‐ studies or monitoring programs of impingement and entrainment, including information on 

when and where conducted and by whom, the objective (why conducted), the biological 

entities or attributes chosen for study, methods and results (how conducted), and data 

summaries available for NRC review

‐ information on the potential for altered hydrodynamic characteristics that are induced by inlet 

system operation (e.g., altered circulation patterns) and may affect attraction, impingement, 

and entrainment of aquatic biota and determine the extent and seasonal variation of any such 

alterations 

‐ information on the potential for the recirculation of heated effluent from the plant discharge 

system. If recirculation is predicted, the reviewer would need information to assess the 

impacts to impingement and entrainment. 

(3) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on impingement and entrainment issues known to 

the applicant and the public 

(4) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C summarizes the permitting documents 

C states that a NPDES permit and 316(b) determination are current and available 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS 

is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.5 Ecology. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.5.4-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.5.4 THERMAL IMPACTS ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS (PLANTS WITH ONCE-THROUGH 

COOLING SYSTEMS OR COOLING PONDS)

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of thermal impacts on 

aquatic organisms for plants with once-through cooling systems or cooling ponds from continued plant 

operations during the renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 

1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of thermal impacts on aquatic organisms in the GEIS, (2) 

review the applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

The impacts from cooling water intake are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit system. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that discharge 

system operation must ensure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of 

shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on the receiving water body. Responsibility for making this 

determination rests with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or with its designees. 

Discharge system impacts on aquatic biota may result from the effects of thermal alterations to the 

receiving water body. Major alterations are usually confined to a limited discharge area (the mixing 

zone), whereas lesser alterations may extend over a larger portion of the receiving water body. Adverse 

effects on biota that are transported through, migrate through, or are attracted to the mixing zone may be
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5.4-2 July 2009 

 acute or chronic, and impacts may be reflected as changes in the populations of Aimportant@ species and 

in the structure and function of the ecosystem. 

This thermal effects section represents a combination of issues in the 1996 GEIS. Thermal effects on 

natural species and communities have different manifestations that may overlap and grade into each other 

depending on thermal history of the receptor; the life stages, species, communities, or habitats exposed; 

environmental factors; refugia; temperatures, durations, and pattern of acclimation or acclimatization and 

of temperature alterations; inter alia. As a result, the source and exact form of thermal effects can be hard 

to differentiate in actual field studies. For example, if a field study indicates exclusion of an ecological 

resource in an area influenced by a thermal plume, the investigators would have difficulty determining if 

the mechanism is habitat change, migration of individuals away from the increased temperature (and to 

what fate), chronic effects including changes in timing of life history events, acute mortality, or any 

combination of these. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on thermal impacts on aquatic organisms identified by the public and other 

information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of thermal impacts on aquatic organisms are addressed in ESRP 

Section 4.5, Ecology. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts of thermal impacts on aquatic organisms from continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The 

review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

(1) Review the discussion of thermal impacts on aquatic organisms in the GEIS. This step establishes the 

basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 
July 2009 4.5.4-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

(2) Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described in 

ESRP Section 4.5, Ecology, with the following additions: 

• The reviewer should obtain additional information about the plant’s cooling water system design 

and operating procedures from the applicant’s environmental report and other ESRP sections that 

describe components of the cooling system and the hydrodynamics and physical impacts of the 

effluent. The following data or information may be needed to assess impingement and 

entrainment impacts: 

‐ a copy of the plant=s current NPDES permit 

‐ a copy of the plant=s current 316(a) variance (if required, according to Section 316(a) of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act [FWPCA], or CWA [33 U.S.C. 1326(a)]) 

‐ a description of any proposed changes to the plant-cooling-system discharge. 

‐ Studies or monitoring programs of thermal effects entrainment, including information on 

when and where conducted and by whom, the objective (why conducted), the biological 

entities or attributes chosen for study, methods and results (how conducted) applicable to this 

license renewal application, and what data or data summaries might be available for NRC 

review. 

‐ the temperature duration-mortality relationship and susceptibility of local species to heat 

shock 

‐ a description of applicable State and Federal (40 CFR 423) effluent guidelines and the 

thermal standards or limitations applicable to the water body to which the discharge is made 

(including maximum permissible temperature, maximum permissible temperature increase, 

mixing zones, and maximum rates of increase and decrease) and whether and to what extent 

these standards or limitations have been approved by the EPA in accordance with the CWA. 

• Additional information may also be needed on the specific nature of the thermal stress, such as: 

‐ maximum sustained temperatures for each season that are consistent with maintaining local 

ecological systems 

‐ temperature effects data for local species or their surrogates 

‐ thermal requirements of downstream aquatic life where upstream warming would adversely 

affect downstream temperature requirements 

‐ areal extent of the plume 

‐ physical factors that might concentrate biota in the plume

• Briefly summarize any site-specific thermal effluent studies, monitoring programs, or thermal 

effects or mortality studies and include locations, dates, objectives, methods, and results 

applicable to this license renewal application, and what data or data summaries might be available 

for NRC review. Provide estimates of numbers by taxa of fish and shellfish affected by and 

susceptible to the thermal effluent on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. Provide areal or 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5.4-4 July 2009 

volumetric estimates of thermally affected fish and shellfish habitat. Provide full documentation 

of analytical or modeling techniques used to assess effects. Give perspective to these effects in 

terms of such concepts as the commercial, recreational, and ecosystem services they would have 

provided. 

• If aquatic resources have been monitored, provide an analysis of temporal and geographic trends 

in the data that might indicate whether fish and shellfish populations have increased, decreased, 

or remained stable during the initial term of operation. Show any relationships between patterns 

of thermal effects and trends in potentially affected populations. Because entrainment, 

impingement, and thermal impacts all affect field populations simultaneously, provide, if 

possible, a single discussion of the effects of these stressors on trends in field data rather than 

having separate discussions for these three stressors individually. 

(3) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on impingement and entrainment issues known to 

the applicant and the public 

(4) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment 

C summarizes the permitting documents 

C states that a NPDES permit and 316(a) variance (if required) or equivalent State permits and 

supporting documentation are current and available 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to impacts of thermal impacts on aquatic organisms from continued plant operations 

during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS 

is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecology.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.5.5-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.5.5 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND PROTECTED SPECIES AND ESSENTIAL FISH 

HABITAT 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of impacts to 

threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat from continued plant operations 

during the renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of threatened, endangered, and protected species and 

essential fish habitat in the GEIS, (2) review the applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying 

and addressing any new and significant information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat includes those species and 

habitats that are Federally protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act (MSA). These Federal acts put requirements on Federal agencies such as the NRC. State-protected 

species and habitats are discussed in Section 3.0 Environment, but not in Section 4.0 Environmental 

Consequences and Mitigating Actions. Protection of these species and habitats is under the jurisdiction of 

the State agencies, which do not put requirements on NRC. Section 3.0 discusses the ESA and MSA, and 

this section focuses on treatment of environmental consequences and impacts under those acts. 

The ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), referred to collectively as the “Services.” Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA states
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5.5-2 July 2009 

 that each Federal agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary (Secretary of the Interior or Secretary 

of Commerce), insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat. Marine and anadromous species are generally the responsibility of NMFS, and all other 

species and habitats the responsibility of USFWS. While the analyses of environmental impact under 

NEPA and NRC’s regulations in the SEIS would include an assignment of NRC impact levels of Small, 

Moderate, or Large for each issue, the assessment of endangered species under ESA must include a 

determination of “jeopardy” or “no jeopardy” for the species itself and “ adverse modification” or “no 

adverse modification’ for designated critical habitat based on a careful analysis of the best available 

scientific and commercial data. Guidance for conducting consultations with the Services can be found in 

“The Endangered Species Consultation Handbook” (USFWS 1998). Note that a SEIS for license renewal 

can have separate consultations with the two Services for different species. 

The MSA mandates emphasize wetlands, anadromous fish habitat, and habitat of other Federallymanaged marine and estuarine species. The essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation process is very 

similar to the Section 7 consultation process for endangered species. Guidance for conducting EFH 

consultations with NMFS can be found in “Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance, Version 1.1.” 

(NMFS 2004). Similar to ESA, while the analyses of environmental impact under National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC’s regulations in the SEIS would include an assignment of 

NRC impact levels of Small, Moderate, or Large for each issue, the EFH assessment under MSA must 

include a determination of either “adverse impact” or “no adverse impact” to EFH. Adverse effect is any 

impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of essential fish habitat. Adverse effects may include 

direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or 

injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such 

modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Withdrawal of water for power plant cooling, 

even with return after passing through the cooling water system, is generally considered to decrease the 

quantity of both fish habitat and prey species. A finding of adverse impact should be qualified in terms of 

its magnitude relative to the stock or population of interest as "minimal," "less than substantial," or 

"substantial." 

Designated EFH may overlap with the habitat (including critical habitat) of species listed as threatened or 

endangered under the ESA. In such cases, an assessment can be prepared that integrates the biological 

assessment under ESA and the EFH assessment under MSA. In addition, an integrated consultation 

process can be conducted with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Special status species and habitats are reported in three parts of the SEIS. They should be described as 

part of the affected environment in Chapter 3. This description can include life history summaries in 

which the level of detail is appropriate for the level of analysis that would follow. They should also be 

included among the ecological entities that are assessed in Chapter 4. Communications with the Services 

regarding either listed species or EFH should be included in an appendix to the SEIS. If the geographic 

range of either species listed for Federal protection or essential fish habitat include the plant site, then the 

biological assessment and EFH assessment should also be included in that appendix. Compared to the 
July 2009 4.5.5-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

information in the main body of the SEIS, the assessments should focus sharply on the species or habitat 

and relevant information needed to support the assessment. 

NRC conducts ESA and MSA consultations with USFWS and NMFS. Endangered or threatened species, 

critical habitats, and essential fish habitat should all be assessed in the SEIS. In addition, if endangered or 

threatened species or their critical habitats occur in the vicinity of the nuclear plant site, a biological 

assessment should be prepared and included as an appendix in the SEIS. Similarly, if EFH occurs in the 

vicinity of the nuclear plant site, an EFH assessment should be prepared and included as an appendix in 

the SEIS. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on thermal impacts on threatened, endangered, and protected species and 

essential fish habitat identified by the public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish 

habitat are addressed in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecology. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts on threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential 

fish habitat from continued plant operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and 

alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the ESA and MSA review process are as follows: 

IIIa. Review Procedures for ESA 

(1) Review the discussion of threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat 

in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, 

the public, and the staff. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5.5-4 July 2009 

(2) Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described 

in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecology, with the following additions: 

• Identify potential environmental effects from continued operations during the renewal term 

that might impact threatened or endangered species or critical habitat. 

• Initiate informal consultation with the USFWS 

‐ Initiate informal consultation with the USFWS to determine the likelihood of adverse 

effects on listed and proposed threatened or endangered species or critical habitats. The 

NRC would provide USFWS with a description of nuclear plant operations during the 

renewal term, a description of any listed and proposed threatened or endangered species 

or critical habitats that it knows to exist on or in the vicinity of the power plant site, and a 

description of the manner in which operations during the renewal term is anticipated to 

impact listed and proposed threatened or endangered species or critical habitats. 

A detailed description of the procedural requirements for consultation under the ESA, 

including definitions of listed and proposed threatened and endangered species and 

critical habitats, jeopardy, adverse modification, etc., are found in Endangered Species 

Act Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Section 7 Consultations and 

Conferences (USFWS 1998). This document also contains guidelines for procuring an 

incidental take permit. 

‐ Initiate a biological assessment, if one is requested by the USFWS as a prerequisite to 

making a finding in the informal consultation. A biological assessment is required if 

listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are present, and is optional 

only if proposed threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are involved. 

The biological assessment should address listed and proposed threatened or endangered 

species and critical habitats that are likely to be affected. The content of biological 

assessments prepared pursuant to the ESA are at the discretion of the NRC, although 

recommended contents may be found in 50 CFR 402.12 

• Initiate formal consultation with the USFWS 

‐ Initiate formal consultation with USFWS to determine if operations during the renewal 

term are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species (jeopardy) or 

destroy or adversely modify critical habitat (adverse modification). The USFWS would 

render a biological opinion of jeopardy/no jeopardy and adverse modification/no adverse 

modification and issue an incidental take statement as warranted. The USFWS would 

also provide a list of reasonable and prudent alternatives (e.g., alternative design and/or 

placement of structures, alternative schedules, or alternative operational procedures, 

habitat improvement, etc.) for avoiding jeopardy or adverse modification, and minimizing incidental take. Alternatively, the USFWS may provide a statement that no 

reasonable and prudent alternatives exist, along with an explanation. 
July 2009 4.5.5-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

If USFWS renders an opinion of no jeopardy and no adverse modification, then prepare a 

statement for the SEIS that (1) summarizes the information that has been reviewed, the 

analyses that have been conducted, and the basis for the decision rendered by the 

USFWS, and (2) concludes that operations during the renewal term would not jeopardize 

the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. 

If USFWS renders an opinion of jeopardy and/or adverse modification, prepare a statement for the SEIS that (1) summarizes the information that has been reviewed, the 

analyses that have been conducted, and the basis for the decision rendered by USFWS, 

(2) includes a list of reasonable and prudent alternatives for avoiding jeopardy and/or 

adverse modification, or provides a statement that no reasonable and prudent alternatives 

exist, (3) includes a statement regarding the magnitude of anticipated incidental take and 

a list of reasonable and prudent alternatives for avoiding or reducing incidental take, and, 

if needed, procurement of an incidental take permit under sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 

10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, and (4) concludes that operations during the renewal term would 

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or destroy or adversely modify 

critical habitat. 

(3) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on impingement and entrainment issues known to 

the applicant and the public 

(4) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes the 

information that has been reviewed, the analyses that have been conducted, and the basis for 

the opinion rendered by the USFWS. This section of the SEIS should present 

‐ a list of adverse impacts to listed and proposed threatened or endangered species or 

critical habitats from continued operations during the renewal term and refurbishment 

‐ a list of the impacts for which there are reasonable and prudent alternatives to limit 

adverse effects and the associated alternatives 

‐ the applicant=s commitments to limit these impacts 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IIIb. Review Procedures for MSA 

Procedures EFH are very similar to those for threatened and endangered species and many can be 

performed simultaneously. Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of threatened, endangered, and protected species and essential fish habitat 

in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating information identified by the applicant, 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5.5-6 July 2009 

the public, and the staff. They should include results of requests to the NMFS for EFH in the 

project area. 

(2) Follow the general approach for information and analysis content for all ecology issues, described 

in ESRP Section 4.5, Ecology, with the following additions: 

• Identify potential environmental effects related to operations during the renewal term that 

might adversely affect EFH. Describe EFH that might be affected by continued plant 

operation. Include EFH and the species for which it is designated among the biological 

entities to be analyzed for each aquatic issue. It is helpful to know that EFH regulations 

“further clarify EFH by defining ‘waters’ to include aquatic areas and their associated 

physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic 

areas historically used by fish where appropriate; ‘substrate’ to include sediment, hard 

bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; ‘necessary’ 

to mean the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ 

contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and ‘spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity’ 

to cover a species’ full life cycle” (NMFS 2004). 

• Initiate abbreviated consultation with the NMFS 

- Initiate abbreviated consultation with the NMFS to determine the likelihood of adverse 

effects on EFH. The NRC would provide NMFS with a description of operations during 

the renewal term, a description of any EFH or presence of EFH species that it knows to 

exist on or in the vicinity of the site, and a description of the manner in which operations 

during the renewal term is anticipated to impact EFH. A detailed description of the 

procedural requirements for consultation, including definitions, are found in Essential 

Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance, Version 1.1 (NMFS 2004). 

- Initiate an EFH assessment, if one is requested by the NMFS as a prerequisite to making 

a finding in the informal consultation. An EFH assessment is required if EFH may be 

present in the area to be affected by the action. 

The assessment should include: the results of an on-site inspection; the views of 

recognized experts on the habitat or species effects; a literature review; an analysis of 

alternatives to the proposed action; and any other relevant information. 

 EFH Assessments must include: 

- a description of the proposed action 

- an analysis of the effects, including cumulative effects, of the action on EFH, the 

managed species, and associated species by life history stage 

- the federal agency’s views regarding the effects of the action on EFH; and (4) 

proposed mitigation, if applicable. 
July 2009 4.5.5-7 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

• Initiate expanded consultation with the NMFS 

- Initiate expanded consultation with the NMFS to determine if operations during the 

renewal term are likely to adversely affect EFH. The Service would render a written 

finding of adverse effects or no adverse effects and Conservation Recommendations as 

warranted. The MSA mandates that a federal action agency (NRC) must respond to 

NMFS’s proposed EFH Conservation Recommendations in writing within 30 days. 

NRC’s response must either include a description of measures proposed by the agency 

for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH or else explain its 

reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific rationale for any 

disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the 

measures needed to offset such effects. If an agency decision is inconsistent with a 

NMFS Conservation Recommendation, the NMFS Director may request a meeting with 

the Commission to further discuss the project. 

EFH Assessments must include: 

- Reference any EFH that may be found in water bodies that may be affected by plant 

operation. 

- Reference any license renewal activities and modifications to plant operation that 

may adversely affect EFH. 

- Reference letters and communications with the NMFS and any resulting NMFS 

memoranda, and include any letters in the Appendix to the ER. 

(3) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on impingement and entrainment issues known to 

the applicant and the public 

(4) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes the 

information that has been reviewed, the analyses that have been conducted, and the basis for 

the opinion rendered by the NMFS. This section of the SEIS should present 

‐ a list of adverse impacts to EFH from continued operations during the renewal term and 

refurbishment 

‐ a list of the impacts for which there conservation recommendations to limit adverse 

effects 

‐ the applicant=s commitments to limit these impacts 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.5.5-8 July 2009 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to impacts of continued plant operations during the license renewal term and 

refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review 

procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used to evaluate conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended, 16 USC 1451 et seq. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1993. Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations into 

Environmental Impact Analysis under the National Environmental Quality Act. CEQ, Executive Office 

of the President, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/tools/guidance/GuidancePDFs/iii-9.pdf. Accessed on August 6, 2008. 

Endangered Species Act, as amended, 16 USC 1531 et seq. 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), as amended, 33 USC 1251 et seq. (also known as Clean 

Water Act). 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Amendment, 16 USC 661 et seq. 

Menzie, C.A., et al. (10 other authors). 1996. Special Report of the Massachusetts Weight-of-Evidence 

Workgroup: A Weight of Evidence Approach for Evaluating Ecological Risks. Human and Ecological 

Risk Assessment 2(2):277-304. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2004. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation Guidance, Version 

1.1. Office of Habitat Conservation, Silver Spring, Maryland. Available at: 

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/pdf/efh/EFH%20Consultation%20Guidance%20v1-

1.pdf. Accessed on August 5, 2008. 

Suter, 1993. Chapter 10: Retrospective Risk Assessment. Pages 311-364. In G.W. Suter, II (ed.). 

Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
July 2009 4.5.5-9 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1973. Water Quality Criteria, 1972. Committee on 

Water Quality Criteria, National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, EPA-R3-

73-033, Ecological Research Series, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. 

EPA/630/R-95/002. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C. Available at: 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12460 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook 

(Washington, D.C.): Procedures for Conducting Section 7 Consultations and Conferences (Final). 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.6-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.6 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of potential impacts on 

historic and cultural resources during the renewal term and refurbishment. Impacts are discussed in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of historic and cultural resources in the GEIS, (2) review 

the applicant=s environmental report (ER), (3) identifying and addressing any new and significant 

information, and (4) preparing input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et 

seq.), requires that Federal agencies take into account the effects of the agency’s undertaking on 

properties included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and, prior to 

approval of an undertaking, to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable 

opportunity to comment on the undertaking. The issuance of a renewed operating license for a nuclear 

power plant is an undertaking that could possibly affect either known or currently undiscovered historic 

properties. 

An assessment of impact for license renewal differs from that of original licensing. In many cases, 

nuclear power plant sites were not investigated prior to plant construction. Even though the NHPA 

became law in 1966, the enacting regulations located at 36 CFR Part 800, were not available till the late 

1970s. By this point, many of the operating reactors today were constructed and operating. Therefore, 

most applicants are not aware of the occurrence or status of historic and cultural resources on their site.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.6-2 July 2009 

In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c) “Use of the NEPA process for section 106 purposes”, the NRC 

coordinates its Section 106 responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 

license renewal reviews. The NRC may use the NEPA process to comply with Section 106 in lieu of the 

procedures set forth in §§ 800.3 through 800.6 provided all consulting parties (ACHP, State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), American Indian Tribes, the 

public, and other interested stakeholders) have been notified in advance. The NRC will consult with the 

appropriate SHPO/THPO for each plant-specific license renewal review. Through early coordination all 

issues will be identified early. 

The area(s) within which historic and cultural resources should be identified is referred to as the Area of 

Potential Effect(s) (APE), defined at 36 CFR 800.16(d) as the geographic area or areas within which an 

undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of important cultural 

resources, if any such resources exist. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking 

and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking (36 CFR 800.16(d)). For 

NRC reviews, the APE is defined as the area at the power plant site and its immediate environs that may 

be impacted by post-license renewal land-disturbing operations or projected refurbishment activities. The 

APE may extend beyond the immediate environs in those instances where post- license renewal landdisturbing operations or projected refurbishment activities specifically related to license renewal may 

potentially have an effect on known or proposed historic sites. This determination is made irrespective of 

ownership or control of the lands of interest.

The purpose of the historic and cultural resources assessment is to ensure that such resources that are 

considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP are not adversely affected by proposed activities related to 

renewal term operations. Historic and cultural resources may include prehistoric or historic 

archaeological sites, historic properties, districts, and landscapes, as well as traditional cultural properties 

that may have significance for American Indian tribes. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information identified by the public and other information sources 

C a map that identifies the APE and a site disturbance map 

C applicant’s cultural resource protection procedures or Cultural Resource Management Plans 
July 2009 4.6-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

• previous cultural resources investigations that have identified historic and cultural resources, 

along with site-specific locations for those resources that are either located in or near the APE 

• information related to past evaluations for eligibility for the NRHP (36 CFR 60), and associated 

consultations with the SHPO, local preservation officials, or American Indian tribal officials 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of historic and cultural resources impacts during the renewal term are 

based on the relevant requirements of the following: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(c) Analysis. The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in 

accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(K) All applicants shall assess whether any historic properties will be 

affected by the proposed project. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics...The format provided in section 1(a) of 

appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, 

including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives 

eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be 

confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.6-4 July 2009 

information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

C Appendix B to Subpart A–Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants” 

• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq). 

• 36 CFR 800, “Protection of Historic Properties.” Specifically 36 CFR 800.8(c), Section 106 

integration with NEPA reviews. 

• 36 CFR 63 contains guidance by which historic properties are evaluated and determined eligible 

for listing on the NRHP. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to impacts on historic and cultural resources from continued plant 

operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The 

review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

To analyze the impact of plant operations during the renewal term on historic and cultural resources, 

review the information collected and discussed in Section 3.7 of the ESRP and complete the following 

steps: 

(1) Review the discussion of the impacts of plant operations during the renewal term on historic and 

cultural resources in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. 

This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, 

and the staff. Category 1 historic and cultural resource issues identified in the GEIS are listed in 

the following table. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Historic and Cultural Resources 

Historic and cultural 

resources 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with the license renewal term 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 impacts and mitigation. See § 

51.14(a). 
July 2009 4.6-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

(2) Analyze the historic and cultural resources impacts associated with continued plant operations 

during the renewal term and refurbishment, as follows: 

C Determine the direct and indirect impacts that could result from continued plant operations 

and refurbishment activities associated with license renewal, e.g., building new waste storage 

facilities, new parking areas, new access roads to existing transmission lines, or new transmission lines. 

C Review any issues related to historic and cultural resources identified during the public 

scoping period.

C Identify historic and cultural resources through consultation with the SHPO/THPO and by 

reviewing any archaeological investigations or building surveys conducted within the APE 

(power plant site) and the immediate environs. 

C Review the site disturbance map (developed by a qualified archaeologist) that indicates areas 

of heavy disturbance and areas of high potential for undiscovered historic and cultural 

resources. 

C Review any correspondence from the SHPO, any American Indian tribes, or local 

preservation officials regarding any archaeological investigations or building surveys 

conducted on the applicant’s site. 

• If significant resources are located within the APE, review any procedures or integrated 

cultural resources management plans instituted by the applicant to protect the historic and 

cultural resources identified on the site or within the transmission line rights-of-way. Also, 

verify that the applicant has developed these procedures and plans in consultation with the 

appropriate SHPO, local preservation official, or American Indian Tribes. 

• Evaluate the historic significance of historic and cultural resources by applying the NRHP 

criteria. Also, apply criteria for historic and cultural resources within the APE that have not 

been previously evaluated for NRHP eligibility. 

• Through consultation with American Indian Tribes, identify any traditional cultural 

properties. 

(3) Evaluate the effects of continued operations and refurbishment to historic and cultural resources. 

If historic and cultural resources are found to be in or near APE, the assessment of effects can be 

conducted using criteria for effect and adverse effect contained in 36 CFR 800.5 Assessment of 

adverse effects. Assessments of effect should involve consultation with the SHPO, local historic 

preservation officials, and American Indian tribal members, as necessary, to ensure that all 

potential values are identified for specific resources. The assessment would result in one of the 

following conclusions: 

C No effect; the proposed license-renewal-term operations activities would not affect any 

known significant historic and cultural resources.

C No adverse effect; the activities would affect one or more historic or cultural resources, but 

the effect would not significantly alter the historic character of the resource(s).
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.6-6 July 2009 

C Adverse effect; the proposed activities would result in harm to the qualities that make one or 

more historic or cultural resource significant.

(4) If an adverse effect would result from continued plant operations during the license renewal term 

and refurbishment, the applicant, in consultation with the NRC, SHPO, American Indian Tribes, 

and other interested parties should identify strategies to avoid, minimize or mitigate the impacts 

to significant historic and cultural resources. 

(5) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on historic and cultural issues known to the 

applicant, the public, and other consulting parties 

C all correspondence initiated by the applicant to the SHPO, American Indian tribes, or local 

preservation officials. 

C a map that identifies the APE and power plant property boundary 

C cultural resource protection procedures or Cultural Resource Management Plans 

C previous cultural resources investigations that have identified historic and cultural resources, 

along with site-specific locations for those resources that are either located in or near the APE 

information related to past evaluations for eligibility for the NRHP (36 CFR 60), and 

associated consultations with the SHPO, local preservation officials, or American Indian 

tribal officials 

(6) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes the 

information that has been reviewed, and the analyses that have been conducted 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the information in the assessment would be governed by the extent and significance of the effects of operations during the renewal term on historic and cultural resources. The 

reviewer should verify that sufficient information is available to meet the relevant requirements and that 

the evaluation supports statements of the following type to be included in the assessment, as appropriate. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
July 2009 4.6-7 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

36 CFR 60, ANational Register of Historic Places, National Parks Service, Department of the Interior.@

36 CFR 800, AProtection of Historic Properties.@

National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 16 USC 470 et seq. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.7-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.7 SOCIOECONOMICS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) guides the review of socioeconomic impacts of 

continued plant operations and refurbishment associated with license renewal. Socioeconomic impacts of 

continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment are evaluated in the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 

1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes: (1) review of potential socioeconomic impacts of continued plant operations and 

refurbishment addressed in the GEIS, (2) evaluation of new information for significance, and (3) 

preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

The potential impacts of continued plant operations during the license renewal term and refurbishment on 

C Employment and income (recreation and tourism) 

C Tax revenues 

C Community services and education 

C Population and housing 

C Transportation 

are identified as Category 1 issues in the GEIS.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.7-2 July 2009 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on socioeconomic factors identified by the public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of continued nuclear power plant 

operations during the operating license renewal term and refurbishment are based on the following 

regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(c) Analysis. The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in 

accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics...The format provided in section 1(a) of 

appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 
July 2009 4.7-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, 

including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives 

eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be 

confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of 

information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

C Appendix B to Subpart A–Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants” 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to socioeconomic impacts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the socioeconomic review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of potential socioeconomic impacts of continued plant operations during 

the operating license renewal term in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating any 

new and significant socioeconomic information identified by the applicant, the public, and the 

staff. Category 1 socioeconomic issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the following table. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Socioeconomics 

Employment and income, 

recreation and tourism 

1 SMALL. Although most nuclear plants have large numbers of 

employees with higher than average wages and salaries, 

employment and income impacts from continued operations and 

refurbishment are expected to be small. Nuclear plant operations, 

employee spending, power plant expenditures, and tax payments 

have an affect on local economies. Changes in plant operations, 

employment and expenditures would have a greater effect on 

rural economies than on semi-urban economies. 

Tax revenues 1 SMALL. Nuclear plants provide tax revenue to local 

jurisdictions in the form of property tax payments, payments in 

lieu of tax (PILOT), or tax payments on energy production. The 

amount of tax revenue paid during the license renewal term from 

continued operations and refurbishment is not expected to 

change, since the assessed value of the power plant, payments on 

energy production and PILOT payments are also not expected to 

change. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.7-4 July 2009 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Socioeconomics – Continued 

Community services and 

education 

1 SMALL. Changes to local community and educational services 

would be small from continued operations and refurbishment 

associated with the license renewal term. With no increase in 

employment, 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. Changes in 

employment and tax payments would have a greater effect on 

jurisdictions receiving a large portion of annual revenues from 

the power plant than on jurisdictions receiving the majority of 

their revenues from other sources. 

Population and housing 1 SMALL. Changes to regional population and housing 

availability and value would be small from continued operations 

and refurbishment associated with the license renewal term. 

With no increase in employment expected during the license 

renewal term, population and housing availability and values 

would not be affected by continued power plant operations. 

Changes in housing availability and value would have a greater 

effect on sparsely populated areas than areas with higher density 

populations. 

Transportation 1 SMALL. Changes to traffic volumes would be small from 

continued operations and refurbishment activities associated with 

the license renewal term. Changes in employment would have a 

greater effect on rural areas, with less developed local and 

regional networks. Impacts would be less noticeable in semiurban areas depending on the quality and extent of local access 

roads and the timing of plant shift changes when compared to 

typical local usage. 

(2) Determine whether there is any new socioeconomic information that should be evaluated. The 

following sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

C The applicant=s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information on the socioeconomic impacts of operating license renewal of which 

it is aware. In reviewing the applicant=s ER, consider the applicant=s process for discovering 

new information and evaluating the significance of any new information. Is the process 

adequate to ensure a reasonable likelihood that the applicant would be aware of new 

information? 

C Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the operating license 

renewal application. Compare the socioeconomic information presented by the public with 

information considered in the GEIS. Does the information post date the analysis leading to 

the GEIS? 

C Environmental quality standards and regulations. Have the applicable environmental quality 

standards and regulations changed since the analysis leading to the GEIS? If so, do these 

changes affect the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal?
July 2009 4.7-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

(3) Evaluate the significance of new socioeconomic information. 

(4) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on socioeconomic issues known to the applicant and 

the public 

(5) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes the 

information that has been reviewed, and the analyses that have been conducted 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The amount of information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to reach 

a conclusion related to the potential impacts of continued plant operations on socioeconomic conditions in 

the region around the nuclear plant site during the license renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used to evaluate conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.7-6 July 2009 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.8-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.8 HUMAN HEALTH 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of the 

human-health impacts from continued plant operations during the license renewal term and 

refurbishment. Human health impacts are evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement

(GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes: (1) review of human health impacts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term and refurbishment in the GEIS, (2) evaluation of new information for significance, 

and (3) preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s ER 

C the GEIS 

C new information on human health impacts identified by the public and other information sources 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.8-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of human-health impacts are based on the relevant requirements of 

the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(c) Analysis. The environmental report must include an analysis that considers and 

balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse 

environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in 

accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(3)(c)(ii)(G) concerning providing an assessment of the impact of the proposed 

action on public health from thermophilic organisms in the affected water if the plant uses a 

cooling pond, lake, or canal or if the cooling system discharges into a river that has an annual 

average flow rate of less than 9 H 1010 m3

/yr (3.15 H 1012 ft3/yr)

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics...The format provided in section 1(a) of 

appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, 

including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives 

eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be 

confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of 

information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 
July 2009 4.8-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C Appendix B to Subpart A–Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants” 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to human health impacts from continued plant operations during the 

license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of potential human health impacts from continued plant operations during 

the operating license renewal term in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for evaluating any 

new and significant human health information identified by the applicant, the public, and the 

staff. Category 1 human health impact issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the following 

table. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Human Health 

Radiation exposures to 

the public 

1 SMALL. Radiation doses to the public from continued 

operations and refurbishment associated with the license renewal 

term are expected to continue at current levels, and would be well 

below regulatory limits. 

Radiation exposures to 

occupational workers 

1 SMALL. Occupational doses from continued operations and 

refurbishment associated with the license renewal term are 

expected to be within the range of doses experienced during the 

current license term, and would continue to be well below 

regulatory limits. 

Human health impact 

from chemicals 

1 SMALL. Chemical hazards to workers would be minimized by 

observing good industrial hygiene practices. Chemical releases 

to the environment and the potential for impacts to the public are 

minimized by adherence to discharge limitations of NPDES 

permits. 

Microbiological hazards 

to plant workers 

1 SMALL. Occupational health impacts are expected to be 

controlled by continued application of accepted industrial 

hygiene practices to minimize worker exposures. 

Chronic effects of 

electromagnetic fields 

(EMFs)5

N/A Uncertain impact. Studies of 60-Hz EMFs have not uncovered 

consistent evidence linking harmful effects with field exposures. 

EMFs are unlike other agents that have a toxic effect (e.g., toxic 

chemicals and ionizing radiation) in that dramatic acute effects 

cannot be forced and longer-term effects, if real, are subtle. 

Because the state of the science is currently inadequate, no 

generic conclusion on human health impacts is possible. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.8-4 July 2009 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Human Health – Continued 

Physical occupational 

hazards 

1 SMALL. Occupational safety and health hazards are generic to 

all types of electrical generating stations, including nuclear power 

plants, and is of small significance if the workers adhere to safety 

standards and use protective equipment. 

The Category 2 human health impact issues identified in the GEIS are listed in the following 

table: 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Human Health 

Microbiological hazards 

to the public (plants with 

cooling ponds or canals 

or cooling towers that 

discharge to a river) 

2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. These organisms are not 

expected to be a problem at most operating plants except possibly 

at plants using cooling ponds, lakes, or canals that discharge to 

rivers. Impacts would depend on site-specific characteristics. 

Electric shock hazards 2 SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE. Electrical shock potential is 

of small significance for transmission lines that are operated in 

adherence with the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC). 

Without a review of each nuclear plant transmission line 

conformance with NESC criteria, it is not possible to determine 

the significance of the electrical shock potential. 

(2) Determine whether there is any new human health impact information that should be evaluated. 

The following sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

C The applicant=s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information on the human health impacts of operating license renewal of which it 

is aware. In reviewing the applicant=s ER, consider the applicant=s process for discovering 

new information and evaluating the significance of any new information. Is the process 

adequate to ensure a reasonable likelihood that the applicant would be aware of new 

information? 

C Records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the operating license 

renewal application. Compare the human health information presented by the public with 

information considered in the GEIS. Does the information post date the analysis leading to 

the GEIS? 

C Part 20 standards and regulations. Have the applicable standards and regulations changed 

since the analysis leading to the GEIS? If so, do these changes affect the NRC evaluation of 

applications for license renewal?

(3) Evaluate the significance of new human health impact information. 

(4) Review the applicant’s ER, including: 

C the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 
July 2009 4.8-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C any new information included in the ER on human health impact issues known to the 

applicant and the public 

(5) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that: 

C describes analysis of continued plant operations and refurbishment and summarizes the 

information that has been reviewed, and the analyses that have been conducted 

C describes measures to mitigate adverse impacts 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach a conclusion related to the potential human health impacts from continued plant operations and 

refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review 

procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.8-6 July 2009 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1996. Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease 

OutbreaksCUnited States, 1993-1994. M.H. Kramer, B.L. Herwaldt, G.F. Craun, R.L. Calderon, 

D.D. Juranek. Source: MMWR 45(SS-1): 1-33. April 12, 1996. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.8.1-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.8.1 IMPACT TO PUBLIC HEALTH FROM MICROBIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of the 

human-health impacts associated with the plant=s cooling system during the renewal term. This issue is 

identified as a Category 2 issue in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 

Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes: (1) review of the impacts to human health from thermophilic microorganisms 

discussion in the GEIS, (2) evaluation of new information for significance, and (3) preparation of input to 

the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Microorganisms that are associated with cooling towers and thermal discharges can have negative 

impacts on human health. The presence and numbers of these organisms can be increased by the addition 

of heat; thus they are called thermophilic organisms. These microorganisms include the enteric pathogens 

Salmonella sp. and Shigella sp. as well as Pseudomonas aeriginosa and thermophilic fungi. They also 

include the bacteria Legionella sp., which causes Legionnaires= disease, and free-living amoebae of the 

genera Naegleria and Acanthamoeba. Exposure to these microorganisms, or in some cases the 

endotoxins or exotoxins produced by the organisms, can cause illness or death. 
July 2009 4.8.1-2 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Maximum contaminant levels of various microorganisms, including Legionella, in public drinking water 

systems are regulated by 40 CFR 141.70. However, there are no regulations that could be tied to 

microorganisms that are associated with cooling towers or thermal discharges. Other than the need to 

assess the impact of thermophilic microorganisms on license renewal, there are no acceptance criteria 

associated with microbial organisms that may exist in the cooling system and that could affect human 

health. No Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or other legal standards for exposure 

to microorganisms exist at the present time. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s environmental report (ER) 

C the GEIS 

C new information on impacts to human health from thermophilic microorganisms identified by the 

public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of human health impacts from thermophilic microorganisms are 

addressed in ESRP Section 4.8, Human Health. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to human health impacts from thermophilic microorganisms associated 

with continued plant operations during the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the 

proposed action. The review should also address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of potential impacts to human health from thermophilic microorganisms 

associated with continued plant operations during the operating license renewal term in the GEIS. 

This step establishes the basis for evaluating any new and significant socioeconomic information 

identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

(2) Review the plant cooling system. If the plant cooling system uses a cooling pond, lake, or canal, 

or discharges to a river that has an annual average flow rate of less than 9 H 1010 m3

/yr 

(3.15 H 1012 ft3

/yr) then continue the analysis at Step (3). Otherwise, prepare a statement for the 
July 2009 4.8.1-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

SEIS that describes the plant cooling system, states that the cooling system discharges to a river 

with a flow exceeding 9 H 1010 m3

/yr, an ocean, a large lake or other body of water not listed 

above, and concludes that there would not be a detrimental impact from the thermal discharges on 

the concentration levels of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms. 

• a description of the location of the thermal discharges for the plant=s cooling system (i.e., a 

cooling pond, lake, canal) and a characterization of the water body receiving discharges from 

the cooling system, e.g., a river (annual average flow rate of less than 9 H 1010 m3

/yr [3.15 H

1012 ft3

/yr]), large river, large lake or ocean (from the ER)

• the temperature increase expected for the aquatic environment that is subject to the plant=s 

thermal discharges (from the ER)

• the results of any analyses that have been made for the presence of deleterious thermophilic 

microorganisms. These include the enteric pathogens Salmonella sp. and Shigella sp., as well 

as Pseudomonas aeriginosa and thermophilic fungi. In addition, analyses for the presence of 

unusually high concentrations of the normally present Legionella sp. (Legionnaires= disease 

bacteria) and the free-living amoebae of the genera Naegleria and Acanthomoeba should be 

cited (from the ER).

• a list of the outbreaks of waterborne diseases in the United States during the previous 10 

years in the vicinity of the plant. This list is published regularly by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC 1996).

• an evaluation of available data concerning the occurrence and concentrations of any of the 

deleterious thermophilic microorganisms listed above in the vicinity of the plant and a 

determination of whether any of them are present under conditions and in locations that might 

be harmful to members of the public. If such an evaluation exists, it may be obtained from 

the applicant or from the State Public Health Department in the State in which the plant is 

located. 

(3) Consult with the State Public Health Department and review any records associated with 

waterborne disease outbreaks in the region. If the State Public Health Department is concerned 

about such outbreaks or the potential for such outbreaks, then continue the analysis at Step (4). 

Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS describing the plant cooling system that 

$ outlines the process leading to the determination that there have been no or few waterborne 

disease outbreaks in the region 

$ provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating their basis for not 

being concerned about the potential for an impact to the public health from microbiological 

organisms associated with the cooling system

$ concludes that it appears unlikely that thermal discharges from the plant would increase the 

number of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms to levels that could cause a public health 

problem. 
July 2009 4.8.1-4 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

(4) If the State advises that tests should be conducted for concentration of N. fowleri (or other 

deleterious thermophilic microorganisms) in the receiving waters, the licensee should perform the 

tests when the facility has been operating at a power level typical of the level anticipated during 

the license renewal term for at least a month to ensure a steady state population during the 

sampling. Samples should be taken at locations of potential public use. An evaluation of the data 

should be performed and a determination made of the magnitude of potential impacts of N. 

fowlerii (or other deleterious thermophilic microorganisms) on public health during the license 

renewal term. If the potential for an impact is determined, then continue the analysis at Step (5). 

If the State does not advise that tests be conducted, but they still have a concern related to the 

presence of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms then continue the analysis at Step (5) 

without the testing. Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that 

C describes the results of the tests that were performed

C provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating their basis for not 

being concerned about the potential for an impact to the public health from microbiological 

organisms associated with the cooling system as a result of the tests that were performed

C concludes that it appears unlikely that thermal discharges from the plant would increase the 

number of deleterious thermophilic microorganisms to levels that could cause a public health 

problem.

(5) Request that the applicant consider mitigative measures to minimize the potential impacts if the 

results of the consultation with the State Public Health Department and/or the review of records 

associated with waterborne disease outbreaks in the region show any cause for concern regarding 

public health concerns related to deleterious thermophilic microorganisms. 

Mitigative measures may include: 

C setting up and executing a monitoring program for deleterious thermophilic microorganisms 

C limiting public access to areas affected by the plant=s thermal discharges (such as prohibiting 

public swimming in the mixing zone of the river).

(6) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that 

$ describes the plant cooling system

$ summarizes the information related to any waterborne disease outbreaks in the region

$ provides a statement from the State Public Health Department indicating any concerns 

regarding the potential for an impact to the public health from microbiological organisms 

associated with the cooling system

$ identifies and describes the mitigative measures considered and committed to by the applicant

$ concludes that the impacts of microbiological organisms associated with the cooling system 

are SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE within the context of the analysis in the GEIS, 

considering the mitigative measures committed to by the applicant.
July 2009 4.8.1-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach a conclusion related to the potential impacts on human health from microbiological organisms 

associated with the plant=s cooling system. The information that should be included in the SEIS is 

described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.8, Human Health. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.8.2-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.8.2 ELECTRIC SHOCK HAZARDS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the electric shock 

from transmission line induced currents. This issue is identified as a Category 2 issue in the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 

2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes: (1) review of the impacts to human health from electric shock from transmission line 

induced currents in the GEIS, (2) evaluation of new information for significance, and (3) preparation of 

input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

The scope should include determining if transmission lines constructed for the purpose of connecting the 

plant to the transmission system meet the recommendations of the National Electrical Safety Code 

(NESC) for preventing electric shock from induced currents. If not, the scope includes assessing the 

impact of the proposed action on the potential shock hazard from the transmission lines. The scope also 

includes preparation of input to the SEIS. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed:
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.8.2-2 July 2009 

C the applicant=s environmental report (ER) 

C the GEIS 

C new information on impacts to human health from electric shock from transmission line induced 

currents identified by the public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of electric shock from transmission line induced currents are 

addressed in ESRP Section 4.8, Human Health, with the following additions: 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(H) concerning assessing impacts of transmission systems not meeting 

NESC criteria. 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulation identified above are as 

follows: 

C NESC (IEEE 1997) provides guidance concerning shock hazards. 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to human health impacts from electric shock from transmission line 

induced currents associated with continued plant operations during the license renewal term, 

refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also address any new and 

significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of the issues associated with electric shock hazards from induced 

transmission line currents in the GEIS. 

(2) Review the route of the transmission lines constructed to connect the plant to the transmission 

system. 

(3) Review the applicant=s analysis demonstrating that the transmission lines continue to meet NESC 

clearance standards to which they were built. 

C The following data or information may be needed to assess human health impacts from 

electric shock from transmission line induced currents: 
July 2009 4.8.2-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

• a description of the transmission lines constructed to connect the plant to the transmission 

system 

• verification of initial transmission line conformance with NESC criteria (NESC edition to 

which the lines were built or a later edition) 

• a description of a transmission line management program, if any, including continued 

compliance with NESC electrical shock provisions 

• plans to bring lines into conformance with NESC criteria if not already in compliance. 

Consider basic electrical design parameters, including transmission design voltage or 

voltages, line capacity, conductor type and configuration, spacing between phases, 

minimum conductor clearances to ground, maximum predicted electric field strength(s) at 

1 m above ground, the predicted electric field strength(s) at the edge of the right-of-way 

in kilovolts per meter (kV/m), and the design bases for these values (from the ER) 

• (if NESC clearance standards cannot be demonstrated) a transmission line survey 

identifying sites or areas that do not meet the standards and that may not meet the 

standards following anticipated changes in transmission-line operations or changes in 

land use in the right-of-way. 

C If the applicant does not state that transmission lines constructed to connect the plant to the 

grid meet electrical shock hazard of the NESC code or the applicant=s demonstration is not 

adequate, then continue the review at Step (4). Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS 

that 

• describes the route of the transmission line constructed to connect the plant to the 

transmission system 

• describes the line (voltage, capacity, conductor configuration, minimum conductor-toground clearance, and maximum predicted electrical field strengths 1 m above ground, 

etc.) 

• provides the basis for the staff evaluation 

• concludes that the system meets the criteria of the NESC. 

(4) Identify any sites or areas where the transmission lines fail to meet the NESC clearance standards. 

These areas should be shown on maps, photographs, or drawings to be included in the SEIS. 

(5) Identify measures that could be taken to meet the standards in the areas where the transmission 

lines fail to meet the NESC standards. Determine which measures the applicant plans or proposes 

to undertake, if any, and whether those measures would result in transmission lines meeting the 

standards. 

(6) Identify and evaluate mitigation measures for those areas where the transmission lines would not 

meet NESC standards. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.8.2-4 July 2009 

(7) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that 

C describes the route of the transmission line constructed to connect the plant to the 

transmission system 

C describes the line (voltage, capacity, conductor configuration, minimum conductor-to-ground 

clearance, and maximum predicted electrical field strengths 1 m above ground, etc.) and 

potential shock hazard from the transmission lines 

C identifies sites or areas where NESC standards would not be met and explains why the 

standards are not appropriate to the situation or why the applicant would not make 

modifications to meet standards 

C describes measures to mitigate potential impacts in those areas 

C provides the significance level of the environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach a conclusion related to the potential electric shock from transmission line induced currents. The 

information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliography for this section is provided in ESRP Section 4.8, Human Health. 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). 1997. The National Electrical Safety Code 

(NESC), New York.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.9-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.9 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

On February 11, 1994, the President signed Executive Order 12898 “Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” which directs all Federal 

agencies to develop strategies for considering environmental justice in their programs, policies, and 

activities. Environmental justice is described in the Executive Order as “identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” On December 10, 1997, 

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued, Environmental Justice Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. The Council developed this guidance to, “further assist Federal 

agencies with their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures.” 

On August 24, 2004, the Commission issued a Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental 

Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040), which states, “the Commission 

is committed to the general goals set forth in E.O. 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of its 

NEPA review process.” The following guidance is consistent with this policy statement. 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance on conducting environmental justice 

reviews for proposed actions requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of NRC’s 

compliance with NEPA. This issue is identified as a Category 2 issue in the Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes: (1) review of the impacts to minority and low-income populations in the GEIS, (2) 

evaluation of new information for significance, and (3) preparation of input to the supplemental 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.9-2 July 2009 

environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Guidelines for specific information requirements for environmental justice determinations are described 

in Appendix C to NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 2: AProcedural Guidance for Preparing 

Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues@ (NRC 2009). This office instruction 

is revised periodically. For current guidance, obtain the latest revision. 

The scope should include an analysis of impacts on minority and low-income populations and the location 

and significance of any environmental impacts of continued plant operations during the renewal term and 

refurbishment. The descriptions to be provided by this review should be of sufficient detail to permit 

subsequent staff assessment and evaluation of specific impacts, in particular whether these impacts are 

likely to be disproportionately high and adverse to minority and low-income populations. 

The staff should consider the demographic composition of the affected area to determine the location of 

minority and low-income populations and whether they may be affected by the proposed action. The staff 

then needs to determine if human health or environmental impacts would have a disproportionately high 

and adverse effect on minority or low-income populations. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the applicant=s environmental report (ER) 

C the GEIS 

C new information on impacts to human health from electric shock from transmission line induced 

currents identified by the public and other information sources 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The acceptance criteria for environmental justice impacts are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following: 

C Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629) provides guidance concerning Federal actions to address 

environmental justice in minority and low-income populations. 

C 10 CFR 51.45(c) Analysis. The environmental report must include an analysis that 

considers and balances the environmental effects of the proposed action, the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action, and alternatives available 

for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects.

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) The report must contain a description of the proposed action, including the 

applicant’s plans to modify the facility or its administrative control procedures as described in 

accordance with § 54.21 of this chapter. This report must describe in detail the affected 

environment around the plant, the modifications directly affecting the environment or any plant 
July 2009 4.9-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

effluents, and any planned refurbishment activities. In addition, the applicant shall discuss in this 

report the environmental impacts of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(3)(c)(ii)(N) Applicants shall provide information on the general demographic 

composition of minority and low-income populations and communities (by race and ethnicity) 

residing in the immediate vicinity of the plant that could be affected by ongoing and future plant 

operations and license renewal activities. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics...The format provided in section 1(a) of 

appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7), concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, 

including the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives 

eliminated from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be 

confined to a brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of 

information for each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for 

sound decisionmaking. 

C Appendix B to Subpart A–Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear 

Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Power Plants” 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

C Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance for addressing environmental justice, 

Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act, December 10, 1997 

(CEQ 1997). 

C Guidelines for specific information requirements for environmental justice determinations are 

described in Appendix C to NRR Office Instruction LIC-203, Revision 2: Procedural Guidance for 

Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues. NRR Office 

Instruction LIC-203 is revised periodically. Obtain a copy of the latest revision for current 

guidance. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.9-4 July 2009 

Technical Rationale

The review conducted under this ESRP leads to the preparation of SEIS sections that incorporate the 

conclusions in the GEIS related to environmental justice impacts from continued plant operations during 

the license renewal term, refurbishment, and alternatives to the proposed action. The review should also 

address any new and significant information. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The review procedure should be as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of potential environmental justice impacts from continued plant operations 

during the operating license renewal term in the GEIS. This step establishes the basis for 

evaluating any new and significant socioeconomic information identified by the applicant, the 

public, and the staff. Category 2 environmental justice impact issue and finding is provided in the 

following table. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Environmental Justice 

Minority and low-income 

populations 

2 SMALL or MODERATE. Impacts to minority and low-income 

populations and subsistence consumption would 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). 

(2) Identify minority and low-income populations within a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the 

nuclear plant. All minority and low-income populations with percentages higher than the 

geographic area should be identified on 50-mile radius maps 

(3) Identify environmental justice issues during the scoping process 

 

C Determine geographic distribution by race, ethnicity, and poverty, as well as delineation of 

tribal lands 

In calculating the minority populations, individual(s) who are members of the following 

population groups listed in the 2000 Census are considered minority individuals. 

Race: (Not Hispanic or Latino): 

Black or African American 

American Indian or Alaska Native 

Asian 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 

Some other race 

Two or more races 
July 2009 4.9-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

Ethnicity: 

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 

Low-income population is defined as individuals or families living below the poverty level 

Sources of information for determining geographic distribution and location of minority and 

low-income populations: 

y LandView computer software offered by the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. 

Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration. 

y Local governments 

y State agencies 

y Local universities 

(4) Determine whether there are human health and environmental impacts to minority or low-income 

populations or environmental justice concerns 

C Potential human health and environmental impacts are determined through the normal NEPA 

process 

− Impacts that could potentially affect or cause concern to minority and low-income 

populations should be summarized in the environmental justice section of the SEIS 

− In considering human health and environmental impacts to minority and low-income 

populations, different patterns of consumption of natural resources should also be 

considered (i.e., differences in rates and/or pattern of fish, vegetable, water, and/or 

wildlife consumption among groups defined by demographic factors such as 

socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and/or cultural attributes) (see Section 4-4 of 

Executive Order 12898, Subsistence Consumption of Fish and Wildlife) 

− Consider whether there are any means for minority or low-income populations to be 

disproportionately affected by examining potential impacts to American Indian, 

Hispanic, and other traditional lifestyle special pathway receptors. For example, 

special pathway impacts take into account levels of contaminants in native 

vegetation, crops, soils and sediments, surface water, fish, and game animals on or 

near nuclear plant sites 

− Sources of information include: 

1. Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP), annual radiological 

environmental operating reports 

2. State radiological monitoring programs 

(5) Determine whether there are disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority and low-income populations. 

C Take into account different patterns of living and consumption of natural resources, such as 

subsistence consumption. Also consider the following questions: 

− Would the impact(s) be greater for minority and low-income populations than the general 

population? 

− Are there any unique effects experienced by minority and low-income populations that 

would not be experienced by the general population? 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.9-6 July 2009 

C After identifying human health and environmental impacts that could disproportionately 

affect minority and low-income populations, it is necessary to determine if the effect(s) 

would be high and adverse. Another way of stating this: 

− Would the effect(s) on minority and low-income populations be significant, unacceptable 

or above generally accepted norms such as regulatory limits or State and local statutes 

and ordinances? Each human health and environmental impact, and where appropriate, 

the cumulative and multiple effects of the impact(s), should be reviewed for significance. 

C To the extent practicable, mitigation measures should reflect the needs and preferences of the 

affected minority and low-income populations and communities. 

(6) Make a determination regarding impacts to minority and low-income populations and document 

the conclusion. 

(7) The results of an environmental justice review should be documented in the SEIS. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of 

the identified minority and low-income populations and by the nature and magnitude of the expected 

impacts of continued operation during the renewal term and refurbishment. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 
July 2009 4.9-7 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. CEQ Guidance, December 10, 1997, Washington, D.C. Available online at: 

http://www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf. 

Executive Order 12898, AFederal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income 

Populations.@ 59 Federal Register 7629-7633 (1994). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Information (NRC). 2004. Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental 

Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040). 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.10-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.10 WASTE MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of waste management 

activities at nuclear power plants during the license renewal term and refurbishment. 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of solid waste management during the license renewal 

term in the GEIS, (2) identification and evaluation of any new information, and (3) preparation of input to 

the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C a description of the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

C any new information included in the ER on waste management and pollution prevention at the 

plant.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.10-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of land-use impacts of transmission lines during the license renewal 

term are based on the relevant requirements of the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning independent evaluation and responsibility for the reliability of 

information used in the draft EIS 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) concerning consideration of significant new information. 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the renewal term solid waste management is discussed in the 

following paragraph: 

The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified by the 

supporting information in the GEIS, for issues designated as Category 1 or resolved Category 2 

information developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and any significant 

new information. The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of sections of the SEIS 

that incorporate the conclusions in the GEIS related to solid waste management during the license 

renewal term, as appropriate, and addresses significant new information, if any. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of solid waste management during the license renewal term in the GEIS to 

identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the base 

for evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. The following 

table lists the renewal term waste management issues considered in the GEIS. 

(2) Determine if there is new information on these issues that should be evaluated. The following 

sources of information should be included in the search for new information: 

C the applicant=s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. In 

reviewing the applicant=s ER, consider the applicant=s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

C records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 
July 2009 4.10-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, continue with the analysis. 

Otherwise, prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, stating 

the conclusion that there is no new information, and adopting the conclusions from the GEIS. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Solid Waste Management 

Low-level waste storage 

and disposal 

1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls that are in 

place and the low public doses being achieved at reactors ensure 

that the radiological impacts to the environment would remain 

small during the term of a renewed license. 

Onsite storage of spent 

nuclear fuel 

1 SMALL. The expected increase in the volume of spent fuel from 

an additional 20 years of operation can be safely accommodated 

onsite 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 

1 For the high-level waste and spent-fuel disposal component of 

the fuel cycle, the EPA established a dose limit of 15 millirem 

(0.15 mSv) per year for the first 10,000 years and 100 millirem 

(1.0 mSv) per year between 10,000 years and 1 million years for 

offsite releases of radionuclides at the proposed repository at 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be 

sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, 

that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 

should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has 

not assigned a single level of significance for the impacts of spent 

fuel and high level waste disposal, this issue is considered 

Category 1. 

Mixed-waste storage and 

disposal 

1 SMALL. The comprehensive regulatory controls and the 

facilities and procedures that are in place ensure proper handling 

and storage, as well as negligible doses and exposure to toxic 

materials for the public and the environment at all plants. 

License renewal would not increase the small, continuing risk to 

human health and the environment posed by mixed waste at all 

plants. The radiological and nonradiological environmental 

impacts of long-term disposal of mixed waste from any 

individual plant at licensed sites are small. 

Nonradioactive waste 

storage and disposal 

1 SMALL. No changes to systems that generate nonradioactive 

waste are anticipated during the license renewal term. Facilities 

and procedures are in place to ensure continued proper handling, 

storage, and disposal, as well as negligible exposure to toxic 

materials for the public and the environment at all plants. 

(3) Evaluate the significance of new information. If new information is significant, continue with the 

analysis. 

(4) Prepare concise statements of the issues raised by significant new information and provide these 

statements to the Environmental Project Manager (EPM) for review and disposition. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.10-4 July 2009 

(5) Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 

information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions 

from the GEIS modified as necessary to account for significant new information. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be determined by the analysis required to reach a 

conclusion related to waste management and pollution prevention during the license renewal term. The 

information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.11.1-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.11 IMPACTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

4.11.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF URANIUM FUEL CYCLE 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of introductory 

paragraphs for the portion of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that describes 

environmental impacts of the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term. 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of the uranium fuel cycle in the GEIS, (2) identification 

and evaluation of new information related to the uranium fuel cycle, (3) preparation of input to the SEIS 

that presents the analyses related to those Category 1 issues. 

Category 1 issues related to uranium fuel cycle include (1) offsite radiological impacts (individual and 

collective effects), (2) offsite radiological impacts (spent fuel and high-level waste disposal), (3) 

nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, (4) low-level waste storage and disposal, (5) mixed 

waste storage and disposal, (6) onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel, (7) nonradioactive waste, and (8) 

transportation. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.11.1-2 July 2009 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

on environmental issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term 

C new information on the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term known to the applicant 

C new and potentially significant information on the uranium fuel cycle identified by the public 

C a list of environmental issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term for which 

there is significant new information 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of the uranium fuel cycle are based on the relevant requirements of 

the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(b) concerning environmental considerations in the applicant’s ER 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) concerning discussion of compliance with applicable environmental quality 

standards and requirements in the applicant’s ER 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) concerning analyses required in ERs submitted at the license renewal 

stage 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning an independent evaluation of the assessment and the reliability of 

information used in the assessment 

C 10 CFR 51.71(d) concerning compliance with environmental quality standards and requirements 

that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal 

agencies 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) concerning consideration of significant new information. 

Technical Rationale

The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified by the supporting 

information in the GEIS, for issues designated as Category 1 or resolved Category 2, information 

developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and any significant new information in 

an EIS prepared at the license renewal stage. The review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation 

of sections of the SEIS that incorporate the conclusions from the GEIS related to the uranium fuel cycle 

and address significant new information, if any. 
July 2009 4.11.1-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of the issue in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the 

conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the uranium fuel cycle issues that were 

addressed in the GEIS for which generic conclusions were reached. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Uranium Fuel Cycle 

Offsite radiological 

impacts – individual 

impacts from other than 

the disposal of spent fuel 

and high-level waste 

1 SMALL. The impacts to the public from radiological exposures 

have been considered by the Commission in Table S-3 of this 

part. Based on information in the GEIS, impacts to individuals 

from radioactive gaseous and liquid releases including radon-222 

and technetium-99 would remain at or below the NRC’s 

regulatory limits. 

Offsite radiological 

impacts – collective 

impacts from other than 

the disposal of spent fuel 

and high-level waste 

1 There are no regulatory limits applicable to collective doses to 

the general public from fuel-cycle facilities. The practice of 

estimating health effects on the basis of collective doses may not 

be meaningful. All fuel-cycle facilities are designed and 

operated to meet the applicable regulatory limits and standards. 

The Commission concludes that the collective impacts are 

acceptable. 

The Commission concludes that the impacts would not be 

sufficiently large to require the NEPA conclusion, for any plant, 

that the option of extended operation under 10 CFR Part 54 

should be eliminated. Accordingly, while the Commission has 

not assigned a single level of significance for the collective 

impacts of the uranium fuel cycle, this issue is considered 

Category 1. 

Nonradiological impacts 

of the uranium fuel cycle 

1 SMALL. The nonradiological impacts of the uranium fuel cycle 

resulting from the renewal of an operating license for any plant 

would be small. 

Transportation 1 SMALL. The impacts of transporting materials to and from 

uranium-fuel-cycle facilities on workers, the public, and the 

environment are expected to be small. 

(2) Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following sources of 

information should be included in the search for new information: 

C the applicant’s ER. When reviewing, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

C records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. 

C environmental quality standards and regulations. 

If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, the continue with Step (3). 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.11.1-4 July 2009 

(3) Evaluate the significance of new information. If new information is significant, prepare a concise 

statement(s) of the issues raised by significant new information and provide these statements to the 

Project Manager (PM) for review and disposition. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach conclusions on issues related to the uranium fuel cycle during the renewal term. The information 

that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.11.2-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.11.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ENERGY ALTERNATIVE FUEL CYCLES 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of the environmental 

impacts of energy alternative fuel cycles during the renewal term. 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of potential impacts of energy alternative fuel cycles in 

the GEIS, (2) identification and evaluation of new information related to potential impacts of energy 

alternative fuel cycles, (3) preparation of input to the SEIS that presents the analyses related to those 

Category 1 issues. 

Data and Information Needs

The reviewer for this ESRP may obtain the following information from the Environmental Project 

Manager: 

C organizational structure of the SEIS

C list of environmental impacts associated with energy alternative fuel cycles that have been 

determined to be inapplicable to the applicant=s plant and the reason for each determination.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.11.2-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of environmental impacts are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c) concerning the content of environmental reports (ERs) and required analyses 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that is 

concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning preparation of draft EIS at the license renewal stage 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) concerning preparation of a final EIS at the license renewal stage 

C 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, concerning the Commission=s findings on the scope and 

magnitude of environmental impacts renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant. 

Technical Rationale

The GEIS does not contain any conclusions regarding the environmental impact or acceptability of 

alternatives to license renewal. Accordingly, the NRC must conduct an analysis of alternatives to license 

renewal in plant-specific environmental reviews. This ESRP examines the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the energy alternative fuel cycles. If a renewed license were denied, then the 

plant generally would be decommissioned earlier than if the license were renewed, and other electricgenerating sources would be pursued if power were still needed. 

Analysis of energy alternative fuel cycles does not involve the determination of whether any power is 

needed or should be generated. The decision to generate power and the determination of how much 

power is needed are at the discretion of state and utility officials. 

The potential environmental impacts evaluated include land use, ecology, aesthetics, water quality, air 

quality, solid waste, human health, socioeconomics, and culture. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

To analyze the environmental impact of energy alternative fuel cycles, the reviewer should complete the 

following steps: 

(1) Review the discussion of potential environmental impacts of energy alternative fuel cycles in the 

GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the 

base for evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. 

 

(2) Obtain information for evaluation. The following sources of information should be included in the 

search for information:
July 2009 4.11.2-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C the applicant=s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. In 

reviewing the applicant=s ER, consider the applicant=s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

C records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

(3) Determine, from the scope of environmental impacts of energy alternative fuel cycles, those that are 

minor and those that are likely to be sufficiently important to require detailed analysis. 

If, based on this analysis, the reviewer determines that there would be more than minor impacts, 

proceed to Step (4). Otherwise, if the reviewer determines that there would be no environmental 

impacts or that the impacts would be minor, develop a statement to this effect. Examples are shown 

under Evaluation Findings. 

(4) Analyze the environmental impacts associated with energy alternative fuel cycles, as follows: 

C Identify and calculate the likely environmental impacts of required energy alternative fuel 

cycles including conservation and purchased or imported power, based on the GEIS, the 

applicant=s ER, and the integrated resource plans for the area(s) or region(s) currently or (if 

different) likely to be served by the plant. Assume appropriate mitigation measures, for 

example emission control technologies and best management practices, for each alternative 

energy source. 

C Describe the impacts in sufficient detail so that reviewers may compare the adverse and 

beneficial impacts of the alternatives with those of renewing the operating license. Impact 

analyses should consider land use, water quality, air quality, ecological resources, human 

health, social and economic systems, waste management, aesthetics, and cultural resources. 

The impacts analyses should include direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. For each 

alternative, the analysis should identify and, to the extent possible, quantify, unavoidable 

adverse impacts, irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments, and tradeoffs between 

short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment. To the extent possible, each 

alternative should be analyzed on a nuclear power plant site- or region-specific basis. Each 

impact should be analyzed in proportion to its significance. 

Data provided in the applicant=s ER are adequate if they describe 

C the degree to which the local environmental resources would be affected by use of 

replacement- energy sources. These data are in agreement with data obtained from other 

sources, when available. 

C the significance or potential significance of such environmental impacts. SMALL impacts 

result when no discernable change in environmental resources occurs as a result of using 

alternative energy sources. MODERATE impacts result when there is a discernable change. 

LARGE impacts occur when there is substantial disruption of environmental resources. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.11.2-4 July 2009 

C any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environmental concerns. 

Supplemental data obtained from other individuals and organizations may be useful in determining 

the completeness of the applicant=s identification of housing impacts. 

(5) Consider and evaluate potential mitigation measures or alternatives that might reduce or eliminate 

the adverse impacts or the disproportionate distribution of the impacts in those cases where the 

impacts are MODERATE or LARGE. These may have been considered in the applicant=s ER. 

(6) Based on the results of the assessments listed above, prepare the following for the SEIS: 

C a summary statement (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) about the degree to which 

environmental resources are expected to receive impacts from alternative energy sources, 

together with the significance of these impacts 

C a discussion of the reasoning (e.g., based on locations and changes in population, local 

government revenue base, ecological impacts on other nearby plant sites or transmission 

corridors) behind the estimated degree of impact 

C a discussion of any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce 

environmental concerns. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of 

the effects of energy alternative fuel cycles. The reviewer should verify that sufficient information is 

available to meet the relevant requirements. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.11.3-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.11.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FROM THE TERMINATION OF NUCLEAR 

PLANT OPERATIONS AND DECOMMISSIONING 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of environmental 

changes and impacts from the termination of nuclear plant operations and decommissioning and 

preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

The scope includes (1) review of the discussion of the termination of nuclear plant operations and 

decommissioning and the potential changes in the environmental impacts resulting from continued 

operation, (2) identification and evaluation of new information (if any) related to potential changed in 

environmental impacts from the termination of plant operations and decommissioning resulting from 

continued operation during the renewal term for significance, and (3) preparation of input to the SEIS 

presenting the analyses related to shoes issues. 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

• a description of the applicant’s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

on environmental issues related to changes in decommissioning impacts resulting from continued 

operation during the renewal term
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.11.3-2 July 2009 

• new information on the environmental issues related to changes in decommissioning impacts 

resulting from continued operation during the renewal term known to the applicant 

• new and potentially significant information on the changes in environmental impacts of 

decommissioning resulting from operation during the renewal term identified by the public 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of changes in environmental impacts of decommissioning resulting 

from continued operation during the renewal term are based on the relevant requirements of the following 

regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c) concerning the content of environmental reports (ERs) and required analyses 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning independent evaluation of the assessment and the reliability of 

information used in the assessment 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning compliance with environmental-quality standards and requirements 

that have been imposed by Federal, State, regional, local, and affected American Indian Tribal 

agencies 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) concerning consideration of significant new information 

C 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, concerning Commission=s findings on the scope and 

magnitude of environmental impacts renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant. 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating potential changes in the environmental impacts from the 

termination of plant operations and decommissioning resulting from continued operation is discussed in 

the following paragraph: 

The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified by the 

supporting information in the GEIS, for issues designated as Category 1 and any significant new 

information in an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared at the license renewal stage. The 

review conducted under this ESRP leads to preparation of sections related to changes in 

environmental impacts from the termination of plant operations and decommissioning resulting from 

continued operation during the renewal term, as appropriate, and address significant new information, 

if any.
July 2009 4.11.3-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of the issue in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the 

conclusions reached. The step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the termination of plant operations and 

decommissioning issues that were addressed in the GEIS for which generic conclusions were 

reached: 

 Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Termination of Nuclear Power Plant Operations and Decommissioning 

Termination of plant 

operations and 

decommissioning on all 

resources 

1 SMALL. License renewal is expected to have a negligible effect 

on the impacts of terminating operations and decommissioning 

on all resources. 

(2) Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following sources 

of information should be included in the search for new information: 

C the applicant’s ER. When reviewing, consider the applicant’s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

C records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. 

C environmental quality standards and regulations. 

If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, the continue with Step (3). 

(3) Evaluate the significance of new information. If new information is significant, prepare a concise 

statement(s) of the issues raised by significant new information and provide these statements to the 

Project Manager (PM) for review and disposition. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach conclusions on issues related to the potential changes to environmental impacts from the 

termination of plant operations and decommissioning resulting from continued operation during the 

renewal term. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.11.3-4 July 2009 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.12-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.12 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of 

cumulative impacts. Issues assessed here were identified as plant-specific (Category 2) in the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 

1 and 2, Revision 1) and in Table B-1 of Appendix B, Subpart A to 10 CFR 51. 

The scope for each individual section includes (1) review of the cumulative impacts issue in the GEIS, (2) 

evaluation of the data and analysis in the applicant=s ER, (3) analysis and evaluation of the data, if 

appropriate, and (4) preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Cumulative impacts is a Category 2 issue and requires a plant-specific analysis. Cumulative impact is 

defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in 40 CFR 1508.7. Actions to be considered in 

cumulative impact analyses include new and continuing activities, such as license renewal, that are 

conducted, regulated, or approved by a Federal agency. The cumulative impacts analysis takes into 

account all actions, however minor, since impacts from individually minor actions may be significant 

when considered collectively over time. The goal of the analysis is to identify potentially significant 

impacts to improve decisions and move toward more sustainable development (CEQ 1997; EPA 1999). 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.12-2 July 2009 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The review should be conducted in stages to permit termination of the review process when sufficient 

analysis has been completed to reach a conclusion about the impact of surface and groundwater use. The 

same general approach can identify the environmental consequences of license renewal and its 

alternatives. 

(1) Review the discussion of cumulative impacts issues in the GEIS to identify the information 

considered and the conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of 

information identified by the applicant, the public, and the staff. The Category 2 issues identified in 

the GEIS are listed in the following table: 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts 2 Cumulative impacts of license renewal must be considered on a 

plant-specific basis. Impacts would depend on regional resource 

characteristics, the resource-specific impacts of license renewal, 

and the cumulative significance of other factors affecting the 

resource. 

(2) The analysis of cumulative impacts should focus on the resources that could be affected by the 

incremental impacts of continued plant operations. These resource areas include: 

- Land Use and Visual Resources 

- Air Quality and Noise 

- Geology and Soils 

- Hydrology 

- Ecology 

- Historic and Cultural Resources 

- Socioeconomics 

- Human Health 

- Environmental Justice 

(3) For each resource are, establish the following: 

- The geographic scope (i.e., regions of influence). The regions of influence encompass 

the areas of affect and the distances at which impacts associated with license renewal 

may occur. Geographic boundaries may vary by the resource area being evaluated and 

the distances over which an impact may occur (e.g., the evaluation of impacts on air 

quality may have a greater regional extent than that of impacts on cultural resources).
July 2009 4.12-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

- The time frame for the analysis. The time frame incorporates the sum of the effects of 

renewal in combination with past, present, and future actions, since impacts may 

accumulate or develop over time. The reasonably foreseeable time frame for future 

actions evaluated is 20 years (based on the typical license renewal term) from the time 

the license renewal is granted. 

- The potential impacting factors of each past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

action or activity. Both the license renewal and other actions (related and nonrelated) 

would generate factors that could contribute to cumulative impacts. The impacts of 

activities associated with the proposed action (license renewal) should be discussed for 

each resource area. 

(4) Identify resource areas (e.g., water and aquatic resources) wherein the contributions of ongoing 

actions within a region on cumulative impacts are regulated and monitored through a permitting 

process (e.g., NPDES) under State or Federal authority. In these cases, it may be assumed that 

cumulative impacts are managed as long as these actions (facilities) are in compliance with their 

respective permits. 

(5) Prepare the section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing new 

information found, presenting results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions from 

the GEIS. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach conclusions on issues related to cumulative impacts resulting from continued operations during the 

renewal term and refurbishment. The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the 

review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C. January. 

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 4.13-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

4.13 REFERENCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the listing of references cited in 

Chapter 4 of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following regulation: 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning preparation of a draft EIS that is concise, clear, analytical, and 

written in plain language 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The environmental project manager (EPM) should contact reviewers for ESRPs 4.1 through 4.12 and 

compile a list of references cited in the SEIS sections that the reviewers have prepared. The citations 

should be checked for completeness and prepared for inclusion in the SEIS.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 4.13-2 July 2009 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare the SEIS section that lists references 

cited in the SEIS sections covering environmental impacts. The completed reference list constitutes the 

findings for this ESRP. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.70, ADraft environmental impact statementCgeneral.@

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 5.0-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF POSTULATED ACCIDENTS 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of introductory 

paragraphs for the portion of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that describes 

environmental impacts of postulated plant accidents during the license renewal term. 

The scope of this plan is the development of paragraphs that introduce the material from the reviews 

conducted under ESRPs 5.1 and 5.2. It includes the description of the environmental issues associated 

with postulated accidents discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are consistent with 

the intent of the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c) concerning the content of environmental reports (ERs) and required analyses 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) that is 

concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning preparation of a DEIS at the license renewal stage 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) concerning preparation of a final environmental impact statement (EIS) at the 

license renewal stage
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 5.0-2 July 2009 

C 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, concerning Commission=s findings on the scope and 

magnitude of environmental impacts renewing the operating license for a nuclear power plant. 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant=s description of the potential environmental impacts of 

postulated accidents during the renewal term is discussed in the following paragraph: 

The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified by the 

supporting information in the GEIS, for issues that are designated as Category 1 or resolved Category 

2, information developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and any significant 

new information in an EIS prepared at the license renewal stage. The review conducted under this 

ESRP leads to preparation of introductory paragraphs that orient the reader concerning the relevance 

of the material to the overall organization and goals of the SEIS and add clarity to the presentation. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The material to be prepared is informational in nature, and no specific analysis of data is required. 

The environmental issue associated with operation during the renewal term that was considered in the 

GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue is listed in the following table: 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Postulated Accidents 

Design-basis accidents 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental 

impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance for all 

plants. 

Generic conclusions relative to impacts were reached for those issues that are appropriate for all plants, or 

for some issues for specific classes of plants. These conclusions were that (1) a single level of 

significance could be assigned to the impact and (2) plant-specific mitigation measures are not likely to be 

sufficiently beneficial to warrant implementation. The generic analysis of severe accidents analysis 

described in the GEIS applies to all plants. It concludes that the probability-weighted consequences of 

atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and 

economic impacts of severe accidents are of small significance. In the absence of new and significant 

information, these issues may be addressed in the SEIS without additional plant-specific analysis. 

Environmental issues considered in the GEIS for which these conclusions could not be reached for all 

plants, or for specific classes of plants, are Category 2 issues. The Category 2 issue related to postulated 

accidents is listed in the following table:
July 2009 5.0-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Postulated Accidents 

Severe accidents 2 SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric 

releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to 

groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe 

accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to 

mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that 

have not considered such alternatives. 

Not all plants have performed analyses of the measures that could mitigate the consequences of severe 

accidents. Consequently, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents are a Category 2 issue for plants that 

have not performed a plant-specific evaluation of severe accident mitigation alternatives and submitted 

that evaluation to the Commission for review. A plant-specific analysis is required for this issue. 

If there is new and significant information related to the environmental impacts associated with postulated 

accidents identified by the applicant, members of the public, or the staff, during the environmental 

review, the reviewer for this ESRP should prepare a table that directs readers to the SEIS sections dealing 

with the issues. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare introductory paragraphs for the SEIS. 

The paragraph(s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of 

information covered by ESRP/S1s 5.1, 5.1.1, and 5.2. The paragraph(s) should list the types of 

information to be presented and describe their relationships to information presented earlier and to be 

presented later in the SEIS. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. REFERENCE

10 CFR 51.53, APostconstruction environmental reports.@

10 CFR 51.70, ADraft environmental impact statementCgeneral.@

10 CFR 51.71, ADraft environmental impact statementCcontents.@

10 CFR 51.95,@Postconstruction environmental impact statements.@

10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, AEnvironmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a 

Nuclear Power Plant.@

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 5.1-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

5.1 POSTULATED PLANT ACCIDENTS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the review of environmental 

impacts of postulated plant accidents during the license renewal term and preparation of input to the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). These issues are discussed in Chapter 5 of the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope includes (1) review of the GEIS discussion of postulated accidents, (2) identification and 

evaluation of new information related to environmental impacts of postulated accidents during the 

renewal term for significance, (3) preparation of input to the SEIS that dispositions the Category 1 issues, 

and (4) preparation of input to the SEIS that introduces the discussion of the Category 2 issue. 

Impacts of design basis accidents (DBAs) during the renewal term is a Category 1 issue. Severe accidents 

is listed as a Category 2 issue in the GEIS and Table B-1 Appendix B, Subpart A to 10 CFR 51. The 

probability weighted consequences of atmospheric releases to groundwater and societal and economic 

impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to mitigate severe accidents 

must be considered for all plants that have not considered such alternatives. A plant-specific review of 

alternatives to mitigate severe accidents is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) if the NRC staff has not 

previously considered severe accident mitigation alternatives for the applicant=s plant in an environmental 

impact statement (EIS), SEIS, or environmental assessment. If a SAMA review has been conducted, then 

only new and significant information should be evaluated in accordance with ESRP 5.2.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 5.1-2 July 2009 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors; the level of detail should be scaled according to the anticipated magnitude of the potential 

impacts. The following data or information may be needed: 

C a description of the applicant=s process for identifying new and potentially significant information 

on environmental issues related to postulated accidents during the renewal term 

C new information on environmental impacts of postulated plant accidents during the renewal term 

known to the applicant 

C new and potentially significant information on environmental impacts of postulated plant 

accidents during the license renewal term identified by the public. 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the evaluation of postulated plant accidents during the renewal term are based on 

the relevant requirements of the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(b) concerning environmental considerations in the applicant=s ER 

C 10 CFR 51.45(d) concerning discussion of compliance with applicable environmental quality 

standards and requirements in the applicant=s ER 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii) concerning analyses required in ERs submitted at the license renewal 

stage 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning an independent evaluation of the assessment and the reliability of 

information used in the assessment 

C 10 CFR 51.71(d) concerning content requirements that apply to analyses in draft environmental 

impact statements (DEISs) at the license renewal stage 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) concerning contents of SEIS and consideration of significant new 

information 

C 10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, concerning findings on environmental issues for license 

renewal of nuclear power plants. 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant=s description of postulated plant accidents during the 

renewal term is discussed in the following paragraph:
July 2009 5.1-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

The NRC staff is required by 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) to integrate conclusions, as amplified by the 

supporting information in the GEIS, for issues designated as Category 1 or resolved Category 2, 

information developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and any significant 

new information in an EIS prepared at the license renewal stage. The review conducted under this 

ESRP leads to preparation of sections of the SEIS that incorporate the conclusions from the GEIS 

related to postulated plant accidents during the renewal term, as appropriate, and address significant 

new information, if any. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for the review process are as follows: 

(1) Review the discussion of the issue in the GEIS to identify the information considered and the 

conclusions reached. This step establishes the base for evaluation of information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. The following table lists the postulated plant accidents issue 

that was addressed in the GEIS for which generic conclusions were reached. 

Table B-1.--Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants 

Issue Category Finding 

Postulated Accidents 

Design-basis accidents 1 SMALL. The NRC staff has concluded that the environmental 

impacts of design-basis accidents are of small significance for all 

plants. 

Severe accidents 2 SMALL. The probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric 

releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to 

groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe 

accidents are small for all plants. However, alternatives to 

mitigate severe accidents must be considered for all plants that 

have not considered such alternatives. 

(2) Determine if there is new information on this issue that should be evaluated. The following sources 

of information should be included in the search for new information: 

C the applicant=s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. In 

reviewing the applicant=s ER, consider the applicant=s process for discovering new information 

related to environmental impacts of postulated accidents and evaluating the significance of any 

new information discovered. 

C records of public meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare information 

presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

C environmental standards and regulations. Have the applicable environmental quality standards 

and regulations changed since the analysis leading to the GEIS? If so, do the changes affect 

the NRC evaluation of applications for license renewal? 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 5.1-4 July 2009 

If the search conducted in this step reveals new information, then continue with Step (3). 

Otherwise, prepare the section for SEIS describing the search for new information, stating the 

conclusion that there is none, and adopting conclusions from the GEIS. 

(3) Evaluate the significance of new information. 

If new information is significant, then continue with Steps (4) and (5) of the review. Otherwise, 

prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing the new 

information found, presenting results of the evaluation of significance, and adopting a conclusion 

from the GEIS. 

(4) Prepare concise statement(s) of the issues raised by significant new information and provide these 

statements to the Environmental Project Manager (EPM) for review and disposition. The EPM 

should assign a reviewer for each issue and ensure that the issues are addressed in subsections of 

the SEIS. 

(5) Prepare a section for the SEIS describing the search for new information, summarizing the new 

information found, presenting the results of evaluation of significance, and adopting conclusions 

from the GEIS modified as necessary to account for significant new information. Refer the reader 

to the appropriate subsection(s) in the SEIS for detailed evaluation(s) of the significant new 

information. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach a conclusion related to the environmental impacts of postulated accidents during the renewal term. 

The information that should be included in the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 50, ADomestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.@

10 CFR 51.45, AEnvironmental report.@

10 CFR 51.53, APostconstruction environmental reports.@

10 CFR 51.70, ADraft environmental impact statementCgeneral.@
July 2009 5.1-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

10 CFR 51.71, ADraft environmental impact statementCcontents.@

10 CFR 51.95, APostconstruction environmental impact statements.@

10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, AEnvironmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a 

Nuclear Power Plant.@

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 5.2-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

5.2 SEVERE ACCIDENT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of the 

severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs). This issue was identified as a Category 2 issue in the 

Generic Environmental Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1), and in Table B-1 of Appendix B, Subpart A to 10 CFR 51. An applicant 

for license renewal is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) to consider alternatives to mitigate severe 

accidents at the plant if the staff has not previously considered severe accident mitigation alternatives for 

the applicant=s plant in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or related supplement or in an 

environmental assessment for the plant. 

The scope includes an analysis of SAMAs and the preparation of an appropriate statement for the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The analysis of SAMAs includes the identification 

and evaluation of alternatives that reduce the radiological risk from a severe accident by preventing 

substantial core damage (i.e., preventing a severe accident) or by limiting releases from containment in 

the event that substantial core damage occurs (i.e., mitigating the impacts of a severe accident). The 

purpose of the review is to ensure that plant and procedure changes with the potential for improved severe 

accident safety performance are identified and evaluated.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 5.2-2 July 2009 

Data and Information Needs

The type of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plant-specific 

factors. The following data or information should be obtained: 

C a list of leading contributors to (1) core-damage frequency (e.g., from dominant severe accident 

sequences or initiating events), and (2) dose consequences (e.g., from each release class and 

associated source term) (from the environmental report [ER]) 

C the methodology, process, and rationale used by the applicant to identify, screen, and select 

alternatives (from the ER) 

C the estimated cost, risk reduction, and dollar benefits for the selected SAMAs and the 

assumptions used to make these estimates (from the ER) 

C a description and list of any alternatives that have been or would be implemented to reduce the 

risk of a severe accident, or that would be further evaluated by the applicant for possible future 

implementation (from the ER). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the analysis and evaluation of SAMAs are based on the relevant requirements of 

the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) concerning the need to consider alternatives to mitigate severe 

accidents for the applicant=s plant if SAMAs were not previously considered 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning permitting an independent evaluation of the assessment and the 

reliability of information used in the assessment 

C 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1, concerning the definition of the issue to be 

addressed. 

Additional regulatory positions and specific criteria in support of the regulations identified above are as 

follows: 

C Interim Policy Statement, APower PlantsCNuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations under 

NEPA@ (NRC 1980) provides guidance concerning the early consideration of either additional 

features or other actions that would prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents. 

C “Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants” 

(NRC 1985) provides guidance for dealing with severe accident issues and vulnerabilities for 

operating reactors. 

C Policy Statement, “Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power Plants” (NRC 1986) 

provides safety goals for nuclear power plants. 
July 2009 5.2-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook (NRC 1997b) provides 

guidance concerning the value impact methodology. 

C NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC 2004) states the policy for the preparation and the contents of regulatory 

analyses, including estimation of values and impacts for alternatives and the Adollars per personrem@ conversion factors. 

C NUREG/CR-6349 (Mubayi et al. 1995) provides information on dollars per person-rem 

conversion factor for offsite damage costs. 

C Generic Letter 88-20 (NRC 1988) provides guidance on the performance of an IPE at operating 

plants for severe accident vulnerabilities. 

C Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 3 (NRC 1990a) provides guidance on accident prevention and 

mitigation features identified in the Containment Performance Improvement Program that may be 

valid for consideration in the review of SAMAs. 

C Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4 (NRC 1991) provides guidance on conducting an individual 

plant examination for externally initiated events. 

C Regulatory Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1, Preparation of Environmental Reports for 

Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications provides guidance on preparation of ERs 

associated with license renewal. 

C Regulatory Guides 1.174 (NRC 2002b) and 1.200 (NRC 2007) provides guidance on general 

concepts in use and evaluation of probabilistic risk assessments for risk-informed decisions. 

In addition to the above, the reviewer should be familiar with the industry SAMA analysis document that 

provides guidance on the SAMA analysis and describes the information that should be included in the 

SAMA portion of the ER. 

The following acceptance criterion is used: 

C Completeness and reasonableness concerning (1) the identification of SAMAs applicable to the 

plant under consideration, (2) the estimation of core damage frequency reduction and averted 

person-rem for each SAMA, (3) the estimation of cost for each SAMA, (4) the screening criteria 

to identify SAMAs for further consideration, and (5) the final disposition of promising SAMAs. 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant=s SAMAs is discussed in the following paragraphs: 

The SEIS should include an analysis of the SAMAs for the applicant=s plant if they have not 

previously been considered in an EIS or related supplement or in an environmental assessment. The 

purpose of SAMAs is to review and evaluate plant design alternatives and procedural changes that 

could significantly reduce the radiological risk from a severe accident by preventing substantial core 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 5.2-4 July 2009 

damage (i.e., preventing a severe accident) or by limiting releases from containment in the event that 

substantial core damage occurs (i.e., mitigating the impacts of a severe accident). 

In 1980, the NRC published an interim policy statement (Interim Policy Statement, ANuclear Power 

Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969@ [NRC 1980]) 

that stated that it was the intent of the Commission for the staff to take steps to identify additional 

cases that might warrant early consideration of either additional features or other actions that would 

prevent or mitigate the consequences of serious accidents. 

In 1985, the NRC published a policy statement (APolicy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents 

Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants,@ August 9, 1985 [NRC 1985]). It concluded that 

existing plants posed no undue risk to public health and safety and that there is no present basis for 

immediate action on generic rulemaking or other regulatory changes for these plants because of 

severe-accident risk. However, the policy statement indicated that Athe Commission plans to 

formulate an approach for a systematic safety examination of existing plants to determine whether 

particular accident vulnerabilities are present and what cost-effective changes are desirable to ensure 

that there is no undue risk to public health and safety.@

A 1989 court decision (Limerick Ecology Action vs. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 [3rd Cir. 1989] stated that the 

AAction of NRC in addressing SAMDAs (prior term for SAMAs) through policy statements, not rule 

making, did not satisfy NEPA, where policy statements did not represent requisite careful consideration of environmental consequences, excluded consideration of design alternatives without making 

any conclusions about effectiveness of any particular alternative, and issues were not generic in that 

impact of SAMDAs on environment would differ with a particular plant=s design, construction and 

locations.@ NRC considers the evaluation of SAMAs in the environmental impact review that is 

performed as part of every application for a license renewal if SAMAs have not been considered for 

the plant. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Suggested steps for conducting the review are as follows: 

(1) Determine if the staff previously considered SAMAs for the applicant=s plant in an EIS or related 

supplement or in an environmental assessment. If not, then continue the analysis at Step (2). 

Otherwise, prepare a statement for the SEIS that describes the SAMA analysis and identifies the 

location of the analysis. 

(2) Become familiar with analyses, the process, and design alternatives considered in previous studies, 

including the following: 

C Limerick (NRC 1989a). 

C Watts Bar (NRC 1995). 

C System 80+ (NRC 1997c). 
July 2009 5.2-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C ABWR (NRC 1997d). 

C NRC Containment Performance Improvement Program (NRC 1989b and 1990b) 

C GEIS for License Renewal and plant-specific supplements. 

 (3) Evaluate the applicant’s methods for establishing the risk profile for the plant, including the core 

damage frequency, population dose risk, and offsite economic cost risk for both internal and 

external events. This review should consider the evolution and peer reviews of the Level 1 (core 

damage frequency) and Level 2 (containment performance) PRA models, and the process used to 

extend the analysis to an assessment of offsite consequences. The scope of the review includes the 

major inputs to the MACCS2 offsite consequence code (NRC 1998), including plant-specific inputs 

related to meteorology, population, evacuation, and economic impacts. 

(4) Evaluate the applicant=s methods for identifying the potential mitigation alternatives. If the 

applicant used an alternative methodology to a probabilistic risk assessment approach to assess 

potential SAMAs, for example, a margins-based approach to evaluate external events initiated by 

fires or seismic activity), the staff evaluation should be appropriately modified. For example, the 

synergistic effects of mitigation alternatives that reduce risks for internally initiated events that also 

provide a benefit for mitigation of externally initiated events should be considered. Alternative 

benefit-cost approaches are appropriate when a margins method has been used to screen external 

events. 

(a) Determine if this set of potential alternatives represents a reasonable range of preventive and 

mitigative alternatives. 

(b) Verify that the applicant=s list of potential SAMAs includes a reasonable range of applicable 

SAMAs derived from consideration of previous analyses and based on insights from the 

Level 1 and Level 2 portions of the applicant=s probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) or 

IPE/IPEEE. 

(5) Evaluate the applicant=s basis for estimating the degree to which various alternatives would reduce 

risk (expressed as a reduction in core-damage frequency or in terms of person-rem averted). NRC 

staff may make bounding assumptions or adjustments to the applicant’s analysis to determine the 

magnitude of the potential risk reduction for each SAMA. 

(6) Evaluate whether the applicant=s cost estimates for each SAMA are reasonable, and compare the 

cost estimates with estimates developed elsewhere (e.g., using previous SAMA evaluations or using 

accepted cost-estimation tools). 

(7) Evaluate the cost-benefit comparison to determine if it is consistent with the cost-benefit balance 

criteria and methodology given in NUREG/BR-0184 (NRC 1997b) and NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, 

(NRC 2004), and further analyze any SAMAs with estimated implementation costs within a factor 

of 2 to 5 of the estimated dollar benefits to ensure that a sufficient margin is present to account for 

uncertainties in assumptions used to determine the cost and benefit estimates. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 5.2-6 July 2009 

(8) Subject any SAMAs that remain following the screening given above to further probabilistic and 

deterministic considerations, including a qualitative assessment of the following: 

C the impact of additional benefits that could accrue for the SAMA if it would be effective in 

reducing risk from certain external events, as well as internal events 

C the effects of improvements already made at the plant 

C any operational disadvantage associated with the potential SAMA. 

(9) Prepare a statement for the SEIS that describes the applicant=s analysis and details the staff=s review 

process. Any mitigation should be described along with the estimated costs and benefits. The risk 

reduction for the facility should be provided. The statement for the SEIS should identify and 

describe the mitigative measures considered and committed to by the applicant. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the input to the SEIS would be governed by the extent of the analysis required to 

reach a conclusion related to the applicant=s SAMA analysis. The information that should be included in 

the SEIS is described in the review procedures. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 50, ADomestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.@

10 CFR 50.34, AContents of application; technical information.@

10 CFR 51.53, APostconstruction environmental reports.@

10 CFR 51 Subpart A, Appendix B, AEnvironmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a 

Nuclear Power Plant.@ 

10 CFR 51.70, ADraft environmental impact statementCgeneral.@

Limerick Ecology Action vs. NRC 869 F. 2D 719 [3rd Cir. 1989] 

Mubayi, V., V. Sailor, and G. Anandalingam. 1995. Cost-Benefit Considerations in Regulatory Analysis. 

NUREG/CR-6349, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). 2005. Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis 

Guidance Document, NEI 05-01, Rev. A. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1980. “Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.” 45 FR 40101, Washington, D.C. 
July 2009 5.2-7 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1985. “Policy Statement on Severe Reactor Accidents 

Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants.@ 50 FR 32138, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1986. “Safety Goals for the Operations of Nuclear Power 

Plants: Policy Statement; Republication.” 51 FR 30028, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1988. Generic Letter 88-20,A Individual Plant 

Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities.@ November 23, 1988, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1989a. Letter from U.S. NRC to G. A. Hunger, Jr. 

Philadelphia Electric Company. Subject: Supplement to the Final Environmental StatementCLimerick 

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. Supplement to NUREG-0974. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1989b. “Mark I Containment Performance Improvement 

Program.” SECY-89-017, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990a. Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 3, ACompletion 

of Containment Performance Improvement Program and Forwarding Insights for Use in the Individual 

Plant Examination for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities.@ July 6, 1990, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1990b. “Recommendations of Containment Performance 

Improvement Program for Plants with Mark II, Mark III, Ice Condenser, and Dry Containments.” SECY90-120, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1991. Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4, AIndividual 

Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities - 10 CFR 50.54(f).@ 

June 28, 1991, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1995. Final Environmental Statement Related to the 

Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. NUREG-0498, Suppl. 1, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997a. Individual Plant Examination Program: 

Perspectives on Reactor Safety and Plant Performance.@ NUREG-1560, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997b. Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation 

Handbook.@ NUREG/BR-0184, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997c. Final Environmental Assessment by the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.@ Relating to the Certification of the System 80+ Standard Nuclear Plant 

Design. NUREG-1462, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1997d. Final Environmental Assessment by the Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.@ Relating to the Certification of the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor 

Design. NUREG-1503, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1998. Code Manual for MACCS2, User’s Guide.@ 

NUREG/CR-6613, Washington, D.C. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 5.2-8 July 2009 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002a. Perspectives Gained From the Individual Plant 

Examination of External Events (IPEEE) Program.@ NUREG-1742, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002b. “An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk 

Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis.” Regulatory 

Guide 1.174, Rev. 1. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2004. Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission.@ NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 4, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. “An Approach for Determining the Technical 

Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific 

Changes to the Licensing Basis.” Regulatory Guide 1.200, Rev. 1. Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 5.3-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

5.3 REFERENCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for listing references in this chapter 

of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following regulation: 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that is 

concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The reviewer should contact reviewers for ESRP/S1 5.0 through 5.2 and compile a list of references cited 

in the SEIS sections that the reviewers have prepared. The citations should be checked for completeness 

and prepared for inclusion in the SEIS.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 5.3-2 July 2009 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare the SEIS section that lists references 

cited in the SEIS sections covering changes in the environmental impacts of postulated accidents during 

the license renewal term. The completed reference list constitutes the findings for this ESRP. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.70, ADraft environmental impact statementCgeneral.@

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1, Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 6.0-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO LICENSE RENEWAL 

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the preparation of introductory 

paragraphs for the portion of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that describes the 

environmental impacts of reasonable alternatives to license renewal during the renewal term. 

The scope introduces the material from the reviews conducted under ESRPs 6.1 through 6.3. It includes 

descriptions of the reasonable alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) discussed in the 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, 

Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1), and identification of alternatives eliminated from detailed study. 

Data and Information Needs

The reviewer for this ESRP requires the following information: 

C list of reasonable alternatives considered by the applicant and state authorities 

C list of environmental issues associated with continued plant operations during the renewal term 

and refurbishment 

C list of alternatives eliminated from detailed study 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 6.0-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

The reviewer should ensure that the introductory paragraphs prepared under this ESRP are consistent with 

the intent of the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3) Alternatives to the proposed action. The discussion of alternatives shall be 

sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in developing and exploring, pursuant to section 

102(2)(E) of NEPA, "appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal 

which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." To the 

extent practicable, the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives should be 

presented in comparative form; 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) ...the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts 

of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii) The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for 

reducing adverse impacts, as required by § 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal 

issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this part. No such consideration is required for 

Category 1 issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this part. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics...The format provided in section 1(a) of 

appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

C 10 CFR 51.103(2) Identify all alternatives considered by the Commission in reaching the 

decision, state that these alternatives were included in the range of alternatives discussed 

in the environmental impact statement, and specify the alternative or alternatives which 

were considered to be environmentally preferable. 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in 

Environmental Impact Statements 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(5) Alternatives including the proposed action. 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7) concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, including the 

proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives eliminated from detailed 

study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be confined to a 
July 2009 6.0-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

C brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of information for 

each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for sound 

decisionmaking. 

Technical Rationale

Introductory paragraphs should provide the reader with a clear understanding of the alternatives 

considered and those alternatives considered for detailed analysis. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

Examine the applicant=s ER and consider the range of reasonable alternatives. Alternatives considered are 

(1) build new generating capacity, (2) purchase the power from outside the system, and (3) reduce power 

requirements through demand reduction. The reviewer should identify the criteria used in evaluating the 

reasonableness of the alternatives and explain which alternatives would not be considered for detailed 

analysis and why. The reviewer should identify the alternatives that would be carried forward for 

comparison with renewing the operating license of a nuclear power plant. The reviewer should discuss 

the extent to which these alternatives have been considered by State authorities (e.g., public service 

commissions and environmental, natural resource, or energy agencies). 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare introductory paragraphs for the SEIS. 

The paragraph(s) should introduce the nature of the material to be presented by the reviewers of 

information covered by ESRP 6.1 through 6.3. The paragraph(s) should list the types of information to be 

presented and describe their relationships to information presented in the SEIS. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 6.0-4 July 2009 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.53, APostconstruction environmental reports.@

10 CFR 51.70, ADraft environmental impact statementCgeneral.@

10 CFR 51.71, ADraft environmental impact statementCcontents.@

10 CFR 51.95, APostconstruction environmental impact statements.@

10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, AEnvironmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a 

Nuclear Power Plant.@
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 6.1-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

6.1 THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of 

potential impacts of the no-action alternative. The potential impacts of the no-action alternative have 

been evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope of the review directed by this plan includes (1) review of the discussion of potential impacts of 

the no-action alternative in the GEIS, (2) identification and evaluation of new information related to 

potential impacts of the no-action alternative for significance, and (3) preparation of input to the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The reviewer for this ESRP may require the following information: 

C list of environmental issues associated with the termination of nuclear power plant operations.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 6.1-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of environmental impacts of the no-action alternative are based on the 

relevant requirements of the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3) Alternatives to the proposed action. The discussion of alternatives shall be 

sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in developing and exploring, pursuant to section 

102(2)(E) of NEPA, "appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal 

which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." To the 

extent practicable, the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives should be 

presented in comparative form; 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) ...the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts 

of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics...The format provided in section 1(a) of 

appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in 

Environmental Impact Statements 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51— 4. Purpose of and need for action. The 

alternative of no action will be discussed. 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the description of the no action alternative is discussed in the 

following paragraphs: 

This ESRP examines the potential environmental impacts associated with not renewing the operating 

license of a nuclear power plant (i.e., the no-action alternative). 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart 

A of Part 51— 4. Purpose of and need for action, explicitly requires an analysis of the no-action 

alternative. If the operating license is not renewed, then the plant would cease operations at or before 

the end of the current operating license, and other electric generating sources would be pursued if 

power were still needed. 
July 2009 6.1-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1

The no-action alternative does not involve the determination of whether any power is needed or 

should be generated. The decision to generate power and the determination of how much power is 

needed are at the discretion of state and utility officials. 

Not renewing the license may lead to the selection of other electric generating sources to meet energy 

demands as determined by appropriate state and utility officials, conservation measures, decisions to 

import power, or a combination of these different outcomes. Additionally, not renewing the operating 

license could lead to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear power plant and its associated 

impacts; these impacts are addressed separately in the Final Generic Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG-0586. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

To analyze the environmental impacts of the no-action alternative, the reviewer should complete the 

following steps: 

(1) Review the discussion of potential environmental impacts of the no-action alternative and the other 

alternatives in Chapter 4 of the GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions 

reached. This step establishes the basis for the evaluation of information identified by the 

applicant, the public, and the staff. 

(2) Determine if there is new information that should be evaluated. The following sources of 

information should be considered: 

C the applicant=s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. In 

reviewing the applicant=s ER, consider the applicant=s process for discovering new information 

and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

C records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

(3) Determine, from the scope of environmental impacts of the no-action alternative, those that are 

minor and those that are likely to be sufficiently important to require detailed analysis. 

If, based on this analysis, the reviewer determines that there would be more than minor impacts, 

proceed to Step (4). Otherwise, if the reviewer determines that there would be no environmental 

impacts or that the impacts would be minor, develop a statement to this effect. 

(4) Analyze the environmental impacts associated with the no-action alternative, as follows: 

C Identify and calculate the likely environmental impacts of terminating nuclear plant operations, 

the nuclear power plant site- and plant-specific data. 

C Include in the analysis of impacts on environmental resource areas in the SEIS. Direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts should be considered. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 6.1-4 July 2009 

Data provided in the applicant=s ER include: 

C the degree to which the local environmental resources would be affected by the termination of 

plant operations. 

C the significance or potential significance of environmental impacts. SMALL impacts result 

when no discernible change in environmental resources occurs as a result of reactor shutdown. 

MODERATE impacts result when there is a discernible change. LARGE impacts occur when 

there is substantial impact to environmental resources. 

C any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environmental concerns. 

Supplemental data may be useful in determining the completeness of the applicant=s assessment 

of impacts. 

 (5) Consider and evaluate potential mitigation measures or alternatives that might reduce or eliminate 

the adverse impacts or the disproportionate distribution of the impacts in those cases where the 

impacts are MODERATE or LARGE. These may have been considered in the applicant=s ER. 

(6) Based on the results of the assessments listed above, prepare the following for the SEIS: 

C a summary statement (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) about the degree to which 

environmental resources are expected to receive impacts from the no-action alternative, 

together with the significance of these impacts 

C a discussion of the rationale or basis for conclusions supporting the degree of impact 

C a discussion of any mitigative measures that would or could reduce adverse environmental 

impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of 

the effects of the no-action alternative. The reviewer should verify that sufficient information is available 

to meet the relevant requirements. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. REFERENCES 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2002. Final Generic Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Volumes 1 and 2. NUREG-0586, Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 6.2-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

6.2 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the analysis and assessment of 

potential impacts of alternative energy sources. The potential impacts of alternative energy sources have 

been evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1). 

The scope of this ESRP includes (1) review of alternative energy discussions in the GEIS, (2) 

identification and evaluation of new information about alternative energy sources for significance, and (3) 

preparation of input to the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

Data and Information Needs

The reviewer for this ESRP may require the following information: 

C list of reasonable alternative energy sources considered by the applicant and state authorities 

C list of environmental issues associated with continued plant operations during the renewal term 

and refurbishment 

C list of alternative energy sources eliminated from detailed study 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 6.2-2 July 2009 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the review of environmental impacts are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.45(b)(3) Alternatives to the proposed action. The discussion of alternatives shall be 

sufficiently complete to aid the Commission in developing and exploring, pursuant to section 

102(2)(E) of NEPA, "appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal 

which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." To the 

extent practicable, the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives should be 

presented in comparative form; 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2) ...the applicant shall discuss in this report the environmental impacts 

of alternatives and any other matters discussed in § 51.45. 

C 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii) The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for 

reducing adverse impacts, as required by § 51.45(c), for all Category 2 license renewal 

issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this part. No such consideration is required for 

Category 1 issues in Appendix B to subpart A of this part. 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) the draft environmental impact statement will be concise, clear and analytic, and 

written in plain language with appropriate graphics...The format provided in section 1(a) of 

appendix A of this subpart should be used. The NRC staff will independently evaluate and be 

responsible for the reliability of all information used in the draft environmental impact statement. 

C 10 CFR 51.71 concerning the draft environmental impact statement will include a preliminary 

analysis that considers and weighs the environmental effects of the proposed action; the 

environmental impacts of alternatives to the proposed action; and alternatives available for 

reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c) the renewal of an operating license or combined license for a nuclear power 

plant under parts 52 or 54 of this chapter, the Commission shall prepare an environmental impact 

statement, which is a supplement to the Commission’s NUREG–1437, “Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.” 

C 10 CFR 51.103(2) Identify all alternatives considered by the Commission in reaching the 

decision, state that these alternatives were included in the range of alternatives discussed 

in the environmental impact statement, and specify the alternative or alternatives which 

were considered to be environmentally preferable. 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in 

Environmental Impact Statements 

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(5) Alternatives including the proposed action. 
July 2009 6.2-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1

C 10 CFR 51, Appendix A(7) concerning the environmental consequences of alternatives, including 

the proposed actions and any mitigating actions which may be taken. Alternatives eliminated 

from detailed study will be identified and a discussion of those alternatives will be confined to a 

brief statement of the reasons why the alternatives were eliminated. The level of information for 

each alternative considered in detail will reflect the depth of analysis required for sound 

decisionmaking. 

Technical Rationale

The technical rationale for evaluating the applicant=s description of the potential alternative energy 

sources to license renewal is discussed in the following paragraphs: 

The GEIS does not contain any conclusions regarding the environmental impact or acceptability of 

alternatives to license renewal. Accordingly, the NRC must conduct an analysis of alternatives to 

license renewal in plant-specific environmental reviews. This ESRP examines the potential 

environmental impacts associated with the alternative energy sources. 

Analysis of alternative energy sources does not involve the determination of whether any power is 

needed or should be generated. The decision to generate power and the determination of how much 

power is needed are at the discretion of state and utility officials. 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

To analyze the environmental impact of alternative energy sources, the reviewer should complete the 

following steps: 

(1) Review the discussion of potential environmental impacts of alternative energy sources in 

Chapter 4 of the GEIS to identify the information considered and the conclusions reached. This 

step establishes the basis for the evaluation of information identified by the applicant, the public, 

and the staff. 

(2) Obtain information for evaluation. The following sources of information should be considered: 

C the applicant=s ER. An applicant is required by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iv) to disclose new and 

significant information of environmental impacts of license renewal of which it is aware. In 

reviewing the applicant=s ER, consider the applicant=s process for discovering new 

information and evaluating the significance of any new information discovered. 

C records of public scoping meetings and correspondence related to the application. Compare 

information presented by the public with information considered in the GEIS. 

(3) Determine, from the scope of environmental impacts of alternative energy sources, those that are 

minor and those that are likely to be sufficiently important to require detailed analysis. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 6.2-4 July 2009 

If, based on this analysis, the reviewer determines that there would be more than minor impacts, 

proceed to Step (4). Otherwise, if the reviewer determines that there would be no environmental 

impacts or that the impacts would be minor, develop a statement to this effect. 

(4) Analyze the environmental impacts associated with alternative energy sources, as follows: 

C Identify and calculate the likely environmental impacts of required alternative energy sources 

including conservation and purchased or imported power, based on Chapter 4 of the GEIS, 

the applicant=s ER, and the integrated resource plans for the area(s) or region(s) currently or 

(if different) likely to be served by the plant. Assume appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., 

emission control technologies and best management practices) for each alternative energy 

source. 

C Describe the environmental impacts in sufficient detail so that other environmental reviewers 

may evaluate the impacts of the alternative energy sources with those of renewing the 

operating license. The analysis should consider the impacts on environmental resource areas 

in the SEIS. The analyses should include direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. For each 

alternative energy source, the analysis should identify and, to the extent possible, quantify, 

unavoidable adverse impacts, irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments, and 

tradeoffs between short-term use and long-term productivity of the environment. To the 

extent possible, each alternative should be analyzed on a nuclear power plant site- or regionspecific basis. 

Data provided in the applicant=s ER include: 

C the degree to which the local environmental resources would be affected by the construction 

and operation of alternative energy sources. 

C the significance or potential significance of environmental impacts. SMALL impacts result 

when no discernable change in environmental resources occurs as a result of constructing and 

operating alternative energy sources. MODERATE impacts result when there is a discernable change. LARGE impacts occur when there is substantial impact to environmental 

resources. 

C any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce environmental concerns. 

Supplemental data obtained from other individuals and organizations may be useful in 

determining the completeness of the applicant=s assessment of impacts. 

(5) Consider and evaluate potential mitigation measures or alternatives that might reduce or eliminate 

the adverse impacts or the disproportionate distribution of the impacts in those cases where the 

impacts are MODERATE or LARGE. These may have been considered in the applicant=s ER. 

(6) Based on the results of the assessments listed above, prepare the following for the SEIS: 

C a summary statement (qualitative or quantitative, as appropriate) about the degree to which 

environmental resources are expected to receive impacts from alternative energy sources, 

together with the significance of these impacts 
July 2009 6.2-5 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1

C a discussion of the rationale or basis for conclusions supporting the degree of impact 

C a discussion of any mitigative measures that would or could reduce environmental impacts. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The depth and extent of the information in the SEIS would be governed by the extent and significance of 

the effects of alternative energy sources. The reviewer should verify that sufficient information is 

available to meet the relevant requirements. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 CFR 51.45, “Environmental report.” 

10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction environmental reports.” 

10 CFR 51.70, “Draft environmental impact statement—general.” 

10 CFR 51.71, “Draft environmental impact statement—contents.” 

10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction environmental impact statements.” 

10 CFR 51, Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 51—Format for Presentation of Material in Environmental 

Impact Statements. 

10 CFR 51, Appendix B to Subpart A of Part 51—Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating 

License of a Nuclear Power Plant, Table B-1.–“Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS)

for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Office of Nuclear 

Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C.

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 6.3-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

6.3 REFERENCES

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance for the listing references cited in this 

chapter of the supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the reference list are based on the relevant requirements of the 

following regulation: 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that is 

concise, clear, analytic, and written in plain language 

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The environmental project manager (EPM) should contact reviewers for ESRP/S1s 6.0 through 6.3 and 

compile a list of references cited in the SEIS sections that the reviewers have prepared. The citations 

should be checked for completeness and prepared for inclusion in the SEIS.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 6.3-2 July 2009 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The reviewer of information covered by this ESRP should prepare the SEIS section that lists references 

cited in the SEIS sections covering environmental impacts of continued plant operations and 

refurbishment. The completed reference list constitutes the findings for this ESRP. 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used in evaluating conformance with the Commission=s 

regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an acceptable 

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.70, ADraft environmental impact statementCgeneral.@

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2009. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2, Revision 1. Washington, D.C.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD 

REVIEW PLAN

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

July 2009 7.0-1 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 

USNRC ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN

Environmental standard review plans are prepared for the guidance of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation staff 

responsible for environmental reviews for nuclear power plants. These documents are made available to the public as part 

of the Commission’s policy to inform the nuclear industry and the general public of regulatory procedures and policies. 

Environmental standard review plans are not substitutes for regulatory guides or the Commission’s regulations and 

compliance with them is not required. These supplemental environmental standard review plans are keyed to Regulatory 

Guide 4.2, Supplement 1, “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Applications.” 

Published environmental standard review plans will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments 

and to reflect new information and experience. 

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be considered and should be sent to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

I. AREAS OF REVIEW 

This environmental standard review plan (ESRP) provides guidance on preparing this chapter of the 

supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) that integrates the conclusions for issues designated 

Category 1 or resolved Category 2 in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License 

Renewal of Nuclear Plants (NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, Revision 1), information developed for 

those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and significant new information. The chapter must 

conclude whether the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the 

option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. 

The scope includes (1) review of the impact analyses prepared for the SEIS, (2) evaluation of the 

cumulative impacts associated with continued plant operations during the license renewal term and 

refurbishment, (3) review of the discussions of the environmental impacts of alternatives, (4) comparison 

of the environmental impacts of license renewal with the environmental impacts of the alternatives, and 

(5) preparation of input to the SEIS. 

The SEIS input should (1) identify adverse environmental impacts that are unavoidable, (2) identify 

commitments of resources that are irreversible and irretrievable, and (3) discuss the effects of short-term 

use on maintenance and long-term productivity of the environment.
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 7.0-2 July 2009 

Data and Information Needs

The types of data and information needed would be affected by nuclear power plant site- and plantspecific factors. The following data or information may be needed: 

C the discussion of environmental impacts of license renewal in the GEIS 

C the discussion of plant-specific environmental impacts of license renewal in the applicant=s 

environmental report (ER) 

C the summary of environmental impact analyses conducted for the SEIS 

II. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 

Acceptance criteria for the preparation of the summary and conclusions are based on the relevant 

requirements of the following regulations: 

C 10 CFR 51.70(a) concerning preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) 

C 10 CFR 51.70(b) concerning a concise, clear, analytic EIS written in plain language 

C 10 CFR 51.71(d) concerning including a preliminary analysis that considers and weighs the 

environmental effects of the proposed action, the environmental impacts of alternatives to the 

proposed action, and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects 

C 10 CFR 51.71(d) concerning including a preliminary recommendation by the NRC staff 

respecting the proposed action reached after considering the environmental effects of the 

proposed action and reasonable alternatives 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) concerning preparation of a final EIS 

C 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4) concerning including the NRC staff recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the license renewal action that integrates the conclusions, as amplified by 

the supporting information in the generic EIS, for issues designated Category 1 or resolved 

Category 2, information developed for those open Category 2 issues applicable to the plant, and 

any significant new information. 

Technical Rationale

The SEIS must include NRC staff recommendations regarding the environmental acceptability of the 

proposed action. In making these recommendations, the staff is required to integrate the conclusions from 

the GEIS, plant-specific impact analyses, and any significant new information. This ESRP summarizes 

the environmental impacts of the proposed action, comparison of the environmental impacts of the 

proposed action with the impact of the alternatives, and the staff recommendations. 
July 2009 7.0-3 NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1

III. REVIEW PROCEDURES 

The environmental project manager (EPM) is responsible for the preparation of the SEIS summary and 

conclusions section. The summary and conclusions section should be sufficiently complete that a person 

reading this section would understand: 

C the purpose and need for the proposed action 

C the NEPA process and NRC’s environmental review leading to the preparation of the SEIS 

C the environmental impacts of renewing the operating license 

C the environmental impacts of alternatives to renewing the operating license 

C staff conclusions and recommendations 

Suggested steps for the preparation of the summary and conclusions chapter of the SEIS are as follows: 

(1) Prepare introductory paragraphs for the Summary and Conclusions chapter 

(2) Prepare a table that summarizes the findings of the environmental impacts presented in the SEIS. 

The summary and conclusions table should list of the environmental impacts of license renewal 

and alternatives to license renewal (including No-Action) and states the level of significance of 

each impact. This table should be organized by area of environmental concern. 

(3) The EPM should also consider the list of unavoidable adverse impacts and the list of irreversible 

and irretrievable resource commitments, and draw conclusions related to effects of short-term 

commitments on maintenance and long-term productivity of the environment. The final lists of 

unavoidable adverse impacts and irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments and a 

discussion of the effects of short-term use on maintenance and long-term productivity of the 

environment should also be included in the SEIS. 

(4) Prepare input to the SEIS summary and conclusions chapter. 

IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS 

The EPM prepares the SEIS section that presents (1) the overall summary of the environmental impacts of 

license renewal and alternatives to license renewal (including No-Action), and (2) the staff 

recommendations regarding license renewal. The overall summary should be presented in tabular form. 

The contents of the table is described in the Review Procedures section. The staff recommendation 

should be stated in terms consistent with the wording of 10 CFR 51.95(c)(4). 

V. IMPLEMENTATION 

The method described in this ESRP would be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with the 

Commission=s regulations, except in those cases in which the applicant for license renewal proposes an 

acceptable alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations. 
NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1 7.0-4 July 2009 

VI. BIBLIOGRAPHY 

10 CFR 51.70, ADraft environmental impact statementCgeneral.@

10 CFR 51.71, ADraft environmental impact statementCcontents.@

10 CFR 51.95, APostconstruction environmental impact statement.@

10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, AEnvironmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a 

Nuclear Power Plant.@
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1555,Supplement 1,

Revision 1

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

July

YEAR

2009

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants

Supplement 1: Operating License Renewal

Draft Report for Comment

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of License Renewal

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Same as 8 above

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

This document provides guidance to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff in implementing the provisions in Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51), "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and

Related Regulatory Functions," and conducting environmental reviews for the renewal of nuclear power plant operating licenses. 

This document supplements NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants, which

provides guidance for the environmental reviews of construction permits, initial operating licenses, early site permits, and

combined licenses for new nuclear power plants. These standard review plans guide the staff in preparing plant-specific

supplemental environmental impact statements to NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Environmental Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews of Nuclear Power Plants

ESRP

NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 1

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA

License Renewal

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001